Production release numbering and schemes - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / projects

author: Pack34
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2017, 12:04:34 pm
content: Our MRP system is atrocious and our current internal numbering scheme doesn't make a lot of sense.Currently we have[####1] - PCB Release (Board files, artwork, etc)[####2] - SCH Release (Schamatics, BOMs, etc)[####3] - ASY Release (Quote packages for that specific design)Now, I completely understand the desire to have a different part number for the PCB than the actual thing that gets installed into a product. A single design can be used for a variety of products with different BOMs based on what that design is connecting to, firmware that's loaded on it, etc. However, this seems to create some disjointed part numbers and can get generally confusing and make managing the designs a bit cumbersome.What I'm thinking of moving towards would be:[####1-01 R2] - Design Release for variant 1, revision 2 (All artwork, schematics, BOMs, etc)[####1-02 R2] - Design Release for variant 2, revision 2 (All artwork, schematics, BOMs, etc)[####1-03 R2] - Design Release for variant 3, revision 2 (All artwork, schematics, BOMs, etc)This would enable me to be able to make new variants at any time when new technology comes out, new customers with specific needs, etc. without fracturing documentation. Everything is still housed in the same records folder and the same design project in ECAD.What do you guys/gals think? Are you currently implementing something like where I currently am, or are you implementing something like what I'm looking at moving towards?

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2017, 01:21:13 pm
content: Haha! You think this will be your decision. Trust me, if you work with ERP, it wont be. It will be"Everything has to be in a ##### format, because if we make exceptions, it will all spiral out of control". Even if you convince them to adapt a different system, middle management will decide this after numerous useless meetings. Welcome to corporate hell.When variants became big, we added an extra number at the end. And then we started changing the numbers in the ERP. Its like a huge project for some unknown reason, like changing stupid things like this requires days and weeks of effort for some.

author: Pack34
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2017, 01:38:44 pm
content: My intent is to have this start with new products and then roll out new numbers with future product release cycles.If production wants to map the new numbers to old they can. That's their area and if they want to hang themselves, they can. My main concern is that I'm pushing for much greater sanity in our engineering documentation process. I want everything logged in a folder tree by product type with supporting documentation, quote packages, design review documents, etc all tied-up with a nice and pretty bow. The problem with the current scheme is that the numbers for variants jump all over the place because they were designed at different times. This makes the documentation library fragmented with a lot of folders simply with a text file named "_Variant_ See ##### for documentation"

author: jbb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 02, 2017, 06:49:37 pm
content: Some suggestions:Check for certifications (e.g. medical, safety, security, aerospace) that might be very tightly bound to exact version numbers. Some certifications will have to be redone (or at least updated for large 'certificate fees') if you change only the part number.Do you track raw PCB and assembled PCB versions? Sometimes all you need is to change a couple of parts. Also stuffing options are a thing.Work out who actually controls the ERP allocations. It may not be who you think.Assemble evidence of how, specifically, the ERP numbering is hurting you. Bonus points if you can find some nice big mis-orders that had to be scrapped.Book the meeting room for only half an hour and sneakily remove all the chairs before it begins.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 03:50:45 am
content: I've seen and used them both ways.Are you really making so many things that the existing system is overly burdensome?Mind that that burden is upon management. It's not your fault if they've set up a system which costs you extra labor to work within.Just keep pushing buttons and justifying your paycheck.Tim

author: Pack34
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 03, 2017, 10:50:33 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 03, 2017, 03:50:45 amIt's more the variants. We work with a lot of specialized sensors. The PCB numbers are also intertwined with everything related to them (cables, connectors, COTS assemblies, etc.) There are now over 600 part numbers. This effort is largely to make more sense of our part numbering scheme as we push towards ISO. Our documentation has been a bit fragmented in the past. The EE portion has traditionally led the way in regards to documentation but after pushing mechanical and optics to improve theirs, I have to go through mine again to make sure I keep that status.Re: ManagementIt appears I am now one of them. I'm now not only both the Lead EE and Engineering Lead, but also the Engineering Manager