4 ms·

Seems to be a lot of things at play, but what surprised me was the ability to issue a modified part without a change to the model number. Seems like something t

by latch 12y ago

Seems to be a lot of things at play, but what surprised me was the ability to issue a modified part without a change to the model number. Seems like something that could be enforced automatically? Like a version control system? Are we running out of numbers?

bagels 12y ago
Well, it's either a way to perform a coverup, or a cost savings by not needing to make new tooling with the new part number on it.
- mirkules 12y ago
  A new part number doesn't necessarily mean new tooling. However, you are correct in saying that it is a way to cut cost by not issuing a new part number. A new part number means: - Entirely new release/approval cycle. That means going through design, release and QA stages (QA is extremely expensive in automotive industry). Remember auto industry is not the software industry, there is no "agile" - waterfall is king because once the product is released, it is infinitely more expensive to change it - Recalling old part numbers and shipping new ones - Even the cost of printing new labels and making new packing materials can be non-insignificant That said, a change in part equals a new part number, period. So, this was very likely a coverup AND an improper cost-reduction exercise.
  - bagels 12y ago
    I agree with you. I did happen to notice from pictures that these particular parts have the part number cast on to them, so new tooling may be required.
    - mirkules 12y ago
      Ah yeah, good observation.
- frankydp 12y ago
  Doesnt this mean that the part manufacturer had to be in on the process and that it probably wasnt the first time?
Gargoyle888 12y ago
I was assume that this was part of a structured bill of materials. Changing the rev level should be sufficient to identify the change and would not entail changing the BOM. I'm going to make a strong guess that the rev level was incremented (the article doesn't mention rev levels). If so, I don't see anything wrong with using the same P/N. It's not like that part number exists elsewhere in the vehicle.

by latch 12y ago

bagels 12y ago

Well, it's either a way to perform a coverup, or a cost savings by not needing to make new tooling with the new part number on it.

mirkules 12y ago
A new part number doesn't necessarily mean new tooling. However, you are correct in saying that it is a way to cut cost by not issuing a new part number. A new part number means: - Entirely new release/approval cycle. That means going through design, release and QA stages (QA is extremely expensive in automotive industry). Remember auto industry is not the software industry, there is no "agile" - waterfall is king because once the product is released, it is infinitely more expensive to change it - Recalling old part numbers and shipping new ones - Even the cost of printing new labels and making new packing materials can be non-insignificant That said, a change in part equals a new part number, period. So, this was very likely a coverup AND an improper cost-reduction exercise.
- bagels 12y ago
  I agree with you. I did happen to notice from pictures that these particular parts have the part number cast on to them, so new tooling may be required.
  - mirkules 12y ago
    Ah yeah, good observation.
frankydp 12y ago
Doesnt this mean that the part manufacturer had to be in on the process and that it probably wasnt the first time?

Gargoyle888 12y ago

I was assume that this was part of a structured bill of materials. Changing the rev level should be sufficient to identify the change and would not entail changing the BOM. I'm going to make a strong guess that the rev level was incremented (the article doesn't mention rev levels). If so, I don't see anything wrong with using the same P/N. It's not like that part number exists elsewhere in the vehicle.