A better Instrument (Measurement Device) Identification System

Our current system of identifying each and every instrument is outdated yet we can't think of a better way of doing it.

At the moment we have three letters and three numbers ie:
TRP001 for pressure transducer number one
GRP755 for pressure gauge number seven hundred and fifty five
TME1455 for thermocouple one thousand four hundred and fifty five
OSD002 for digital oscilloscope number two

The trouble is there are a lot of scrapped intstrument so all the early numbers no longer exist, only as a listing of 'scrapped'. As we are thinking of changing our database management software (beamex is the favourite so far!) we need to get the instruments down to less than 10k in number, hence the need to take off all the old intruments listed as scrapped or missing.

Has any body got any suggestions as to how we best identify each and every newer intrument we have? What system do you use for registering your instruments?

Re: Instrument Identification

chriswhitehead said:

Our current system of identifying each and every instrument is outdated yet we can't think of a better way of doing it.

At the moment we have three letters and three numbers ie:
TRP001 for pressure transducer number one
GRP755 for pressure gauge number seven hundred and fifty five
TME1455 for thermocouple one thousand four hundred and fifty five
OSD002 for digital oscilloscope number two

The trouble is there are a lot of scrapped intstrument so all the early numbers no longer exist, only as a listing of 'scrapped'. As we are thinking of changing our database management software (beamex is the favourite so far!) we need to get the instruments down to less than 10k in number, hence the need to take off all the old intruments listed as scrapped or missing.

Has any body got any suggestions as to how we best identify each and every newer intrument we have? What system do you use for registering your instruments?

Click to expand...

The method of identifying the instrument is independent from their scrapping/missing.
Your can use whatever method but the focus shoud rest on the whole process.
My suggestion could be to proceed with a general counting of all instrument to see which it is still existing or not.
If you use an electronic system, you can think to a feature that automatically baptizes a tool with an id number, leaving a part the manual option that could carry to mistake.
It is important to have a process in place to scrap instruments, add new one, downgrading etc. assigning precise responbilities and monitoring the activity.

Re: A better Instrument (Measurement Device) Identification Systems

chriswhitehead said:

Our current system of identifying each and every instrument is outdated yet we can't think of a better way of doing it.

At the moment we have three letters and three numbers ie:
TRP001 for pressure transducer number one
GRP755 for pressure gauge number seven hundred and fifty five
TME1455 for thermocouple one thousand four hundred and fifty five
OSD002 for digital oscilloscope number two

The trouble is there are a lot of scrapped intstrument so all the early numbers no longer exist, only as a listing of 'scrapped'. As we are thinking of changing our database management software (beamex is the favourite so far!) we need to get the instruments down to less than 10k in number, hence the need to take off all the old intruments listed as scrapped or missing.

Has any body got any suggestions as to how we best identify each and every newer intrument we have? What system do you use for registering your instruments?

Click to expand...

You need to determine whether having categorical numbers is worthwhile. If I'm holding a pressure gage in my hand I don't need to look at the number to see whether it's a pressure gage or not. Think about just assigning serial asset numbers.

Re: A better Instrument (Measurement Device) Identification Systems

If you have a hundred instruments, I would just use serial numbers.

If you have 10000 instruments, it gets more complicated. First, serial numbers can be so long or so short, it gets challenging trying to find in a database (at least for me). Enforcing leading zeroes (or lack thereof) is difficult. Second, when you have a large collection of instruments (different makes and models and kinds) you can end up with redundant serial numbers. Not very often mind you, but it does happen.

Jim has a very good point about considering if you need to have some three letter descriptor for the item. However, if your process chooses to use it and keep it, just work to make them consistent.

You can just start with 000001 and have unique tags made up to assign. Regardless, if you choose to change identification schemes, I would leave a clear record in your database system of old and new number. Or, create a new entry in your database, and provide a reference to the old entry; likewise provide a reference to the new entry in the old entry. Yes, you will have instruments come and go. Personally, I like keeping a cradle to grave reference for each piece of equipment, so that there is not any confusion.

Now.... do you need to track every instrument individually? Is there a value/purpose? Say you have a controller with a thermocouple attached. You could assign an ID to the controller, and add the thermocouple as an extension of that controller (and label it as such).

Re: A better Instrument (Measurement Device) Identification Systems

Yep, we track every instrument individually

We have just short of 10,000 instrument records. I'd say about ten percent are listed as scrap and the same again as missing. I'd take the lot off if it was me - free up some space for new intruments in the future, and brings down the cost of the new calibration management package.

Re: A better Instrument (Measurement Device) Identification Systems

A tangent topic since I noted the number of gages you reference in your posts above...

If you have just short of 10K items to track, you may want to think again about a piece of tracking software that will max out at 10K items.
100K items seems more reasonable to me (but I have no software to recommend...I build my own).

Just thinking out loud...hate to see you looking for replacement systems again in a couple of years.

Re: A better Instrument (Measurement Device) Identification Systems

chriswhitehead said:

Yep, we track every instrument individually

We have just short of 10,000 instrument records. I'd say about ten percent are listed as scrap and the same again as missing. I'd take the lot off if it was me - free up some space for new intruments in the future, and brings down the cost of the new calibration management package.

Click to expand...

If you have current documentation/process requirements that would require information on the current 10,000, you will need some kind of ability to recall that information. Maybe you can archive the data into an Access database for as long as you would need to possibly recall data.

Then, moving forward, you could operationally define the equipment that will receive a particular ID number and those what won't.

Then, I would identify those instruments/equipment that you want to bring into the new system, and retire/archive the old equipment/equipment ID references. If you aren't going to enter an old piece of equipment into the new system, you may want to quarantine.

Re: A better Instrument (Measurement Device) Identification Systems

Hi Chris

Brad has made a very good point about simple asset numbers with leading zeros.

However, you can just forget the leading zeros and number your items 1, 2, 3...

If you want an identifier in the number, use the first 3 digits to identify the type of instrument. If you use the digits 100 to 999, you have 899 different types of instrument. You can then use the remaining digits to identify individual items. eg 100,00010 could be a pressure gauge (id =100) and it is the 10th pressure gauge on your system.

You can do all of this in Access. The 'long' data type can handle numbers up to about 2 billion (yes 2 billion, not a typo).

This from Microsoft Access help

"Values are of the Long Integer field size, and range from -2,147,483,648 to 2,147,483,647"

I think that should be enough numbers to keep track of your equipment!

NC