here is a great article that is in EE times make sure and scroll through all the 5-6 pages of info to get the entire thing. it proves my points. especiall the DATA - not emotion on where the counterfeit parts come from. The industry is moving towards AS9120A Certification requirements to do business. I think most buyers cause thier own problems - self inflicted wounds here. Buy from authorized sources who meet AS9120A certification and you wont have any problems.
also NEDA has a web search utility to find authorized parts in stock
Thank you again to everybody that has participated in the lively discussions of our recent counterfeit component blog series. Anybody with additional questions, I invite you to please join us this Thursday, July 28th, at 12:00 EST as I do a LIVE CHAT Dialogue with EBN users! Click the LIVE CHAT link on the front page to add it to your calendars. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thanks again for all of your feedback!
LIVE CHAT with Dawn Gluskin
What You Really Need to Know About the Open Market
"Not all non-franchised distributors are created equal. Many companies that play in the open (non-authorized) distribution market have gone to great lengths to ensure that the components they sell are counterfeit-free. In this Live Chat, Dawn Gluskin, founder and CEO of distributor SolTec Electronics, will talk about what differentiates these companies from unscrupulous open-market brokers."
I can't speak for TI, but I can certainly speculate. I think you are correct in TI believing that most of the revenue will be from authorized sources when it comes to EOL product. I don't have numbers to back it up, but I would bet that is true. When it comes to active product, it's all about the total revenue from the market. While independents can and do make money, the real revenue drivers for the OCM are always going to be their prime direct customers and biggest authorized sources. Independents are doing a service for the market, but rarely do their volumes and revenues matter in the OCM product lifetime revenue picture. Depending on product mix (lower volume to higher volume), the independent revenue picture to the OCM may not matter at all. For the real and perceived hassles that can come about enabling a small percentage of the independents (the bad apples), it's probably not worth the potential problems and hit to the reputation. If the OCM's name gets bandied about as having been associated with ANY counterfeit product, knee-jerk reactions could result in going to a competitors product to avoid any possible (unlikely) issue. At least I could envision some buyer reacting that way ....
Even publicity of having been counterfeited is enough to not enable independents. Couple that with the likely case where independents don't drive a majority of the revenue for an OCM and I think you have your answer as to why independents are not always given the warm and fuzzy or enabled by some OCM's.
I respect and appreciate your posting sans anonynimity (unlike the previous OCM). There is no arguing the logic that if parts are available from an authorized source, mission critical parts should not be procured from the grey market. I agree. However, we all know that in this market, especially when dealing with older and obsolete parts, authorized sources are typically not available. Also, I respectfully disagree with your statement, "no countefeit parts have come from distributors who only deal with authorized product directly." That is actually not true. There have been documented cases where franchised/authorized sources have accepted a customer RMA on parts that end up going back on the shelves without being inspected. Therefore, they've ended up with counterfeit parts (switched out for the good ones) on their shelves & they eventually made it to an end-user. Ironically, franchised/authorized sources are less equipped to properly inspect incoming parts than your high-end and reputable independents are. It just goes to show that nobody is completely safe in this industry and we all need to be careful and practice due diligence.
Furthermore, my comment about OCM's "protecting profits" was not in regards to the scenario you described above (authorized source available for mission critical parts). Moreso, I am referring to OCMs who discredit independents by preaching avoidance at all cost, who refuse to sell to independents, and/or are uncooperative in attempts to verify lot & date codes in efforts to mitigate counterfeit risks. While Rochester is a reputable vendor and one who I have purchased parts from on many occassions, I realize that you have been instructed by TI (for example) not to sell any of their parts to independents. How is this helping the market?? I assume the hope is that the end-user will eventually find an authorized source on their own, but what if they don't? That policy is essentially forcing end-users to buy sub-standard parts out of desperation. By telling independents "we can't accept your order on this product line" it is essentially coming off as discriminatory and with questionable intent. I undestand that is not your policy, but you have to enforce it. Perhaps you can explain the logic behind it??
Lastly, again in regards to your statement on "mission critcial" parts, there was a very interesting & timely article entitled "DHS Policy Opens Floodgates for Counterfeit Microchips to Enter US" released today on the Cypress Times that states:
“The US Semiconductor Industry testified before Congressman Michael McCaul's Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee hearing that a DHS (Department of Homeland Security) policy established in 2008 has opened the floodgates to counterfeit microchips entering the US market. The US military purchased 59,000 counterfeit microchips from China in 2010. In 2008 DHS changed its policy and stopped sending companies photos with serial numbers and other identifying information which is necessary for a company to determine whether a product is authentic or counterfeit."
I would have to assume that these sources in China were not "authorized" and our government was procuring parts directly from them. Again, at least aligning with a reputable independent would have helped to mitigate some of these risks. It's just not possible to buy direct in all cases.
My name is Dan Deisz and I work for Rochester Electronics (not hiding and not anon). While independent distributors like yourself can be good most of the time, all counterfeit parts have come through that broad group and no countefeit parts have come from distributors who only deal with authorized product directly. When theoretically "the same" parts are available from either, an authorized source will guarantee no counterfeit while an independent has to have the infrastructure/experience/knowledge and still hope nothing gets through. I say "hope" because most people know that the component engineering behind counterfeit is getting better over time. There are component substitutions happening where detection through test is getting less viable over time. If I am buying for "mission critical", I wouldn't buy independent if authorized had the part. It's the difference in detection versus avoidance.
There's "protecting profit" statement in your article describing the semi OCM's that seems a bit over the top. I wonder how often independents win the deal when the same part is available from authorized sources at a higher price, yet come with counterfeit detection instead of avoidance.
While I see a place for independents in the supply chain, it's not when there is an authorized source for a part. Detection versus avoidance.
I don't blame the independent distributors alone for fake parts. I think there should be quality assessment for every products and parts received from independent distributors to confirm the durability and quality of their products. Most times, companys also want to cut down on cost of quality control and analysis and they focus more on profit and gain. I think this is the main problem that we have world wide. People's life is not as valuable as compared to productivity and the turn around time that results in more money for both the distributors and the company. The other side of these things is that as long as the distributors and the companys are not directly or negatively affected they really don't care. Everyone have a share of his or her gain in what ever services they render to one another. In the business world they call it "business."
stochastic excursion - That is a very valid point you make there. There is definitely some risk in procuring sensitve military components from a foregin nation --- even when it is from a franchised or authorized source. An excellent argument could be made to bring fabrication back to the US for that type of material, as you point out. Thanks for your feedback as you help support the case that the counterfeit issues in the electronic supply chain are far greater than just the "bad apple" independents out there. Instead of placing blame, the industry should ban togethter to come up with common solutions.
Nemos - THANK YOU!! I could not agree with this statement more!: "Itisabsurdtoputitallindependentdistributorsintoonebucket.Thereisindependentdistributorswhodoan excellentjobwhytoblamethemforthepresenceofcounterfeitpartsinelectronics."
I'm surprised that the military buys any mission critical parts from a foreign country. Especially China, though our trade relationship has been mutually beneficial, the two states have had difficulty seeing eye-to-eye politically. If the reports are true of sabotage and hidden adverse features in military electronics parts, I think there's a case to be made for building up fabrication capability within the US.
I also wanted to mention that EBN has posted a poll on this subject "Should independent distibutors be blamed for the presence of counterfeit parts in electronics" & it is nice to see that, so far, the replies are overwhelmingly "no" with 84% of the vote.
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.