Frederick1337, This shouldn't be just about what the suppliers are able to do to keep counterfeits from military supply chain. I would love to know also how those in charge ofthe military supply chain are preventing infiltration of fake parts into the system aside from just asking someone else to vet the components at the door. It could be that whatever military procurement managers are doing to stop counterfeiters (aside from Congressional actions) can't be openly discussed!
"Stop using those and there mwouldn't be a problem!"
And if they stopped using those, there wouldn't be a profit.
Frankly, if I were a manufacturer, I just wouldn't deal with anyone who wanted me to sign a contract flowing back from DoD requirements. Too much hassle, too much liability, and only 1-5% of the market? I'd live without it.
Which is where things were, when the DoD decided that it couldn't hack the cost needed to have dedicated suppliers... and came begging to private industry.
Private industry needs to tell 'em to shove it again, and let them stew in their own juices, until they figure out how to make security be cost-effective.
"If the government is pushing the responsibility to the OEMs, and CMs, expecting them to do all the work to ensure the products and components are genuine, what are they offering to help counter this menace?"
Excellent question. Perhaps If you keep asking it, we might get a good answer. Thanks for asking the question wich is most prevalent to the discussion.
Once again, a well-intended law misses the mark. If a system works correctly, there should be enough stops in the supply chain to flag a counterfeit well before it gets to the OEM. At the front end, companies can make sure components and old boards are disposed of properly. In the middle, distributors should inspect incoming and outgoing parts. A lot of companies have invested a lot of money in stopgap measures and putting additional burden on OEMs isn't going to solve a thing.
It's just amazing how much trouble lower costs can cause.
It drove the world to china, and it also drove the Diffense industry into increased risk of counterfeit parts.
I think lower costs is less important than security and quality.
If the governmentis pushing the responsibility to the OEMs, and CMs, expecting them to do all the work to ensure the products and components are genuine, what are they offering to help counter this menace?
Another likely outcome of this legislation will be an increase in cost to the DOD for implementation of the additional methods, procedures, and mitigation actions to address the counterfeit part issue. It is not uncommon for DOD contracts to limit the profit margin that defense contractors can make on given contract, so they are unlikely to just absorb that cost in future contract negotiations.
Atleast the defence department should procure their equipments from the manufacturer directly. This issue (security and privacy of defence) is so sensitive that it should take precedence over savings in the procurement process made through buying off-the-shelf items.
However, if this is not possible, quality control procedures should be tightened at the procurement stage and at the time of selection of contractors. Leaving the liability to contractors whenever the counterfeit is discovered is just aint enough to counter the issue.
I do not thik this issue is so simple to detect or correct before the parts are used inside the products. The regulations wil deter the commercial component manufacturers to work along with the defense electronics. The design and developments of the defense equpments also will probably slow down due to these higher regulations. Finally, thanks alot for the video. A great information about what is happening exactly on the defense side.
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.