Blog
Comment
Redding McLemore
Though it is not always possible, purchasing from an authorized distributor ...
DR IC
Silicon Expert has a very nice database of datasheets but I don't think I am ...
Industry considers counterfeit risk analysis tool
Sylvie Barak
2/17/2012 6:34 PM EST
Liability issues hinder counterfeit reporting
Currently, the government-industry data exchange program and other electronic community forums only really get reports of counterfeited components once the damage has already been done, with flagging typically occurring too little, too late.
The reason for this is mostly liability. Manufacturers worry that reporting the discovery of counterfeit parts will dissuade customers from buying future products, and in some cases, may result in law suits. Therefore, many prefer to deal with the issues internally, with as little publicity as possible, though this does the industry no real service.
In a highly competitive environment, the threat of counterfeiting is also wreaking havoc on the bonds of trust between suppliers, manufacturers and customers.
“We’ve had suppliers tell us ‘this is our part’ and it turns out that it’s not. Even they sometimes can’t tell the difference,” said one engineer at the SiliconExpert summit, pointing out that even usually reliable suppliers could get caught out by clever fakes.
“Even if we test we can’t always tell. In fact, sometimes it’s only after it fails on the customer’s end that we have to go back and really dig,” said another, explaining how hard it was to prevent bogus parts making it onto boards.
“We’ve also had cases where customers scream counterfeit and we pull all the boards, only to find the parts were fine, but the customers had simply put too much stress on it,” she continued.
“The industry is in disarray over this because companies can also use counterfeit flagging to snitch on one another, making it very difficult to focus in on the really serious incidences,” another engineer confided in EE Times.
Despite the seeming hopelessness of the current counterfeit situation, SiliconExpert is hoping its algorithm will be able to provide at least some guidance allowing manufacturers to focus their testing efforts on parts most likely to be counterfeited.
“At the end of the day, every manufacturer has to ask themselves which end products are most likely to be affected by counterfeit parts, know where to focus their counterfeit mitigation efforts and how many resources they can dedicate to combating counterfeits through the use of quantifiable data points,” said Chaudhary.
It may not be a silver bullet, but while test-houses grapple to keep up with the increased pressure, knowing the risks in a BOM going in can save a lot of time, resources and money in the long run.
Currently, the government-industry data exchange program and other electronic community forums only really get reports of counterfeited components once the damage has already been done, with flagging typically occurring too little, too late.
The reason for this is mostly liability. Manufacturers worry that reporting the discovery of counterfeit parts will dissuade customers from buying future products, and in some cases, may result in law suits. Therefore, many prefer to deal with the issues internally, with as little publicity as possible, though this does the industry no real service.
In a highly competitive environment, the threat of counterfeiting is also wreaking havoc on the bonds of trust between suppliers, manufacturers and customers.
“We’ve had suppliers tell us ‘this is our part’ and it turns out that it’s not. Even they sometimes can’t tell the difference,” said one engineer at the SiliconExpert summit, pointing out that even usually reliable suppliers could get caught out by clever fakes.
“Even if we test we can’t always tell. In fact, sometimes it’s only after it fails on the customer’s end that we have to go back and really dig,” said another, explaining how hard it was to prevent bogus parts making it onto boards.
“We’ve also had cases where customers scream counterfeit and we pull all the boards, only to find the parts were fine, but the customers had simply put too much stress on it,” she continued.
“The industry is in disarray over this because companies can also use counterfeit flagging to snitch on one another, making it very difficult to focus in on the really serious incidences,” another engineer confided in EE Times.
Despite the seeming hopelessness of the current counterfeit situation, SiliconExpert is hoping its algorithm will be able to provide at least some guidance allowing manufacturers to focus their testing efforts on parts most likely to be counterfeited.
“At the end of the day, every manufacturer has to ask themselves which end products are most likely to be affected by counterfeit parts, know where to focus their counterfeit mitigation efforts and how many resources they can dedicate to combating counterfeits through the use of quantifiable data points,” said Chaudhary.
It may not be a silver bullet, but while test-houses grapple to keep up with the increased pressure, knowing the risks in a BOM going in can save a lot of time, resources and money in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
Netteligent
2/21/2012 3:59 PM EST
Like drug war, we will never win counterfeit war unless we root out the evil, once for all.
Sign in to Reply
przemek
2/21/2012 7:04 PM EST
Your point being of course that one can't root out evil completely, therefore absolutist attempts (war on drugs, poverty, counterfeit parts) are doomed to failure. We can only manage the risk.
Sign in to Reply
KB3001
2/22/2012 5:39 AM EST
Absolutely, it's about managing the risk. I worry more about human errors than the technology, to be honest. You can invest millions/billions in secure infrastrcutures but it takes just a silly mistake by one of your employees to expose your whole infrastructure.
Sign in to Reply
SylvieBarak
2/21/2012 8:35 PM EST
I actually think you guys are being a bit too pessimistic. Hopefully! Perhaps with better electronic tagging systems or some sort of (I was going to say biometric... but that makes no sense...so perhaps chemical or electronic) verification method, we will be able to stem counterfeiting significantly. I doubt that counterfeit electronics dealers are willing to put in the effort if the rewards are not as high.
Sign in to Reply
Kwade
2/22/2012 9:11 AM EST
In this day and age of using Independent Distributors for obsolete, allocated, hard to find, end of life technology, who (at the supplier level) does not take the extra steps of having the "subject items" tested to the fullest extent? I have been in this industry for over 18 years. Are we here to make a profit? Absolutely, profit is not a dirty word, however, our organization, like many other "worthy independent suppliers' take every step necessary to A. use extreme caution of who we procure our material from and B. have every item tested for form, fit, and function before it is shipped to the OEM/CEM. Independent Distributors play a major role within the supply chain of almost every manufacturer that exists. So, in the end and in order to eliminate counterfeit product from penetrating any given supply chain, it comes down to the supply chain managers, planners, and buyers partnering with reputable and solid organizations who follow a very strict standard.
Sign in to Reply
Joe Wilger
2/22/2012 10:29 AM EST
Interesting article.
Just for fun, I looked up the part shown in the screen shot, OP249AZ/883.
The counterfeit risk has increased from 65% to 85% in the 5 days since this article was posted.
Make of that what you will.
Joe
Sign in to Reply
SylvieBarak
2/22/2012 11:25 AM EST
so you're blaming me, is that it, Joe? ;)
You know, I actually wonder whether it's counterfeiting that's increasing dramatically or our awareness of it. Could be a bit of both.
Sign in to Reply
Netteligent
2/23/2012 3:30 AM EST
Unlike Vineet Chaudhary product marketing manager at SiliconExpert, I can effectively point out exactly where the counterfeit products come from and who are running these huge operation.
You have the power, connections and wills. All you have to do is putting them out of business for a very long time at a minimal fees.
Sign in to Reply
dylan.mcgrath
2/23/2012 2:59 PM EST
@Netteligent- do tell. Who and where are the counterfeit products coming from?
Sign in to Reply
DR IC
2/23/2012 6:59 PM EST
Silicon Expert has a very nice database of datasheets but I don't think I am convinced on this system. Generating a BOM based on the risk of the components being used? It's nice in theory but will never work.
Netteligent, if you have such knowledge regarding these huge operations it is your duty to tell the authorities otherwise you are just as bad.
The best way to stay counterfeit free is to know your supplier. Physically visit your independent distributors, limit the amount which you use, make sure they're ISO 9001:2008 certified and review their inspection process.
Sign in to Reply
Redding McLemore
2/27/2012 4:17 PM EST
Though it is not always possible, purchasing from an authorized distributor removes a lot of risk. Short of that, more flexibility on the component engineering side for old programs can save a lot of heartache down the line. It is expenisve to re-spin a board, but a lot less than the pain of a counterfeit!
Sign in to Reply