Counterfeiting vs. Value Added Processes

I recently heard a few questions about whether or not parts subjected to “upscreening” or other value added processes should be considered counterfeit parts. This is particularly relevant to those who use distribution sources or 3rd Party Logistics (3PL) providers to perform value added work.

The SAE G19 committee addressed this issue within AS5553. Refer to paragraph 3.2 — “Parts which have been refinished, upscreened, or uprated and have been identified as such, are not considered counterfeit.”

I first addressed this issue in early 2007, before the SAE International G19 committee existed. The following briefing is one I presented at the request of Brian Hughitt, Director of Quality at NASA and visionary who initiated the G19 committee. Within this briefing (slide 8) you will see my thoughts on this issue. I have yet to hear of other user or US Government subject matter experts who disagree with this line of thinking.

Avoiding Counterfeit Electronic Components
NASA Quality Leadership Forum, March 28 & 29, 2007
Counterfeit EEE Parts Panel

While alterations performed with the intent to deceive the buyer are forms of counterfeiting, value added processed are implemented by Electronics Manufacturers and Government users to assure parts will fulfill equipment performance and reliability requirements.

Advertisements

One thought on “Counterfeiting vs. Value Added Processes

  1. Dan Deisz says:

    Like everything, the devil is in the details as to how the testing is being done, what is being declared, and by whom.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: