Camcode durable bar code solutions

Call Toll-Free 800-627-3917

Blog

What’s Included in the MIL-STD-130N Change 1 Update?

January 29, 2013
Posted by Rob Leibrandt in UID Labels

Recently, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) issued a change to MIL-STD-130. Published on November 16, 2012, MIL-STD-130 N Change 1 is the latest version of the standard. Below is an overview to help you better understand the change to this standard.

This change establishes direct and specific reference to the governing IUID policy, regulation and guidance by listing them in the reference section. In addition, this update identifies the contractual support documents Data Item Descriptions (DIDs) to be used to require marking and IUID Registry Data delivery as well as DPM mark quality guidance.

There is clarifying language about the role of 130N in: defining legacy Item marking and registration; emphasizing the requirement for data delivery to the DoD IUID Registry; explaining the acceptability of including additional human readable text; and encoding additional non-IUID data in the machine readable markings.

This update also adds new language to address, including: marking very small items below the minimum symbol cell size where “contract requirements dictate a need for traceability of critical application items”; added more detailed discussion on using virtual Unique Item Identifiers (UIIs) for legacy item marking/registration; and how a fully concatenated UII encoded in the symbol takes precedence over all other data in the symbol.

The change also supports a request that originated with the United Kingdom that establishes a Data Identifier and Text Element Identifier for an “Export Controlled Item,” along with the business rules for construction to identify the particular nature of the controls or restrictions on material that is subject to export controls such as International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR).

Camcode is here to help you understand MIL-STD-130 and Item Unique Identification (IUID) requirements. As the former Senior Program Analyst for Traceability and Information Assurance for the DoD, I helped create the IUID policy, and know the standards inside and out. If you have specific questions about MIL-STD-130 N Change 1, please submit your question to our Ask an Expert section or post a question below.

Tags:

IUID, MIL-STD-130, UID, UID Registration

No Comments

UID Overview Series – Part III – The Future of UID

January 25, 2013
Posted by Rob Leibrandt in UID Labels

This is the third post of our three-part series that focuses on the history of UID, the current state of the mandate, and what to expect for the future. Part III highlights the future of UID and MIL-STD-130. For more information, click the links for Part I and Part II.

The IUID Vision Going Forward

The vision for IUID is that DoD, its international partners, and industry will efficiently and effectively manage assets with a capabilities-based, common framework in acquisition, engineering, supply, transportation, and maintenance management processes, where this management is enabled by a data-driven environment encompassing: (a) the use of globally unique UIIs, (b) speedy and accurate automatic identification and data capture (AIDC), (c) electronic data interchange (EDI) transactions, (d) an IUID Registry that provides the single point of reference for UII pedigree data, and (e) the use of the concatenated UII as a common key for accessing information on assets in business, warfighter, intelligence and information management environment transactions and databases.

The value proposition for this vision is that resources invested in (a) placing machine-readable UIIs on items qualifying for IUID, and (b) providing an AIDC infrastructure for reading the UII marks, will provide investment returns through enhanced asset management processes. Investments are required to mark the items, register their pedigree data in the IUID Registry, collect intelligence on these marked items as they are exposed to various supply chain events through use of AIDC equipment and EDI transactions, and store this intelligence keyed to the concatenated UIIs in the AISs supporting supply chain management processes. Thus, a valuable store of item-by-item history information can be accessed by their concatenated UIIs and shared among the supply chain management participants.

Continued IUID implementation will provide enhancements to several core supply chain management competencies. Asset tracking will extend the ability of the warfighter by providing asset visibility any time or place. Enhanced logistics and engineering analysis will facilitate an increase in weapon system availability. Accurate asset valuation will correctly indicate the Department’s financial position. Enhanced supply chain management tools will assist in reducing weapon system sustainment costs. AIDC will vastly improve data accuracy and reduce tracking efforts. IUID will be the catalyst for Department-wide improvements in maintenance, safety, logistics, and financial management.

In the short-term, marking items and electronically submitting the data on deliverables through WAWF will allow both industry and the government to improve data quality. Concurrently, the use of IUID data within and across the acquisition, finance and logistics communities will enable IUID marking and data capture to contribute to functional processes. In the long-term IUID will become a key factor in all accountability and accounting systems.

That concludes our three-part series on UID. If you have questions or comments, we’d love to hear from you. You can also Ask an Expert for more specific UID policy questions, or check out our durable UID Labels page.

Tags:

MIL-STD-130, Secure UID, UID, UID anti-counterfeit, UID Compliance, UID History, UID Solutions

No Comments

Top Supply Chain Management Degrees

January 22, 2013
Posted by Nicole Pontius in Other

Today, many corporations have supply chain management staff with general business education. But as the supply chain becomes an increasingly critical component to efficient and lean operations, more universities are offering opportunities for a more targeted education in supply management and supply chain management.

The Institute of Supply Management (ISM) is the primary U.S.-based industry association which grants approvals to supply management degree programs. ISM-approved programs provide ample education to meet today’s standards and practices for students with a desire to enter the Supply Management field. Even BusinessWeek, back in 2011, discussed the importance of supply chain management as “the next big thing.” One thing’s for sure: Supply Management and Supply Chain Management are promising career fields for today’s undergrad students wishing to pursue a prosperous career in business.

To help you choose the right school for you for an education in supply chain management, we’ve compiled out list of “The Top 25 Supply Chain Management College Degree Programs.” Please note that the following list is in no particular order.

If your school made our list, add a badge to your site to show off your accomplishment. Jump to badges.

The Top 25 Supply Chain Management College Degree Programs

1. Rutgers University
Newark, NJ
Undergraduate Major in Supply Chain Management
http://business.rutgers.edu/scmms/academic-programs/ug-scm

Rutgers’ undergraduate program in Supply Chain Management takes into account the complexities faced by modern-day corporations, including off-shoring, outsourcing and globalization. Students are prepared with education in global sourcing project management, procurement and business risk analysis, logistics operations optimization, enterprise information systems, sales and operations planning, importation and exportation, demand fulfillment, business process and quality improvement, new product development, and customer and supplier relationship management.

2. Penn State University
Smeal College of Business
State College, PA
Supply Chain and Information Systems
http://ugstudents.smeal.psu.edu/academics-advising/degree-requirements/majors/supply-chain-and-information-systems

The Supply Chain and Information Systems degree is offered through the Smeal College of Business at Penn State University. The program focuses on the source-make-deliver-return process model. Students have ample opportunities to pursue theoretical and applied research, including interdisciplinary collaboration with other departments. Penn State’s supply chain program is ranked in the top five among supply chain education programs in the country by Gartner.

3. University of North Texas
Dallas, TX
Logistics and Supply Chain Management
http://www.unt.edu/majors/ulogi.htm

The Logistics and Supply Chain Management program at the University of North Texas provides students with an educational program influenced by the Dallas/Fort Worth Roundtable of the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals, the North Texas Commission’s Logistics Development and Marketing Committee, and an advisory board of 20 senior logistics executives.

4. Lehigh University
Bethlehem, PA
Supply Chain Management Major
http://www4.lehigh.edu/business/academics/depts/management/undergraduate/supplymajor.aspx

Lehigh University’s undergraduate Supply Chain Management program equips students to tackle modern business problems, including a thorough introduction to logistics, operations management and business-to-business marketing. Students receive a broad education in core business topics with a focus on supply chain management skills needed to perform in today’s business environment.

5. University of Illinois – College of Business
Urbana-Champaign, IL
Supply Chain Management
http://business.illinois.edu/ba/programs/ugrad/supply-chain/

The Supply Chain Management program at the University of Illinois is an exclusive program open only to select students who complete an application and an interview with department faculty to determine that it’s the right fit for the student. Core topics include business-to-business and government marketing, logistics management, purchasing and information technology management.

6. Arizona State University
W.P. Carey School of Business
Tempe, AZ
Supply Chain Management
http://wpcarey.asu.edu/undergraduate/business-degrees/supply-chain-management.cfm

The W.P. Carey School of Business, part of Arizona State University, offers a comprehensive undergraduate program in Supply Chain Management designed to prepare students to work for today’s major conglomerates, such as Raytheon, Toyota, Intel, Samsung and even retail giant Wal-Mart, for whom the supply and demand of goods flowing through the company is a critical component of operations.

7. Ohio State University
Fisher College of Business
Columbus, OH
Operations and Logistics
https://fisher.osu.edu/ftmba/academics/majors/operations-and-logistics/

Ohio State University’s Operations and Logistics program is widely recognized as a premier educational program in supply chain management providing top-quality education for future executives. Students are taught “how to develop processes that facilitate efficient and cost-effective flow through a variety of supply chains” with a strong foundation in management and technical skills.

8. University of Maryland
Robert H. Smith School of Business
College Park, MD
Supply Chain Management
http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/undergrad/majors/logistic.aspx

Logistics, transportation, warehouse location and operation, inventory management, packaging and other essential functions which must be performed in both an efficient and cost-effective manner are the focus of the Robert H. Smith School of Business’ undergraduate program in Supply Chain Management.

9. University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI
Supply Chain Management
http://www.cba.uri.edu/academics/undergraduate/supplychainmanagement/

The Supply Chain Management program at the University of Rhode Island focuses on the procurement, manufacture and delivery of goods and services among enterprises across the nation. The undergraduate program is built upon the premise that competition in the 21^st Century is based on “competition between supply chains rather than competition between individual companies.”

10. University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
Supply Chain and Operations Management
http://www.csom.umn.edu/undergraduate/academics/majors-minors/supply-chain.html

The Supply Chain and Operations Management undergraduate program at the University of Minnesota emphasizes both the intra- and inter-organizational points of view, with a focus on converting inputs to outputs and the SCOR model of Plan—Source—Make—Deliver.

11. Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Supply Chain Management
https://www.reg.msu.edu/academicprograms/ProgramDetail.asp?Program=1328

Michigan State University offers a Bachelor of Arts degree in Supply Chain Management, with a focus on “the integration of value–adding components from manufacturing operations, purchasing, transportation, and physical distribution that are critical to the enhancement of global competitiveness.” Core competency courses include procurement and supply management, manufacturing planning and control, logistics and transportation management and supply chain application and policy.

12. Duquesne University
Palumbo Donahue School of Business
Pittsburgh, PA
Supply Chain Management
http://www.duq.edu/academics/schools/business/undergraduate/academics/majors/supply-chain-management

Duquesne University’s Palumbo Donahue School of Business’ undergraduate program in Supply Chain Management strives to develop tomorrow’s leaders with essential skills such as preserving resources while improving the flow of goods and services and balancing demands in a global marketplace.

13. Rider University
Lawrenceville, NJ
Global Supply Chain Management
http://www.rider.edu/academics/colleges-schools/college-business-administration/undergraduate-majors-programs-0/global-su

The Global Supply Chain Management program at Rider University was created with input from several prestigious faculty members serving in the university’s overall business department. The program focuses on preparing students to lead and manage the five stages of supply chain management, including planning, producing, sourcing, delivering and returning.

14. University of Texas at Austin
McCombs School of Business
Austin, TX
Undergraduate SCM Major Track
http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/Centers/SCMC/Academic-Programs/Undergraduate.aspx

Undergraduate majors emphasizing Supply Chain Management at the University of Texas – Austin’s McCombs School of Business will undertake a rigorous course of study including organizational behavior, strategic supply chain management, logistics and inventory management and more, all among a well-rounded core business curriculum.

15. North Carolina State University
Poole College of Management
Raleigh, NC
Undergraduate Supply Chain Concentration
http://scm.ncsu.edu/scm-concentrations

Undergraduate students at the Poole College of Business, part of North Carolina State University, may pursue a BS Degree in Business Management, with a focus in Supply Chain Management. Those who wish to pursue advanced study can move on to the NC State Jenkins MBA, preparing them with advanced education to become tomorrow’s supply chain leaders.

16. University of Houston
C.T. Bauer College of Business
Houston, TX
BBA in Supply Chain Management
http://bauer.uh.edu/undergraduate/supply-chain-management/

The University of Houston’s BBA in Supply Chain Management, offered through the C.T. Bauer College of Business, emphasizes globalization, effective communication, coordination and collaboration – essential functions of a successful supply chain leader. Courses include business forecasting, distribution and inventory management, business modeling and decision analysis and more topics designed to create effective leaders for world-class organizations.

17. Portland State University
School of Business Administration
Portland, OR
Supply and Logistics Management
http://www.pdx.edu/sba/undergraduate-major-supply-logistics-management

Portland State University’s undergraduate program in Supply and Logistics Management is based on an interdisciplinary foundation in supply and logistics management. The program prepares students for careers in purchasing, industrial distribution, logistics, transportation and operations management.

18. University of Texas at Dallas
Naveen Jindal School of Management
Dallas, TX
Operations/Supply Chain Management
http://jindal.utdallas.edu/academic-areas/information-systems-and-operations-management/operationssupply-chain-management-programs/

Students studying Operations/Supply Chain Management at the University of Texas at Dallas learn skills to manage and improve the efficiency and productivity of business operations, thereby improving the quality of services and goods. Graduate students have several opportunities for pursuing advanced study at the University of Texas at Dallas, including a BS/MS fast-track program.

19. Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY
BS in Global Supply Chain Management
http://www.clarkson.edu/business/undergraduate/gscm.html

Clarkson University’s BS in Global Supply Chain Management program emphasizes globalization, e-commerce strategies, IT as a decision-making tool, integration through ERP and more. This multidisciplinary program integrates marketing, information systems, human resources management, economics, strategic management and operations systems.

20. Indiana University – Bloomington
Kelley School of Business
Bloomington, IN
Supply Chain Management
http://kelley.iu.edu/ugrad/academics/curriculum/chain.cfm

Indiana University at Bloomington offers both a Bachelor of Science in Business, with a Supply Chain Management major, as well as a Master of Science in Global Supply Chain Management for students who desire to pursue advanced study. The program equips students with the proficiencies needed for careers across a variety of industries, such as manufacturing, process industries, education, government and the service sector.

21. University of Memphis
Memphis, TN
Supply Chain Management
http://www.memphis.edu/ugcatalog/collegeprog/fcbe/logistics.php

The Department of Marketing and Supply Chain Management at the University of Memphis offers a BBA in Supply Chain Management, with an emphasis on competitive analysis and logistics. Graduates are proficient communicators, critical thinkers and ethical business professionals.

22. Western Illinois University
Macomb, IL
Supply Chain Management
http://www.wiu.edu/academics/majors/business_and_technology/supply_chain_management.php

Western Illinois University’s undergraduate program in Supply Chain Management is one of only three such programs in the state. The curriculum prepares students for careers in logistics, transportation management, inventory and warehouse management and purchasing. It is one of thirty nine programs nationally accredited by AACSB International, the world’s premier business accrediting body.

23. Franklin University
Columbus, OH
Operations and Supply Chain Management
http://www.franklin.edu/degree-programs/college-of-business/undergraduate-majors/operations-supply-chain-management

Franklin University, based in Columbus, OH, offers a Bachelor of Science program in Operations and Supply Chain Management. Students explore best practices in quality management, globalization and “green” business practices, including environmental initiatives and regulations. Franklin University also offers a joint Bachelor of Science/MBA program for students who desire to pursue advanced study.

24. Bellevue University
Bellevue, NE
Supply Chain and Logistics Management
http://www.bellevue.edu/degrees/undergraduate/supply-chain-logistics-management-bs/

Bellevue University’s Supply Chain and Logistics Management program provides students with a strong foundation in supply chain and logistics from both a U.S.-based and global perspective. Students have opportunities to explore global logistics management and Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) among other topics.

25. Binghamton University
Binghamton, NY
BS In Management with Concentration In Supply Chain Management
http://www2.binghamton.edu/som/undergraduate-programs/bs-management/supply-chain-management.html

Binghamton University is the state university of New York, offering a BS in Management with an option for students to concentrate in Supply Chain Management. The program “emphasizes the cross-functional features of supply chain management” while preparing students for classical demand planning, production planning, inventory management, procurement and numerous other core functions of the supply chain management field.

Top Supply Chain Management Degree Badges

Did your school make our list of top supply chain management degree programs? Let others know about your accomplishment by displaying a custom badge on your program page. Simply copy the code beneath a badge and paste it into your Website!

<a href="http://www.camcode.com/asset-tags/top-supply-chain-management-degrees/"><img style="font-size: x-small;" src="http://www.camcode.com/asset-tags/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Camcode_SupplyChain_1.gif" alt="Camcode Top Supply Chain Management Degree" /></a>

<a href="http://www.camcode.com/asset-tags/top-supply-chain-management-degrees/"><img style="font-size: x-small;" src="http://www.camcode.com/asset-tags/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Camcode_SupplyChain_2.gif" alt="Camcode Top Supply Chain Management Degree" /></a>

Sources:

http://www.scdigest.com/ONTARGET/11-08-23-2_Top_Supply_Chain_Schools.php?cid=4872
http://www.ism.ws/
http://education-portal.com/articles/Best_Supply_Chain_Management_Programs_List_of_Top_US_Schools.html

Durable Asset Tag Solutions from Camcode:

Tags:

Logistics, Supply Chain Management, Supply Management

1 Comment

UID Overview Series – Part II – Current State of UID

January 17, 2013
Posted by Rob Leibrandt in UID Labels

This is the second post of our three-part series that focuses on the history of UID, the current state of the mandate, and what to expect for the future. Part II covers the current status of UID and MIL-STD-130. For more information, click the link for Part I.

Emergence of the Collaborative IUID Solution

In early 2002 General James E. Cartwright (Joint Staff J-8) and Mr. Michael W. Wynne (Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (AT&L), agreed that an industry standards based marking approach, which would leverage machine-readable marking, was necessary and that DoD needed a centrally hosted registration system for item unique identification. This requirement was promulgated by then Honorable E.C. Aldridge, USD (AT&L) and the Honorable Dov S. Zakheim USD (Comptroller),originally called the Universal Identifier Code, and all other similar initiatives were directed to be halted pending the outcome of these dialogues.

In its role as DoD’s executive agent for AIT, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) proposed that a machine-readable materiel identification mark be established in the DLA Memorandum, March 5, 2002, Subject: Standard Data Elements used in Automatic Identification Technology (AIT) throughout the Department of Defense (DoD) Supply Chain. The proposed mark contained three elements, characterized as Serial Number, Part Number and Commercial and Government Entity. On April 3, 2002, the Air Transport Association commented that under this policy, industry would be required to install a unique marking on a part installed on a military product that is exactly the same part as that used on a commercial product. Subsequently, Mr. Wynne appointed Ms. LeAntha Sumpter to lead development of a more industry friendly interoperable solution. Ms. Sumpter initiated a series of dialogues with DoD’s domestic and foreign trading partners, international coalition members and the international standards community in late 2002 on approaches to achieve a collaborative IUID solution.

Three primary alternatives were considered to implement IUID marking. The first alternative was to use existing commercial marking approaches, which may or may not serialize uniquely within a part, facility or company, but do not ensure uniqueness outside of these domains. In other words, a tank could have the same part number and serial number combination as a commissary frozen food cooler. This approach did not pass the test for uniqueness and was, therefore, rejected. The second alternative was for DoD to take responsibility for marking all items as they enter the inventory or were inspected and accepted. This was also determined not to be a practical alternative given the diversity of delivery locations, acceptance procedures, marking methods for types of items delivered, costs for redundant infrastructure capabilities at multiple and diverse acceptance points, and the increasing number of direct vendor deliveries. The third and only accepted alternative was to develop a standard marking approach using existing commercial methods and existing item identification data elements. This solution was developed collaboratively with industry in February, 2003 and is reflected in the IUID policies subsequently issued and executed. These discussions defined the following ground rules for DoD’s IUID program:

a. The unique item identifier (UII) has to be globally unique.

b. Semantics used by all industry sectors have to be accommodated.

c. Item serialization practices already in use by industry sectors have to be accommodated where it ensures serialization is not repeated.

d. Construction of the UII must accommodate existing commercial standards that provide global uniqueness in accordance with ISO 15459, Information technology – Unique identifiers.

e. The UII data carrier has to provide high capacity and accommodate the syntax requirements of ISO/IEC 15434, Transfer Syntax for High Capacity Automatic Data Capture Media.

The following provides a timeline of some of the significant mandates and milestones for the implementation of UID/IUID nationally and internationally.

The collaborative solution described above was first established as a policy forecast by Mr. Wynne on Dec 19, 2002 and made mandatory by Mr. Wynne in his new role as the Acting Under Secretary (AT&L) on Jul 29, 2003 for all new acquisitions beginning Jan 1, 2004 and strongly encouraged all component acquisition executives to “incorporate into ongoing contracts where it makes business sense to do so”. This made UID (later to be known as IUID) mandatory across the DoD in all contracts where the specified criteria applied and implementation would be achieved through a mandatory interim DFARS rule. It would be a few years before the components reported consistently high compliance rates for including the mandatory UID/IUID clause in applicable new contracts.

December 23, 2004 then USD (AT&L), Mr. Wynne directed the application of UID to existing personal property in inventory and in operational use, that is, legacy items, and to formally extend the policy to items at organic DoD depots with specific timelines for DoD and Military Department implementation dates. This memo also requested the military departments to direct all program and item managers to develop IUID Program Implementation Plans.

On May 12, 2005, then USD (AT&L), Mr. Wynne directed that all effective Jan 1 2006, all new solicitations and contracts that included Government Furnished Property (GFP) must comply with the IUID requirements and effectively immediately all acquisition milestone reviews were to address IUID implementation. Other significant dates and actions follow:

In December 2005, GSA provided guidance to its workforce on IUID implementation when DoD acquires applicable items through GSA contracts and schedules.
September 1, 2006 the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) distributed NATO Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 2290, Unique Identification (UID) of Items embracing the US DoD led UID/IUID for all national marking where item level uniqueness was required.
Dec 26, 2006, DODI 4151.19, “Serialized Item Management” was signed. It directed IUID implementation on all items DoD designates for item-level serial management, including, but not limited to, all items designated for Unique Item Tracking (UIT) and Serial Number Tracking (SNT). It directs these items shall be marked with a Unique Item Identifier (UII) and meet the pedigree data reporting requirements of IUID.
December 4, 2007, Mr. Shay Assad, Director Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy (DPAP), established a DoD scorecard for IUID implementation with the Components reporting semi-annual compliance to the Director, DPAP.
Jun 16, 2008, DODI 8320.04, “Item Unique Identification Standards for Tangible Personal Property” was signed to consolidate and institutionalize all previous direction on IUID.
Oct 16, 2008, USD(AT&L), the Honorable John J Young, directed DLA, Navy and Air Force to ensure that individual Nuclear Weapons Related Material (NWRM) items will be accounted for using IUID.
Aug 3, 2009, USD (AT&L) responding to NDAA 2009 Sec 815, directed that all unique tooling associated with the production of MDAP hardware that is identified by the Program Manager for retention, preservation and storage be in serviceable condition and be designated as DoD serially managed and comply with IUID requirements.

As part of NATO adoption of STANAG 2290 and in recognition of “UID of Items” policy requirements in place by the US, Netherlands, United Kingdom and the existence of the NATO UID of Items Registry hosted at NAMSA in Luxemburg. Allied Committee 327, “Lifecycle Management Group” established a new Working Group (WG5) and appointed Mr. Robert Leibrandt, US DoD as its first chairman in March of 2008 due to his experience in leading UID implementation in the US DoD for Ms. Sumpter from 2003 to the present. This Working Group expanded its membership to include Industry, the Asset Tracking Working Group which established STANAG 2290 and the NATO Codification organization (Allied Committee 135) to expand its influence and ensure greater awareness of UID and publication of Allied Publication AUIDP-1, “NATO Guidance on UID of Items” in July 2010. This guide provides a roadmap for either a NATO Organization, NATO nation or even a contractor seeking to implement a comprehensive UID of Items capability. WG5 currently supports integration of UID of Items requirements and capabilities in other NATO functional business areas (e.g. Configuration Management, Reliability, Warranty Management) and directly supports a new Shareable Operational Resources Tool (SORT) which improves multinational operations by providing web-based visibility of items and services and offering nation wishes to loan or sell to other nations. The data includes item level lifecycle data where the item is UID of Items managed by the offering nation.

The most recent direction came on Dec 30, 2010, when a USD(AT&L) memorandum signed for the Honorable Ashton Carter directed policy refinements only for secondary items in use and in inventory based on an approved Joint Logistics Board study and with the agreement of the Comptroller. This memorandum also established the term “unique item level traceability” as the benchmark where IUID and Serialized Item Management (SIM) would apply for secondary items in use and in inventory. The Joint Logistics Board study published in Jun 8, 2010 and updated Mar 11, 2011 found that full implementation of IUID within the Services would produce annual savings of $3B-$5B when fully implemented in 3 areas – Product Lifecycle Management, Property Accountability and Intensive Item Management. Implementation costs estimated at $7.1B in the original report were reduced by nearly 50% to $3.2B. The main intent was to exclude items that are never managed at the individual item and only at the National Stock Number, part number or lot number that could be misinterpreted under previous guidance to be included. An example, are millions of fasteners that are bought in bulk, stored in large containers, but could be considered as controlled inventory. These items were clearly never intended to be part of the population of IUID required items.

Look for Part III of the series, which highlights the future of UID and MIL-STD-130.

Feel free to post your questions or comments. If you have more specific UID policy questions, check out our durable UID Labels and services, or Ask an Expert.

Tags:

MIL-STD-130, UID, UID Compliance, UID History, UID Solutions

No Comments

UID Overview Series – Part I – UID History

January 8, 2013
Posted by Rob Leibrandt in UID Labels

This is the first post of our three-part series that focuses on the history of UID, the current state of the mandate, and what to expect for the future. Part I covers the history of UID and MIL-STD-130.

Department of Defense (DoD) Item Unique Identification (IUID) at a Glance

DoD policies mandate that all contracts for items meeting set criteria apply IUID requirements. The policy execution requires a specific set of data to be delivered on items through Wide Area Workflow (WAWF) at the time of item delivery and acceptance, and that these items be marked with a standard marking format defined in MIL-STD-130N, Identification Marking of U. S. Military Property. The requirement is for all qualifying assets to be marked in such a way as to allow generation of an International Standards Organization/International Electrotechnical Committee (ISO/IEC) 15459 Unique Item Identifier (UII). The necessary data to formulate a UII is encoded into a permanent two dimensional ISO/IEC 16222 Error Correction Code 200 Data Matrix bar code. As of January 25, 2012, 2,562 suppliers have delivered 11,725,651 items to the current standard.

Historical Genesis of Item Identification

DoD has a long tradition of identification and marking of its military property. The Defense Standardization Act of 1952 gave rise to the national stock number (NSN) system to provide unification and standardization of consumable items to assure like items would be identified as such. Within NATO this process is known as Codification. An outgrowth of World War II, its purpose was to prevent unnecessary duplication in supply efforts and address the lack of interoperability and/or inability to do effective cross-service or cross-nation supply support. These issues remain relevant today. On March 4, 1953, the first edition of MIL-STD-130, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, was published to require the uniform application of identification labels to military property. Up until the issue of Revision L on October 10, 2003, the identification labels only contained human readable information.

Imperatives for Process Improvements

The Chief Financial Officers’ Act of 1990 called for improved financial management, item accountability and cost reduction, and emphasis on results-oriented management. DoD needed the capability for enhanced total asset visibility, improved lifecycle item management and accountability, and clean financial audits. To achieve this capability, it had to identify individual assets at any time throughout the lifecycle and provide the means to relate them to their historical engineering and logistics support data.

Equally important, the Combatant Commanders have requirements for battlefield awareness and total asset visibility. To meet these requirements, data and information must be fully integrated within a net-centric environment for Joint operations to be carried out. Unique identification technologies could significantly enhance this requirement, especially by providing asset tracking. This includes assets, but could include people, places, service, groups, and events. With unfettered access to the registries for these uniquely identified entities and the automated systems that are developing information about them, the Combatant Commander would be able to identify, track, and direct the theater battle much more effectively.

Initiation of Total Life Cycle System Management

The DoD, through approval of its Joint Logistics Board in January 2002, initiated an aggressive effort to re-engineer the life cycle management of DoD systems to achieve effective performance and optimum readiness while reducing operations and support costs. This initiative was called Total Life Cycle Systems Management (TLCSM). TLCSM, as defined in DoD policy, is the implementation, management, and oversight, by the designated Program Manager, of all activities associated with the acquisition, development, production, fielding, sustainment, and disposal of a DoD weapon system across its life cycle. The TLCSM Working Group established a key implementing action to initiate an “Industry/Government Team to develop Universal Product Codes for Defense Equipment”. As a result, the National Defense Industrial Associations Logistics Management Committee was asked for its views on whether to get the DoD out of the NSN business and establish one code for one item throughout its life cycle. The industry view was that the DoD should utilize a single, open, and secure environment, which adds value and allows serialized tracking.

Within the results-oriented management framework, the need for financial management and lifecycle management process improvements highlighted a weakness of traditional item identification and tracking systems to systematically and seamless track the wide range of tangible items needed by the combatant forces across functional management systems throughout the life of these items. An expanded and more capable system of uniquely identifying and marking this wide range of tangible items was required to enable an automated approach to data capture in order to quickly and accurately link an item’s identification to in-service data sources, such as systems for property accountability, transportation, inventory control, and maintenance management. Within such an item identification system, users could access a broad range of reliable data on individual items for engineering analysis, warranty tracking, counterfeit detection and prevention, asset visibility, Government-furnished property management, logistics support decision making, equipment valuation, and even operational decision making. It also meant fewer errors would occur in the acceptance, transportation, maintenance, inventory, and reorder processes through the avoidance of misidentification of items.

Next up, Part II of the series covers the current status of UID and MIL-STD-130.

We’d love to hear from you. Please post your questions or comments. You can also learn more about our durable UID Labels and services or Ask an Expert for more specific UID policy questions.

Tags:

MIL-STD-130, UID, UID Compliance, UID History, UID Labels

No Comments

UID Overview Series

January 3, 2013
Posted by Rob Leibrandt in UID Labels

Wondering how the MIL-STD-130 mandate got its start? Looking for insight on the future of UID labels? Beginning next week, we’ll share a three-part series that focuses on the history of UID, the current state of the mandate, and what to expect for the future.

Our goal is to help you better understand the benefits and requirements of UID. What information would you like to read on our blog? Are there issues you need help with or topics we should highlight? Please feel free to share your thoughts.

Tags:

MIL-STD-130, UID, UID Compliance, UID History, UID Labels

No Comments

Top 10 Things a Property Manager Needs to Do for 2013

December 19, 2012
Posted by Nicole Pontius in Asset Tags, CMMS Asset Tags

Property managers for organizations and corporations are charged with maintaining inventory of physical assets. This is no easy feat if your company deals with hundreds or thousands of products or uses a variety of tools and physical resources to provide services.

The end of one year, and the beginning of the next, is an even busier time for those in the property management field. Determining year-end inventory, depreciation and losses for tax purposes while simultaneously making inventory budget predictions for the following year can quickly get messy and complex without a solid asset management system in place. Here are 10 ways to prepare for 2013.

Analyze last year’s inventory usage. Most companies like to have a view of the budgetary picture moving into a new year. Unless you plan and provide documentation and evidence of the funds you’ll need for 2013, you could find yourself short on cash midway through the year. The best way to make these predictions is to analyze inventory utilization for the current year and compare that data to trending usage patterns, such as increases or decreases over time or during seasonal periods.
Commit to quality management. How many orders did you place in 2012, and from which vendors? Which vendors deliver lower-cost products or provide better service? Did you run into trouble with delayed deliveries? Trimming costs can be as simple as taking a look at what works and what doesn’t. Stick with the more efficient providers and spend less on inventory. Implementing an evaluation and assurance system will help you measure potential vendors before you ever do business with them.
Redefine optimal inventory levels. In addition to vendor and inventory quality management, the optimal inventory level is a critical factor in the success of a company. Too much inventory on hand ties up working capital and drives up holding or handling costs, greatly restricting the company from moving forward. Too little inventory results in a host of problems ranging from unhappy customers to lost productivity in product development or production areas. The optimal inventory level balances both aspects and permits forward progression.
Clear out unusable inventory. If you’re holding onto inventory with quality issues, it’s doing little more than taking up otherwise valuable space. Monetize unusable inventory if possible or clear it out by donating or recycling it.
Schedule a regular maintenance plan for 2013. Property managers are not only in charge of controlling inventory, but ensuring that equipment is functioning properly to avoid losses in productivity. Property managers are not only in charge of controlling inventory, but ensuring that equipment is functioning properly to avoid losses in productivity. Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) are an easy way to collect data for work order tracking or conditions monitoring. CMMS asset tags with bar codes make gathering this information faster, less expensive and more accurate than manual data collection.
Take stock at preset intervals. If you’re in charge of maintaining inventory and there’s suddenly a shortage, guess who’s to blame? Mixed up shipments, incorrect orders, replacement products and even the unfortunate reality of employee theft can wreak havoc on your numbers. How can you keep your products more secure in 2013? Taking stock more frequently can help pinpoint minor losses before they become major problems.
Ramp up security precautions. It’s an unfortunate reality that theft is an ever-increasing problem in terms of inventory control. But utilizing security labels on each piece of inventory—or at a minimum, higher-value items —provides a foolproof way to track the location of every asset. There are different types of tamper-evident labels available which can be a deterrent to potential thieves.
Re-assess your tracking system. How are you keeping tabs on your inventory, including how much heads out the door and when? If your company is just starting out, you may not have a fine-tuned inventory management system in place. There are dozens of software applications you can use to do so. Investing in a proven system now will save you plenty of headaches later.
Evaluate your software vendors. If you’re already using some type of computerized inventory management system, how complex is your current setup? Are you using different programs for different aspects of inventory management? If you’re compiling data from programs tracking accounting and physical counts separately and using Excel pivot tables to analyze your data and make predictions, there’s an easier way. Some inventory management systems handle multiple facets of inventory management and have built-in analytics tools.
Get a firmer grip on each piece of inventory. If you’re using a manual tracking system, human influence can play a big role in mishaps. Using an established system of asset tracking with asset tags or barcode labels will alleviate a level of human intervention, providing you with both accuracy and efficiency. Combined with a solid asset and inventory tracking software application, your job will run like a well-oiled machine in 2013.

Property managers are always looking for better, more efficient ways to handle the many aspects of their jobs. Asset tags and asset tracking systems provide the foundation for reducing overhead and other operating costs, driving up revenue through increased productivity and quality improvement and also provide a clearer picture of the overall organization and pinpoint the decisions that will help move the company forward.

Tags:

asset labels, Asset Tags, asset tracking, CMMS Asset Tags, fixed assets, inventory control, property management

No Comments

Bar Code Inventor Norman Joseph Woodland Dies

December 14, 2012
Posted by Nicole Pontius in Barcode Labels

Today we’d like to honor the co-inventor of the bar code, Norman Joseph Woodland, who passed away days ago at the age of 91. Mr. Woodland’s invention has no doubt shaped the face of commerce and technology for decades to come.

According to yesterday’s USA Today article, Mr. Woodland and Bernard Silver were students at what is now Drexel University in Philadelphia when Silver overheard a grocery store executive asking an engineering school dean to guide students into research on how product information could be captured at checkout, said Woodland’s daughter, Susan Woodland.

From there, Woodland dropped out of graduate school to work on a bar code idea that would symbolically capture details about an item, his daughter said. One day, Woodland drew Morse code dots and dashes as he sat on the beach and absent-mindedly left his fingers in the sand where they traced a series of parallel lines. According to his daughter, this was Woodland’s moment of inspiration. He said, “Instead of dots and dashes I can have thick and thin bars.”

In 1952, a patent was issued for Woodland and Silver’s code patterned on concentric circles, which looked like a bull’s eye. Woodland had joined IBM in 1951 hoping to develop the bar code, but the technology wasn’t accepted for more than two decades until lasers made it possible to read the code easily, the technology company said. In the early 1970s, Woodland moved to Raleigh to join a team at IBM’s Research Triangle Park, N.C., facility. The team developed a bar code-reading laser scanner system in response to demand from grocers’ desires to automate and speed checkout while also cutting handling and inventory management costs.

IBM promoted a rectangular bar code that led to a standard for Universal Product Code (UPC) technology. The first product sold using a UPC scan was a 67-cent package of Wrigley’s chewing gum at a supermarket in Troy, Ohio, in June 1974, according to GS1 US.

Today, about 5 billion products are scanned and tracked worldwide every day, all thanks to Norman Joseph Woodland. From products at the grocery store to machinery with required maintenance updates, bar code labels have made life easier and more efficient.

Camcode joins the world in thanking Norman Joseph Woodland for his accomplishments in automatic data capture through bar code labels.

Tags:

Aluminum Bar Code Label, bar code solutions, Barcode Labels, Durable Bar Code Labels

No Comments

Cash Me If You Can (Infographic)

December 11, 2012
Posted by Nicole Pontius in New Technology

Counterfeiting is big business across the globe. In fact, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the value of counterfeit goods that crossed international borders in 2007 was more than $250 billion. And that’s not just innocuous items like currency, clothes or electronics. Counterfeiters are faking items that can have serious health and safety consequences, from medication, to pesticides, to airplane parts. For example, the FAA estimating some 520,000 counterfeit parts end up on planes each year. Counterfeiters are even targeting the U.S. defense industry, forging everything from body armor to routers, and costing semiconductor companies more than $7.5 billion annually, all while endangering the lives of soldiers and civilians.

We wanted to take a closer look at the counterfeiting shadow economy and the technologies implemented to try and thwart counterfeiters. So we dug in, compiled data and research, and put together this infographic called “Cash Me if You Can.” If you like it, please share it with others on social media. You also can add the infographic on your website using the HTML code below. We ask that you credit us, Camcode the leader in asset ID tags, as the source. Learn more about anti-counterfeiting measures in the aerospace and defense industry.

Add This Infographic to Your Site

Durable Asset Tag Solutions from Camcode:

Full Infographic Text Transcription:

CASH ME IF YOU CAN

Call Outs:

By 2015, ICC expects the value of counterfeit goods globally to exceed $1.7 trillion. That’s over 2% of the world’s total current economic output.
Estimate that counterfeit goods now worth more than 5 per cent of world trade.

1. Types of counterfeits

CopyCash

○ Counterfeit money the U.S. government has removed from circulation: $103 million (2008) to $261 million (2011)

○ Investigators estimated that only 10 percent of dollar counterfeiters are arrested in the country.

■ 2% of all cash currently in circulation is counterfeit

■ Most U.S.-made counterfeit cash by crystal meth and marijuana dealers

○ Increased cash seized by U.S. government

■ $261 million in fake money from circulation,

■ The United States Secret Service seized $182 Million of counterfeit dollars in 2009, an increase from the $79 Million that was seized in 2008.

○ Counterfeiting made easy:

■ 63 percent of the counterfeit money produced using digital printing today (1/13/12), compared with less than 1 percent in 1995

Identity Crisis

○ Made in China

■ in 2011, US Customs and Border Protection at O’Hare airport in Chicago seized over 1,700 counterfeit driver’s licenses in just six months.

○ A study in 2009 of American university students found that 17% of freshmen and 32% of seniors owned a false ID.

○ average price of a fake ID is $100 (but can go up to $7,000)

Its a bird, its a plane, its counterfeit aerospace and defense technology

○ counterfeit parts have been found in helicopters, surveillance and cargo planes

■ 1800 cases

■ 1 million counterfeit parts

70% from Chinese companies

■ The FAA has estimated that some 520,000 counterfeit parts make their way into planes each year.

○ Aerospace and defense products are generally designed for a long life cycle.

■ Example: B52’s from 1955 have expected lifespan to 2040

■ Replacement parts are limited and manufacturers change

○ increased counterfeit electronics parts for aerospace and defense

■ from 3,369 incidents in 2005 to more than 8,644 incidents in 2008.

○ Effects of Counterfeit Replacement parts

■ industry effects; counterfeiting costs U.S. semiconductor companies over $7.5 billion yearly, and has resulted in the loss of 11,000 jobs

■ Seatbelt clasps

Seatbelt parts were made from a grade of aluminum that was inferior to specified DOD requirements. The parts were found to be deficient when the seatbelts were accidentally dropped, and they broke.

■ Routers

The Navy, as well as other DoD and government agencies, purchased counterfeit network components — including routers — that had high failure rates and the potential to shut down entire networks.

■ Body armor

The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) procured non-Kevlar material that was misrepresented as Kevlar. The DLA discovered the discrepancy during testing.

Bad Goods: Top 10 Counterfeit Goods
- Apparel and accessories accounted for over 50 percent of the counterfeit goods seized by U.S Customs and Border Control.

10 Electronics

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $39 million

b0 Retail value: $101.2 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 22%

d0 Most counterfeited: smart phones, tablet computers and DVD or music players.

20 Shoes

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $25.3 million

b0 Retail value: $97 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 14%

30 Drugs

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $16.9 million

b0 Retail value: $25.2 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 9%

d0 Most- Counterfeited: Viagra

40 CDs and DVDs (move over internet piracy)

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $15.6 million

b0 Retail value: $35 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 9%

50 Clothes

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $14.8 million

b0 Retail value: $126.3 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 8%

60 Perfume

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $9.5 million

b0 Retail value: $51 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 5%

70 Watches

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $8.4 million

b0 Retail value: $112.7 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 5%

80 Cigarettes (due to tobacco taxes)

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $8.2 million

b0 Retail value: $10.9 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 5%

90 Computer Hardware

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $7.8 million

b0 Retail value: $22.6 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 4%

100Toys and Games

a0 Value of counterfeits seized: $7.6 million

b0 Retail value: $26.9 million

c0 Percentage of total seizures: 4%

2. Which countries produce the most/where piracy is most prevalent

Peru produce the most counterfeit US dollars in the world.

○ Between 09-10, over $30 Million fake dollars were seized by police in Peru

In terms of copyright materials being pirated

○ business software $5.69 billion lost(almost half of lost revenue)

○ records and music $2.44 billion lost

○ pirated entertainment software $1.74 billion lost

○ motion pictures $1.64 billion lost

2012 Top suppliers of counterfeit goods in the U.S. include:

(1) China, (source of 80% of counterfeit goods seized at U.S. borders) Chinese authorities confiscated 38.36 Million counterfeit goods and pirated materials across the country in 2011.

(2) Russia,

(3) India,

(4) Pakistan

(5) Uruguay

(6) Korea and

(7) Philiippines

Top consumers of counterfeit goods include:

(1) China

(2) Russia

(3) Latin America (esp. Brazil)

(4) Greece

(5) Italy

3. ANTI COUNTERFEITING TECHNOLOGIES

Optical Technology

○ Holograms (as seen on driver’s licenses)

Smart cards

○ 24% increase in sales in SmartCards from ‘11 to ‘12

Biotechnology

○ Use of monoclonal antibodies to recognize certain antigens or marker chemicals.

○ The marker chemicals are added in tiny concentrations to products (such as pharmaceuticals or liquor) and are detected by using a test kit containing the specific antibodies

Chemical technologies: Inks

○ light-reactive and heat-reactive inks

○ Invisible inks – Inks invisible to the naked eye can be read by bar-code scanners (used in fragrance and pharmaceutical industries)

Microscopic tags – constructed from up to ten different colored layers.

○ The sequence of colors denotes the unique code of the tag and the total number of possible codes ranges up to 4.5 billion.

○ The tags can be applied to both product and packaging in a number of ways, including incorporation in clear varnish.

4. Economic and social impact of counterfeiting

○ Financial effects for industries:

Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development Category

Estimated loss in Billions of Dollars

(2008)

Projected loss in Billions of Dollars

(2015)

Internationally traded counterfeit and pirated products

$285–$360

$770–$960

Domestically produced and consumed counterfeit and pirated products

$140–$215

$370–$570

Digitally pirated products

$30–$75

$80–$240

Subtotal

$455–$650

$1,220–$1,770

Broader economy-wide effects (tax revenue, costs of crime, FDI flows)

$125

$125+

Employment losses (G20 Economies)

2.5 million

2.5 million+

○ Other downsides to counterfeiting:

■ Public at large because it discourages inventiveness;

■ Cost of enforcement;

■ Job losses;

○ the consumer (inferior quality + health/safety concerns + higher prices)

■ Almost a third of medicines sold in developing countries may be counterfeit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

■ In comparison, fewer than 1 percent of drugs sold in industrialized countries such as the U.S., Australia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and the European Union are fake.

■ Fake tuberculosis and malaria drugs alone are estimated to kill 700,000 people a year.

■ 21 sub-Saharan African nations discovered that 55 percent of anti-malarial drugs failed chemical testing due to insufficient (or complete lack) of the active ingredients

■ 7 southeast Asian nations, the survey says 35 percent failed chemical testing, nearly half were incorrectly packaged, and another 36 percent had no active ingredients at all

■ Law enforcement in Zambia seized fake shampoo containing acid.

■ Body-builders and others buying steroids on the black market in Australia were sold repackaged livestock steroids as human steroids.

■ Diseased pig meat was used in counterfeit cans of pork luncheon meat in China.

■ In India, counterfeits of drugs were used to fight antibodies in Rh-D negative mothers.

○ Governments lose out on unpaid taxes and incur large costs in enforcing rights

○ Increasing concern that counterfeiting is related to other criminal activity

■ 18 of the Sept. 11th hijackers had over 30 counterfeited, valid licenses and state issued IDs.

■ two men allegedly behind a bus attack in Bulgaria had counterfeit Michigan driver’s licenses. The bombing killed five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian guide.

Tags:

anti-counterfeiting, counterfeiting

3 Comments

Pros and Cons of Different Anti-Counterfeit Marking Methods

December 10, 2012
Posted by Rob Leibrandt in New Technology, Services

Counterfeit products in the defense and aerospace industries can put people at risk and cost organizations, companies and tax payers billions of dollars each year. As the introduction of counterfeit parts into global supply chains continues to rise, the need for anti-counterfeiting techniques becomes more necessary. This is particularly true where commercial products are integrated into defense and aerospace systems.

New technologies and methods are being developed to help combat counterfeit parts in all industries, including the defense and aerospace industries. It’s important to understand which technique is most appropriate when considering environmental conditions, sector practices, existing or new infrastructure requirements, and marking capability with in those industries.

DNA Marking is one the newest sets of marking and identification solutions that is being considered in anti-counterfeit techniques. DNA Marking is an autonomous method, meaning it can be confirmed without the need for external information traceability. This approach requires a tamper-proof unique mark that is not able to be duplicated. Other types of autonomous marks include Nanocodes™ or Nanotubes, Molybdenum Ionic Film, Taggants, surface mapping, and unique material composition.

Another marking method is reliant on external information to confirm authenticity. This requires a durable and tamper-resistant mark based on an International Standards approach to establishing Unique Identification (ISO 15459) through a Unique Item Identifier (UII). With reliant marks, authenticity of an item is confirmed by relating the UII to supply chain data, which provides a traceable and auditable assurance of authenticity. Reliant marks may include both overt and covert or hidden features to increase item authenticity. Examples of reliant marks include direct part marking, Metalphoto^® Labels, and other established marking methods.

Both autonomous and reliant marking are important techniques to the future of anti-counterfeiting in the defense industry. The following is a description of some advantages and disadvantages to both autonomous and reliant approaches to marking, identification and authenticity.

Autonomous

The advantages of autonomous marking include production of real-time results and tamper-resistant qualities that enhance authenticity. In addition, autonomous marking does not require access to outside data sources to confirm authenticity.

However, there are drawbacks to autonomous marking. First is the cost. Application costs are potentially high in both low and high volumes. Infrastructure costs are taken on at each point where identification is authenticated. And since there may be no visual cues to further enhance security, authenticity must be assumed unless the user has the technical data and expertise to locate such marking. The trouble with these approaches is they are not determinable by existing infrastructure and are not accepted as common practice within industry.

Durability is another disadvantage to autonomous marking. Autonomous marks such as DNA, Nanocodes and taggants are all “added” to the item and are not considered “inherent”. It has not been determined how durable a DNA mark can be, and it is likely poor in high temperature, high abrasion settings or when in contact with lubricants, chemical cleaners, etc.

Another disadvantage is the limited availability of both application and “reading” devices for autonomous marking. Furthermore, it will require new work instructions to identify location and training for handling new equipment.

Current mandatory U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) policy requirements do not recognize DNA marking as satisfying the requirement for item level traceability, nor does DNA marking meet the ISO requirements of ISO 15459 for establishing a UII. The DoD’s Unique Identification requirements include DODI 4151.19, “Serialized Item Management”; DODD 8320.03, “Unique Identification”; DODI 8320.04, “Item Unique Identification (IUID)”; and MIL-STD-130, “Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property”. The only data carrier accepted for compliance to these requirements is an ECC 200 Data Matrix symbol encoded in accordance with ISO 15434.

Reliant

Cost efficiencies are one advantage of reliant marking. These systems are built on existing marking infrastructure with time-proven technologies, and use marking approaches that are currently applied to most products that have any traceability requirement, which could include micro electronics and similar items.

Durability is known and proven in reliant marking. Some of these methods can also leverage both visual and covert features throughout the lifecycle.

Reliant marking reduces training requirements and process changes because it relies on proven technologies and lifetime durability. The mandatory DoD policy requirements already exist for items which require item level traceability as stated above, and require reliant marks.

One disadvantage to reliant marking is that it only provides near real-time results with reasonable communications or a local cache option. In addition, it does have a marking signature versus fully covert systems, like those found in Autonomous marking.

Conclusion

The defense industry’s legitimate anti-counterfeiting needs must consider a variety of marking methods. While there are considerable advantages to an autonomous marking approach, it is not a sufficient marking method for defense suppliers to manage providers, nor is it adequate to meet the more broad needs of a diverse supply chain. Yet, Autonomous marking approaches should be considered as additive marks where appropriate to provide an additional level of authenticity. For example, to provide a covert mark for authentication when suspicion of counterfeiting is identified.

Adjustments to existing reliant marking techniques can provide both visual and covert/hidden authenticity cues, while meeting existing industrial marking requirements and supporting mandatory DoD and NATO IUID/UID Requirements. For example, the photographic quality resolution of Metalphoto and the sub-surface image that results from the Metalphoto process is nearly impossible to fully replicate with other marking methods. Thus, a surface-printed counterfeit metal label would be easy to spot. Reliant techniques also limit cost impacts on both application and infrastructure required by leveraging those existing requirements. The knowledge, practices, tools, and software are already in place to accomplish this work.

Additional industry dialogue is needed on a more achievable and inter-operable approach, as well as a comprehensive study of the alternative approaches described above and others that may exist. Camcode is committed to provide more information on this topic as we continue to participate in the advancement of anti-counterfeiting measures.

Tags:

anti-counterfeit, anti-counterfeiting measures, UID anti-counterfeit

2 Comments

Categories
- Asset Tags (14)
- Barcode Labels (10)
- CMMS Asset Tags (5)
- LDAR Tags (2)
- Metalphoto Barcode Labels (1)
- New Technology (3)
- Other (1)
- Services (1)
- Traffic Sign Asset Tags (4)
- UDI for Medical Devices (2)
- UID Labels (20)
- Utility Asset Tags (4)
- Warehouse Labels (8)
Search
Recent Posts

It’s Already Time for Schools to Plan for Next Year

For schools, colleges and universities, “next year” is right around the corner. Though most schools are still finishing up the … More »

Posted on May 7, 2013

Latest Update on the 2013 UID Forum

I’ve had a number of inquires about the UID Forum and have heard lots of rumors. One such rumor is that … More »

Posted on April 4, 2013

How UID Can Add Value to Business Processes

There is value in Item Unique Identification (IUID) beyond simple compliance with Mil-Std-130. Utilizing UID Labels, organizations can improve asset … More »

Posted on March 27, 2013
ARCHIVES

Contact Us

Camcode Division of Horizons Incorporated 18531 South Miles Road Cleveland, Ohio 44128

Tel:: 800-627-3917
Fax:: 216-587-4719

What's Next?

Keep up to date on the latest from Camcode

Follow Us On...

Subscribe to our newsletter to learn about the latest product solutions for your industry!

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Sitemap

Blog

Tags:

The IUID Vision Going Forward

Tags:

The Top 25 Supply Chain Management College Degree Programs

Tags:

Emergence of the Collaborative IUID Solution

Tags:

Department of Defense (DoD) Item Unique Identification (IUID) at a Glance

Historical Genesis of Item Identification

Imperatives for Process Improvements

Initiation of Total Life Cycle System Management

Tags:

Tags:

Tags:

Tags:

CASH ME IF YOU CAN

Tags:

Autonomous

Reliant

Conclusion

Tags:

Categories

Search

Recent Posts

ARCHIVES