{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Counterfeit Parts and the 1,000 Risk Priority Number

Real-world case studies

Credit: Melusina Parkin

William A. Levinson
Tue, 12/05/2017 - 12:03
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

The recent revelation that a major steel maker falsified test data,1 and similar scandals at other companies,2 underscores the menace of counterfeit parts, or what a 1987 Senate hearing called COME UPS: COunterfeit MatErials and Unauthorized Product Substitutions. The history of COME UPS shows the potentially catastrophic outcomes for which the manufacturers involved can be held civilly, and criminally if a government contract is involved, responsible.

ADVERTISEMENT

Tsar Peter I of Russia recognized this issue almost 300 years ago when, in January 1723, he issued a decree that began by ordering a factory owner to be flogged and banished to hard labor for selling defective small arms to the Russian Army. A foreman alderman was to be flogged and banished to Azov for putting trademarks on faulty muskets, i.e., passing products he knew to be nonconforming. Peter went on to command that, if a stoppage (i.e., failure to fire) took place during combat, those responsible would be subject to punishments ranging from flogging to loss of their Sunday vodka rations.3

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by Alan Metzel on Tue, 12/05/2017 - 09:24

Counterfeit parts

Unfortunately, as a society, we have not seen fit to make people personally responsible for these events. In most instances, the companies involved will have made enough money on substandard products that the fines and penalties can be considered as minor issues.

Too exacerbate the problem, unscrupuous manufacturerers create a pricing structure that can force quality organizations out of business. The old saying "Bad money drives out good!" is equally applicable to product.

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us