Daniel Stanton and Mark Manning

Bio: Daniel Stanton, PMP, CSCP, SCPro, MSCE, MCP, MBA, M Eng is a global executive in supply chain management and project leadership. He has worked with Caterpillar, the U.S. Navy, APICS, MHI, and several smaller firms. He’s also been a professor at Bradley University, Jack Welch Management Institute, and National American University. He is the author of the Bestselling “Supply Chain Management For Dummies” and President and Co-Founder of SecureMarking.

Bio: Mark Manning is the Founder & CEO of iTRACE Technologies, a Silicon Valley company specializing in supply chain security. Mark is a serial entrepreneur and has been involved with brand protection and product security for over 15 years, delivering technology solutions to some of supply chain's biggest problems. Mark studied Engineering and Telecommunications in London, England and currently resides in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Abstract: Provenance management plays a critical role in protecting supply chains from counterfeit parts and materials. Preventing supply chain contamination requires a comprehensive approach to managing the provenance for each part; one that balances cost and complexity of solutions against the potential costs and risks of counterfeit components. The authors propose four primary elements that need to be addressed in order to develop and deploy an effective provenance management strategy: serialization, tamper protection, marking, and data management. There are a range of techniques and technologies available to address each of these four elements. But choosing which options are most appropriate or necessary, and when / where in the supply chain to use them, can be challenging. This presentation, will provide a framework for developing an integrated parts provenance management strategy that aligns with the needs of all of the supply chain stakeholders, and helps to make effective trade-offs between cost and risk. We’ll examine specific examples of counterfeit prevention solutions that failed to provide the intended results, and use the framework to illustrate how the failures could have been predicted, and how they could have been avoided.