IUID Blog

Since the inception of IUID policy back in 2003, the debate over encoding syntax with UID has raged on. Early in the adoption, what I’ll call the “engineering mindset” won the debate, which prompted many to choose construct 2 as their format of choice. Now that almost 8 years have passed, the practicality and direct experience involved in part marking has pushed construct 1 directly into the planning psyche. Both constructs are viable options for encoding the UID however this post will act as a recap of the two approaches to MIL STD 130 and UID encoding. (Read More)

As I write this entry, I’m traveling back from a very large US manufacturer and supplier to the Department of Defense. I’ll remain vague in describing the company to protect the innocent, however, it’s safe to say that they are in a business that requires an extraordinary amount of precision and discipline. As we prepared for the site visit to this company, it became obvious to me the commonality between implementing IUID (Item Unique Identification, although I’ll refer to it as UID going forward) and a manufacturing operation much like the one we were about to visit. What’s the common thread? Making critical decisions based upon precision data. In their business, accuracy is critical. Low to zero tolerances are the norm. Fast forward to the meeting and our discussions quickly moved beyond the UID compliance obligation, DFARs 252.211-7003, and MIL STD 130N discussions and into benefits of UID to their organization. I was impressed with how quickly this organization acknowledged UID benefits to precisely and accurately tracking parts through manufacturing, production, final assembly as well as back through maintenance and repair cycles. All facets of the company were represented including materials management, maintenance, logistics, supply chain, contracts, and IT. Without question, this represented a very diverse group to tackle the UID initiative laid out by DoD.  (Read More)

Force Protection Industries Inc. takes the basics of mine protection to the extreme with its heavy armored Buffalo® vehicles. When it became necessary to track these vehicles and their spare parts per MIL STD 130 and MIL STD 129, Force Protection turned to a team of experts at Seagull Scientific, A2B Tracking Solutions and The Danby Group. To learn more about how UID compliance was achieved, click here to watch the Saving Heroes Lives video.  (Read More)

The Department of the Navy (DON) released their final UID Marking Guide, Applying Data Matrix Identification Symbols to Legacy Parts, 23 November 2010. This technical guide is a primer that provides background on MIL STD 130 requirements as well as considerations when selecting an appropriate marking solution. (Read More)

As you can see from the two links below, UID stands at the core of problem solving in industries such as pharmaceuticals and food distribution. Counterfeit drugs and unsafe food are very real concerns that affect all of us. On the one hand there are the obvious health and safety issues, but an even more pervasive problem is the cost to combat and recall bogus products. Counterfeit products also abound in the fashion, tobacco, software and entertainment industries. (Read More)

The Air Force AIT PMO has been exceptionally responsive to the challenges of marking legacy equipment throughout the world. Here at A2B we are proud to be in the middle of that effort. Our Air Force part marking teams are currently deployed to 26 bases, with another 221 on the horizon over the next two years. Through the Air Force Enterprise Barcode Service (EBS) we are supplying all required UID labels and plates for this effort, utilizing virtually all available label and plate materials and technologies such as laser etching and photo anodizing. (Read More)

Today I am flying to Orlando for the semi-annual UID Forum. I will also be meeting with various branches of the military as well as members of the UID Suppliers Alliance. We anticipate a significant show as attendance has swollen to over 850. Each of those attendees has been charged with the implementation of MIL STD 130 - the DoD’s UID, in one way or another. (Read More)

There has been a lot of discussion around the use of virtual UIIs when submitting data to the UID Registry. Indeed some areas of the military have suggested use of virtual UIIs only as a last resort. I agree, but with one important exception - GFP that is being managed under contract. (Read More)

There is a rule of thumb in software development that for every $1 spent to develop original software code an additional $3 is spent to maintain the software. In other words, software that costs $2 million to develop will eventually cost $6 million. There are many reasons for this, including routine maintenance, but modifications that are required due to user requests as well as operating system and infrastructure changes are to be expected. (Read More)

Although the DoD and the UID policy office have achieved significant momentum in implementing UID, there are still plenty of hurdles to overcome. One of them is bad UIDs. I’m not talking about choosing the wrong barcode symbology. I’m not talking about the quality of the UID 2D Data Matrix image. I’m talking about encoding to MIL-STD-130. (Read More)