A consumer products company needed to move a four-cavity tool from China to Malaysia without disrupting supply. Capturing the full process before the move, matching the receiving press and building bridge stock achieved approval in one run, with every Cpk above 1.7 and three production days lost instead of 15.
Key numbers
A consumer products company needed to move a four-cavity tool from a moulder in China to a new supplier in Malaysia. Its last tool transfer had gone badly: the tool arrived, the new moulder spent weeks trying to reproduce the parts, three requalification runs were needed and 15 production days were lost. Capability on some characteristics dropped after the move and took months to recover.
The situation
The tool produced a high-volume part with four critical characteristics: snap height, hole position, overall length and flatness. Supply could not be interrupted, and the customer expected capability to be maintained after the transfer.
What changed
This time, the transfer was treated as a process to manage, not just a tool to ship:
- Full process documentation captured before the tool left the original supplier: scientific moulding data including viscosity and gate freeze studies, machine-independent process settings, cooling layout and flow rates, material drying conditions and the original capability data.
- The receiving press was matched to the tool by shot size, clamp force and injection capability, so the documented process could be reproduced.
- Bridge stock was built before the move to cover supply during transit, installation and requalification.
- The tool was inspected and maintained before shipping, and its condition recorded.
- A single requalification run was planned against the original capability data, with clear acceptance criteria.
The cost case for the move itself had been made using the total cost comparison approach described in our tooling cost comparison.
What the data showed
After the documented transfer, every critical characteristic exceeded Cpk 1.7: snap height 1.72, hole position 1.81, overall length 1.95 and flatness 1.77. On the previous transfer, the lowest Cpk had been 1.21.
Results
The tool was approved after one requalification run, instead of three. Only three production days were lost, compared with 15 on the earlier transfer, and the bridge stock covered them. Capability was maintained from the first run.
Why it worked
The new moulder did not have to rediscover the process. It received a documented process, with machine-independent settings that could be translated to its press, and a target defined by the original capability data. Matching the press removed a common source of failure. Bridge stock removed the pressure to rush.
Lessons for your operation
- Capture the full process before a tool moves, not after problems appear.
- Use machine-independent settings, so the process can be reproduced on another press.
- Match the receiving press to the tool's requirements.
- Build bridge stock to cover the transfer and requalification.
- Requalify against the original capability data, with clear acceptance criteria.
