🇺🇸United States

Lost press time from searching for missing dies and tools

2 verified sources

Definition

Presses and converting lines sit idle while operators and tool crib staff search for the correct die, plate, or cutting tool stored on pallets, along walls, or in remote cribs. Changeovers stretch far beyond planned time, throttling available capacity and throughput.

Key Findings

  • Financial Impact: $5,000–$20,000 per month per line in lost contribution margin for mid‑size plants, based on chronic changeover delays and downtime described by automated storage vendors and CMMS providers (time loss scaled by typical press hourly rates).
  • Frequency: Daily
  • Root Cause: Dies and tooling are stored in ad‑hoc locations (floor, pallets, distant racks) with no digital location tracking, so each changeover involves manual searching, forklift moves, and guesswork to find, stage, and return tools.

Why This Matters

This pain point represents a significant opportunity for B2B solutions targeting Packaging and Containers Manufacturing.

Affected Stakeholders

Press operators, Setup/changeover technicians, Tool crib attendants, Production supervisors, Scheduling/planning managers

Deep Analysis (Premium)

Financial Impact

$3,000–$15,000 per month per line from changeover-related downtime, rising toward the upper end during peak seasons. • $3,000–$15,000 per month per line in lost contribution margin, depending on seasonality and line rates, from unplanned downtime and overtime. • $4,000–$18,000 per month per line in idle press time and additional labor and forklift usage.

Unlock to reveal

Current Workarounds

Die Cutting Operator walks facility searching pallets/walls, checking handwritten logs • Manual die crib log books, paper sign-out sheets, tool transfer via notes, occasional spreadsheets, verbal communication • Manual order tracking, phone calls to production to check status, promise dates without accurate changeover time data, escalations to management

Unlock to reveal

Get Solutions for This Problem

Full report with actionable solutions

$99$39
  • Solutions for this specific pain
  • Solutions for all 15 industry pains
  • Where to find first clients
  • Pricing & launch costs
Get Solutions Report

Methodology & Sources

Data collected via OSINT from regulatory filings, industry audits, and verified case studies.

Evidence Sources:

Related Business Risks

Duplicate die/tooling purchases from poor inventory visibility

$100,000 per year (documented in one precision manufacturer’s first-year savings after fixing the issue)

Excess tooling inventory and overstocked materials due to poor die/tool data

$50,000–$200,000 per year in avoidable carrying cost and write‑offs for mid‑size shops, inferred from ERP vendors’ emphasis on overstock waste and profitability impact for tool and die operations.

Scrap and rework from worn or poorly maintained dies

$10,000–$50,000 per month in scrap and rework for mid‑size operations relying on manual tracking, based on CMMS vendors reporting that proactive die maintenance reduces defects and downtime significantly.

Unplanned downtime from reactive die and tooling maintenance

$5,000–$30,000 per month per facility in lost output and overtime premiums for reactive maintenance, consistent with CMMS providers’ claims that proactive die maintenance reduces downtime costs significantly.

Under-quoting and unbilled die/tooling costs in packaging jobs

$50,000–$250,000 per year in margin leakage for a mid‑size specialty packaging manufacturer, extrapolating from ERP providers’ warnings about underquoted jobs when tooling and inventory data are disconnected.

Delayed billing when die/tooling usage is not captured to jobs

$10,000–$40,000 in incremental working capital tied up at any time for a plant with high die‑intensive work, inferred from ERP vendors’ emphasis on linking tooling and work orders for faster, cleaner billing.

Request Deep Analysis

🇺🇸 Be first to access this market's intelligence