Sheet metal forming simulation technology - who should pay?

We have returned from a recent visit to the sheet metal tooling industry in Melbourne, Australia and have come across an interesting topic. Who should pay for sheet metal forming technology?

After speaking to numerous toolmakers it became clear that the perceived “additional” cost of forming simulation technology, was a hot topic. But let me clarify the term “additional” first. Whilst it is true, a sheet metal forming simulation will attract an upfront service fee, it is also true (proven with research and industry experience) that savings at the end of the tooling project are typically many times over the initial cost. Now back to the topic.

Many toolmakers thought that their customer (for example, a Tier 1 stamping plant) should pay, since the tool they are building ends up in their customer’s stamping facility. Others proposed that the OEM might be responsible for the cost. After all, it is the OEM who benefits at the end of the day, if toolmakers use the same technology they use, right? And there were toolmakers who quietly accepted that they might be the ones who put the money up front, which would certainly be the case for any other technology they might purchase and use in their tool designs.

Cash flow is always a sensitive issue in the tooling industry and often the tiers at the bottom of the supply chain suffer the most. So who should pay for simulation technology? Let me conclude by saying this: At the end of the day, EVERYONE benefits from sheet metal forming simulation technology: the toolmaker reduces time and costs on the shop floor, the tier 1 supplier gets a quality process and the OEM can rely on their suppliers to produce quality parts.

Who should pay? Does it really matter? We all wear the consequences if no one pays for the technology.

EasyStamping.com © 2012
Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy