Customer Property - 7.5.4

[Phil Schoner]

customer property

I am working with a company that makes molded rubber products. They make molds for these products. The customer owns the molds. This seems like customer property - 7.5.4.

The customer never sees or possesses the molds. They become damaged through normal wear & tear and are cleaned and repaired without notifying the customer. New molds may be made to improve production efficiency, not paid for by the customer. The customer never specifies how the molds are to be designed, or any specifications for the molds, only the specifications of the molded product.

Does all of 7 apply to these molds, or only 7.5.4?

If just 7.5.4 applies, does the customer have to be notified every time a mold is worked on? They really don't want to know and have no expertise in this area.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Re: customer property

Hi Phil,

Phil Schoner said:
---X---
This seems like customer property - 7.5.4.
---X---

Yes, absolutley.

Phil Schoner said:
---X---
Does all of 7 apply to these molds, or only 7.5.4?
---X---

The mould, no matter if it's owned by the customer or not, is a part of your process and thereby your normal procedures. 7.5.4 just adds its contents to the procedures you should normally follow.

Phil Schoner said:
---X---
does the customer have to be notified every time a mold is worked on?
---X---

You and the customer should agree on how to handle that question. Maybe as part of the contract?

/Claes

 

[energy]

Changes?

I'm curious how many times you have to make changes for improvement. Does it affect the contour of the final product, at all? Obviously, the Customer approves.

Does the Customer continually help defray the cost of the new tools that wear out by some financial arrangement? If there was only an original tool supplied, with no further compensation from them, except more orders, it may be considered your tool. If the Company insists on having their tool back, in case they decide to switch Suppliers, make your own and stuff theirs in a box marked "Customer Product". Continue to supply acceptable product to your Customer and keep the changes to yourself. It appears that you may makes changes for better molding properties and in no way affect the final product to the point that the Customer may object. As Claes has said, communicate your concern to the Customer and react accordingly.
In a previous life, we charged the Customer for tooling wear, insuring the Customer owned it. If they wouldn't, very rare, you make your own tooling and charge a little more per piece. JMHO

 

[Bill Ryan - 2007]

As a die cast/machine house, 99% of our dies are customer owned. Other than the one or two customers that prefer to pay for any new tooling, we are responsible for the "condition" of the die. We do not notify customers of "normal tool maintenance activities" (welding, grinding, replacing cores, etc.) as long as it doesn't violate a part print condition. All replacement tooling monies are covered in the piece price. This is just the way we are set up. If the customer should wish to replace us with a different supplier, they expect (deservedly so, IMO) a "runnable" tool to give to the new supplier (depending on the life/condition of the current tool, among other things).

Hope that helps some and, yes, I agree with Claes - all of clause "7" (as it pertains to your business) would apply.

Bill

 

[BobD]

We are a ductile iron foundry and own the majority of the patterns ourselves. Irregardless of ownership, all patterns are controlled per 7.5.4. Like Bill from Wisconsin, we are also responsible for the condition and maintenance of all patterns (ours & the customers). Replacement monies for "our" tooling is covered in the piece part price. Replacement monies for "customer owned" tooling is negotiated when replacement is necessary. This in itself has caused problems when the customer will not spend additional money for one reason or another. When this happens, scrap rates go up and we wind up eating it.

On customer owned tooling, the customer is free to pull the pattern and move it elsewhere. However, on tooling owned by us, he can move the job but he will not get the pattern.

 

[db]

customer owned molds?

Molds and dies are a rather funny thing. Normally, the customer either provides them or is charged for them. In any rate, are they yours, or are they the customer's? Part of the answer is as Claes stated:

You and the customer should agree on how to handle that question. Maybe as part of the contract?

Another way to tell is to ask if the customer can pull the molds and dies with or without notice. If the customer has to pay you for the dies they take, then they are yours. If the customer can just up and take them, then they are probably the customer's.

The standard is clear that the customer must be notified when they are lost, damaged or unsuitable for use. One could argue that normal wear is not included and any normal maintenance does not require recording and reporting. But once again, go to Claes' advice. Your agreement with the customer may give you a great deal of latitude here, or not. After all...what constitutes damage? etc.

 

[Phil Schoner]

Having read your comments and thought this over I will write in the manual under this section that normal repairs will not necessitate customer notification. I also will state that if the molds are to be returned to the customer, they will be restored to their original condition. I may also show this as an exclusion under scope in the manual. I am pretty sure that this will fly. Heck, if you say it up front and it sounds reasonable and its pretty much industry practice, ISO ought not make you do it. Are you with me people?

More info on these molds:

They get sand blasted to clean them regularly (prior to use). This would definitely not warrant notification. Sometimes pins get broken off and need to be replaced, notification not done for this either.

Biggest issue is when cavities are ruined, as when a tool is left in the mold and the press closes on it. Consequence of this is lost productivity as this cavity is no longer used and each cycle of the press produces one less part. Molds can have 1-100 cavities typically. The only party that suffers here is the producer, and we state that the molds will be restored prior to their return.

If we decide to repair the cavity to restore our productivity, we foot the bill and the customer still owns the mold.

Sometimes we ask the customer to buy a second mold to meet his increased orders. If he agrees, great. Sometimes we split the cost. If he refuses this, we may still decide to make another mold, but this one belongs to us.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

I think you've explained how you meet the requirement, and it sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I don't think you'll need an exclusion.

What do the rest of you say about that?

/Claes

 

[BobD]

Hi Phil,

You may want to rethink your statement about returning molds back to their "original" condition when they are to be returned to the customer. It is our experience with molds & patterns that after so many impressions (>150K), they can sometimes be worn to beyond repair. There is a "life expectancy" on molds. Do you keep track of how many impressions are made with that mold? We base repair and replacement on the number of impressions made against that mold. Suggest you modify your statement to something like, "If the molds are to be returned to the customer, they will be returned in an acceptable product condition." You need to leave yourself some wiggle room.