Mould and die maintenance is not tracked
List mould and die IDs with cycles since their last service. Use what you find to change the way this work is handled this week.
This is one cause behind related problems such as Power cuts and voltage drops damage machines. Moulds and dies are used until they fail, with no shot or stroke count. The checks below concentrate on this cause rather than repeating the full symptom diagnosis. At the machine log and service record, the maintenance in-charge can usually see the earliest warning. Moulds and dies are used until they fail, with no shot or stroke count. Check it before staff spend time correcting work that has already moved on.
What it looks like
- The maintenance in-charge has to search the machine log and service record before answering a routine question.
- Moulds and dies are used until they fail, with no shot or stroke count.
- Staff cannot locate the fault report, maintenance work order and restart clearance for the latest case.
- People spot the gap after an avoidable stoppage returns when the same machine is needed most.
- The open case has no documented owner, due date or proof of closure.
Why it happens
The specific failure is left unchecked. Moulds and dies are used until they fail, with no shot or stroke count. If there is no recorded owner for that condition, the effect travels to the next team.
The work and its evidence move separately. Operators notice abnormal conditions but the observation may never enter a machine-specific history.
A later hand-off exposes the gap. Repairs can restore production temporarily while the repeated failure mode remains untested.
The less obvious cause: A control may exist on paper but still fail in practice. Test whether someone actually performs this check: inspect recurring flash, burrs or sticking against tool history.
Find the first failed hand-off before changing staff targets. A completed register alone cannot prove that physical work happened.
What to check first
- List mould and die IDs with cycles since their last service. Compare dates, quantities and references. Mark an unconfirmed difference as unverified. Finish the first pass in under 30 minutes and name the missing source if needed.
- Inspect recurring flash, burrs or sticking against tool history. Record the affected item or party and the person who can verify the detail. Finish the first pass in under 30 minutes and name the missing source if needed.
- Check whether tool changes are recorded when moved across presses. Mark each exception open, waiting for evidence or resolved, with a named next owner. Finish the first pass in under 30 minutes and name the missing source if needed.
How to fix it
- Start with one live case. List mould and die IDs with cycles since their last service. Keep the source reference before changing the record.
- Make the control explicit. Plan service by usage and observed condition, not memory. Put the rule in the register or sheet that staff already use.
- Set a second guardrail. Record shots, damage, repair and acceptance under each tool ID. Only competent staff should isolate, repair and restart equipment. Operating decisions cannot override electrical, pressure or guarding requirements.
- Assign the next decision. The maintenance in-charge records the action and its due date. A separately authorised person signs off changes affecting money, safety or customer terms.
- Review the open list. Start with items affecting today or tomorrow. Keep third-party commitments separate from completed actions.
- Check whether the rule holds. For four weeks, count repeat stoppages and maintenance actions open past their planned date. Reopen repeat cases and identify where the control failed.
Copy this machine condition and breakdown log into a register or sheet:
| Reference / item | What went wrong | Evidence checked | Action owner | Promised date | Status / decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P068 (example) | mould die maintenance untracked | List mould and die IDs with cycles since their last service | Maintenance in-charge | Set at review | Open |
Retain the source reference and limit access to authorised staff.
A worked example
Illustrative example only. A mould runs an illustrative 55,000 shots without an inspection and produces ₹26,000 of scrap. Start by locating the source that would verify these amounts or quantities. The maintenance in-charge records the exact exception, gives it an owner and checks the next relevant event. This example shows how to structure the decision. It does not claim that a business achieved a saving or avoided a loss.
How you know it is fixed
- Completeness: Count repeat stoppages and maintenance actions open past their planned date at the same time every week. Record the count and the oldest item, rather than just saying things are better.
- Timeliness: Check whether the assigned person took the next action before the agreed cut-off. Keep missed dates visible instead of replacing them silently.
- Proof of closure: Sample three closed cases and locate the fault report, maintenance work order and restart clearance. A tick without supporting evidence is still an open control gap.
When it is more serious
Defects affecting product safety or tooling integrity demand shutdown. Stop affected work and seek a competent technical or safety review if the case can harm people or release unsafe goods. For contracts, tax, wages or legal rights, retain source documents and consult a qualified adviser. Repeated exceptions after four reviews may require changing the control.
This works if someone does it every day. In most businesses, that someone is you.
Questions people ask
What should we check before taking action?
List mould and die IDs with cycles since their last service. Keep its date and reference. Then compare it with the fault report, maintenance work order and restart clearance; if they disagree, record the difference before changing either one.
Who should own the next action?
The maintenance in-charge should own the open item. The person authorised to change money, a technical standard or a customer commitment must still approve that decision.
Can we run this control without new software?
No. Start with a shared sheet or register containing the reference, owner, promised date, status and evidence. Once those fields are reliable, decide whether a system connection is worth setting up.
When is the issue serious enough to escalate?
Defects affecting product safety or tooling integrity demand shutdown. Keep supporting records and get specialist help where relevant.