I am going to share her questions and my answers here. I know there are alot of die guys out there that read this blog. If you could help Meghan with her research, please post a comment in response to her 5 questions:

 1.     How would you categorize the current state of the metal forming industry?

 This is an open-ended question. There are two core components to the metalforming industry: tool build and production stamping. The industry itself is segmented into automotive, aerospace, appliance, agriculture, medical device, semiconductor, consumer products, food and beverage containers, and military markets. Die shops for tool build and stampers tend to specialize or focus on a particular market segment (even though dies are dies and stamping is stamping for the most part).

 With regard to technology, this is an unprecedented time in metalforming. Most die shops and stampers today use software for formability analysis and simulation, solid modeling for tool design, and numerical-controlled (NC) machines to manufacture the tools.

 Regarding sales, the Asian market (specifically China) continues to grow while Europe and North America continue to shrink.

 The current state of the metalforming industry in terms of tool prices – specifically automotive – are at historically low levels. This is due to the automotive OEMs treating dies as commodity items, even though they are not true commodities. Dies are custom-built, one-off unique production tools and not mass produced items themselves.

 Consider for a moment that the die shops and stampers in the USA were a major factor in World War II (the automotive companies converted their operations to support the military), there are national security implications as a consequence to the “green” agenda.

 The current state of the metalforming industry from an overall “breakthrough” perspective is fairly static. The last major breakthroughs or advancements came roughly 20 – 25 years ago with lightweight die architectures, nitrogen gas springs, and materials advancements for dies. Transfer presses in automotive and appliance markets and computer processors to operate presses in general were the last advancements for stamping plants.

 Finally, in terms of the workforce, the metalforming industry in North America is aging and young talent is not entering the skilled trades to replace the existing workforce. Die engineering and tool build is not taught in colleges. It is learned on the job with bona fide apprenticeship programs. For the past decade or so, these apprenticeships have not been available due to economic conditions and the perception that young men and women should go to college.

 2.     How do you see the industry changing in regard to the automotive shift in the U.S.?

 We are about to see a major change in the US automotive market. A change for the worse, unfortunately. The new high strength / lightweight steel materials that will be required to meet Federal mandates for fuel economy (I call these Super Steels) will result in tool prices doubling or tripling in the next decade. This will, in turn, force the OEMs to source the tool build to so-called “low cost” countries. That is to say, most, if not all, automotive dies for North America will be built in China, effectively eliminating die build in the North American market.

 Nearly all the other market segments design, build, and run dies for metal stampings in the geographic region that the products will be sold. Automotive needs to take a lesson from the rest of the industry and follow suit. It is not economically rational to build tools in China or Korea or Taiwan for automobiles that will be sold in Connecticut.

3.     What new market opportunities do you see with the reduction in the automotive industry?

 For die shops and stampers to survive the likely loss of automotive work in the next decade, they will need to start doing work for other market segments. This would be a historic move since these companies strictly serve certain markets, even though a die to make an automotive hood is basically the same tool to manufacture a refrigerator or washer or dryer for the appliance market.

 4.     What are some best practices to reach these new markets?

 All of these markets are closed markets – closed, exclusive gated communities. Gaining entry into these markets is difficult. There is a perception of expertise in each one, even though the tools are roughly the same. Companies will have to demonstrate they know the new market and have the technical expertise to perform to win business.

 5.     How do you see customer service/ outreach efforts/ sales forces changing with new technology/ digital media?

 Unfortunately, I don’t. That is to say, the metalforming industry is a very traditional one that does not readily accept change. The last major communication technology shift was 25 years ago with the fax machine. It took a decade for these companies to embrace email.

 You will find some, not many, of these companies online. A few will use Twitter, LinkedIn, and Facebook. These companies are the exception to the rule. And the rule is very traditional 1960s sales and marketing methods.

So, I click it.

Takes me to an article titled “Manufacturing Index Signals Growth Soon“.

Define “soon”.

Unemployment is up.

Bankruptcies are up.

Federal tax revenues are down.

When the number of manufacturers go down, but the orders of the remaining few go up, doesn’t that mean the few are getting work from the defunct many?

What the article really says is, “Hey, a few economists guessed wrong. The numbers are slightly better than they guessed they would be. We thought it would take 2.5 hours for the Titanic to sink, but the trend is for it to sink in 3.1 hours.”

What they don’t tell you is it will take 4.7 hours to send a Search and Rescue team. So much for the good news.

After attempting to correlate what I live everyday with what the misguided government propaganda contained in the article, I think they should have titled the piece “Someday”.

As in, “Someday, manufacturing will rebound”.

“Someday, we will be out of this worsening economic depression“.

“Someday, journalists will write something meaningful.”

Someday.

1. The automotive OEM had performed incremental simulations on eight stampings;
2. The Tier One die shop sent out three RFQ packages to three Tier Two die shops;
3. The Tier One die shop requested one-step simulations from each Tier Two shop.

This makes no sense. It is economically irrational. Why have three companies replicate each other’s work?

And why settle for lesser quality results from a one-step when the OEM has full blown incremental simulations available for quoting purposes?

It is a quote, not rocket science. Why spend the time and money doing something inferior to something that already exists that closer to reality? Not once, not twice, but three times?

Even the Tier Two company said “you can’t fix stupid”.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gxKStPXyn8

Like Ron White says, “stupid is forever”.