From approved design to first production: tooling, off-tool samples, corrections and launch readiness

A new product has been designed, prototyped and tested. The prototypes work, the customers who saw them are enthusiastic and the launch date is in the sales plan. All that remains, it seems, is to have the tooling made and start production. Months later, the launch has slipped twice. The tooling quote did not include the gauges. The first parts off the tool warped. The correction took longer than expected and the second samples were too few to test properly. The production order could not be placed because the bill of materials in the business system did not match the approved design. The stock finally arrives, by sea, six weeks after it was finished.

The stretch between an approved design and the first saleable stock is often the least planned part of product development, and frequently the longest. Tooling alone can take months, and off-tool samples rarely pass at the first attempt. Yet many schedules show it as a single bar labelled “tooling” followed by a milestone labelled “production”. The result is launch dates that slip in ways everyone could have predicted.

This article sets out a practical structure for that stretch: preparing a technical package for quotation, reviewing tooling quotes properly, treating off-tool samples and corrections as a planned loop, using gates as evidence-based decisions, controlling tooling ownership, and treating production release as a configuration-control event rather than a date. It is general information for product businesses and manufacturers, whether tooling is made in-house, locally or overseas.

The shape of the journey

Product development projects that end in tooled production tend to follow a recognisable sequence of stages, separated by decision points, often called gates:

Industries with formal requirements use similar structures. The automotive industry’s advanced product quality planning (APQP) approach, for example, describes phases for planning, product design and development, process design and development, product and process validation, and feedback and corrective action, with production part approval at the end of validation. The labels differ, but the logic is the same: evidence at each stage justifies the commitment at the next.

Gates are decisions, not calendar events

A gate is a point where someone with authority decides whether to commit the next tranche of money and time, based on evidence. A gate passed because the date arrived is not a gate.

For each gate, define in advance:

• Who decides, and who must be consulted.
• What evidence is required, such as test results, cost estimates, quotes, risk assessments and customer feedback.
• The possible outcomes: proceed, proceed with conditions, repeat part of the stage, change direction or stop.
• What happens to conditions attached to a “proceed”, so they are tracked rather than forgotten.

Gate 2, the commitment to tooling, deserves particular care. It is usually the point of no return for the design: tooling money is large and largely unrecoverable, and every later design change costs more. Most of a product’s cost is committed by decisions made before this point, as the cost you commit before you spend article explains.

Prepare a technical package fit for quotation

A tooling quote is only as good as the information it is based on. Before requesting quotes, prepare a controlled package:

• Drawings and 3D models at an identified revision, with critical features and tolerances clearly shown.
• A bill of materials (BOM) that separates tooled parts, purchased parts, standard hardware and prototype-only items.
• Material and finish requirements, including colour, texture and any regulatory or food-contact requirements.
• Quantity assumptions, clearly labelled as forecasts, because they affect the tooling concept, such as the number of cavities in a mould, and the part price.
• Sample and test expectations: how many off-tool samples are needed, for which tests, and what evidence the supplier must provide.
• Inspection expectations, including any gauges or checking fixtures the supplier must make or support.

Sending incomplete or unstable information produces quotes that cannot be compared and changes that are charged later.

Review the tooling quote, not just the price

Quotes for the same tool can differ widely, and the cheapest is often the one that excludes the most. Review each quote against a consistent set of questions:

Record the answers. Assumptions that are not written down tend to become disputes.

Tool ownership and control

Many product businesses pay for tooling but leave it at the supplier’s premises, sometimes overseas. Agree in writing:

• Ownership: that the tool belongs to you once paid for, and is marked accordingly.
• Use: that it will be used only for your parts.
• Maintenance and life: who maintains it, how wear is monitored, what tool life is expected and who pays for refurbishment or replacement.
• Records: shot or cycle counts and maintenance records.
• Removal: your right to retrieve the tool, and the process for doing so, if the relationship ends.
• Insurance while the tool is at the supplier.

These terms matter most when something goes wrong, which is when they are hardest to negotiate. The protecting the know-how you hand over article covers protecting designs and information shared with suppliers.

Off-tool samples: plan the loop, not the milestone

The first parts made on production tooling are usually called off-tool samples. They are the first real evidence of whether the tool, material and process produce the designed part. They frequently reveal problems: dimensions slightly off, warping, sink marks, flash, poor surface finish, assembly interference or weaker performance than the prototypes, which were often made by a different process.

A tool can be physically complete while the part is not acceptable. Plan for this explicitly:

1. First samples: inspect dimensions and appearance, and run the planned functional and assembly tests.
2. Disposition: decide for each issue whether the cause lies in the tool, the design, the material, the process settings, the test method or the sample handling.
3. Corrections: the toolmaker modifies the tool, or the design team revises the design, under change control.
4. Repeat samples and retest the affected characteristics.
5. Final verification: complete testing, including any gauges or test rigs, on samples from the corrected tool and the intended production process.

Schedules should carry at least two separate events, first samples received and part approved, with at least one correction loop allowed between them. A plan that assumes first samples will pass is a plan that will slip.

Make sure enough samples are ordered for the tests planned, and that test rigs, fixtures and gauges are ready when samples arrive. Waiting weeks for a test rig after the samples arrive is a common and avoidable delay.

Testing that reflects production

Prototype testing shows the design can work. Off-tool testing must show that production parts, made by the production process, work. Repeat the tests that matter, particularly life and durability tests, functional tests and any regulatory or certification tests, on off-tool parts. If parts will be assembled on a production line, trial the assembly with those parts and the intended methods. For customers that require formal approval, such as through production part approval, the evidence must come from production conditions; the PPAP for small suppliers article explains what that involves.

Production release is a configuration-control event

A product should enter production with a known, approved definition, not simply because the schedule says so. Production release typically involves three distinct pieces of work:

• Technical release: final drawings, BOMs and kit structures at the approved revision.
• Quality release: inspection plans, control plans or quality documents for first production, with approved samples retained as references.
• System release: item records, BOMs and routings set up in the business system, with purchase and production orders raised.

These can be prepared in parallel, but orders should not be released until the approved configuration is confirmed. A production order placed against a BOM that still shows a superseded part revision is a common and expensive mistake.

Freight and stock are part of the schedule

“Production complete” is not the same as “stock available”. If parts are made remotely, the schedule must include freight, customs clearance and receipt. Sea freight can add weeks, and air freight adds cost. Plan which mode applies to the first order, and whether a small first batch by air followed by bulk by sea makes sense.

The project is not finished until the first production stock has been received, checked against the approved samples and released for sale or use.

Build realistic durations

Use your own history where you have it, and supplier commitments where you do not. Several principles help:

• Tooling is usually the longest stage, and lead times vary with complexity, supplier load and holidays.
• Allow for at least one correction loop, and more for complex parts or new suppliers.
• Do not copy durations from another project without checking they apply.
• Show schedule contingency explicitly rather than hiding it inside each task.
• Track the gates: if Gate 2 slips, everything after it slips.

A worked example

This is an illustrative example. A 20-person Australian business designs garden irrigation products and has a new injection-moulded hose connector ready to commission. The design has passed prototype testing using 3D-printed and machined parts, and the sales team has promised retailers a spring launch.

Gate 2 preparation. The engineer prepares drawings at revision C, a BOM separating the two moulded parts from a purchased O-ring and a stainless clip, a material specification and a test plan for pressure, cycle and drop testing. Quantity assumptions are labelled as forecasts.

Quote review. Three toolmakers quote. The cheapest excludes texture finishing, includes only one free correction and offers twenty samples. The selected toolmaker’s quote is higher but includes texture, two correction rounds and a hundred samples from each trial. A tooling agreement confirms ownership, a shot counter, maintenance responsibility and the right to remove the tools.

Schedule. The plan allows about twelve weeks for tooling, two weeks for first-sample testing, three weeks for one correction loop, two weeks for final verification, then production and sea freight. A test rig for pressure cycling is ordered at Gate 2 so it is ready when samples arrive.

First samples. Dimensions are mostly within tolerance, but one body part warps enough that the clip is hard to fit. Disposition identifies uneven wall thickness near the clip as the cause, a design issue rather than a tool fault. The design is revised under change control to revision D, and the tool is modified within the planned correction loop.

Second samples. The warp is resolved. Pressure, cycle and drop tests pass on off-tool parts. Gate 3 approves production, with retained reference samples.

Production release. The BOM in the business system is updated to revision D before the order is placed, an inspection plan for incoming shipments is issued, and the first production run ships by sea.

Launch. Stock arrives and is checked against the reference samples. Because one correction loop was planned and the test rig was ready, the spring launch holds, about two weeks later than the most optimistic plan but well within the contingency shown.

Applying this in an Australian product business

• Use gates as evidence-based decisions with defined outcomes.
• Prepare a controlled package before requesting tooling quotes.
• Review quotes for scope, corrections, samples and ownership, not just price.
• Put tooling ownership terms in writing, especially for tools held overseas.
• Plan off-tool samples as a loop, with at least one correction allowed.
• Have tests, rigs and gauges ready when samples arrive.
• Test production parts made by the production process.
• Release production only against the approved configuration.
• Include freight and receipt in the schedule.
• Show contingency explicitly.

Where launches slip

• One bar labelled “tooling” with no testing or correction loop.
• Quotes compared on price without checking scope.
• Design changes after tooling starts, uncontrolled.
• Too few samples for the planned tests.
• Test rigs ordered after samples arrive.
• Production orders placed against an outdated BOM.
• Forgetting freight, customs and stock checking.

Questions to ask before committing to tooling

• Is the design stable enough to commit the tooling money?
• What exactly do the tooling quotes include and exclude?
• Who will own the tools, and where will they be kept?
• How many correction loops have we allowed for?
• Are our tests, rigs and gauges ready for the first samples?
• What evidence will Gate 3 require?
• When will stock actually be available to sell, not just finished?

Bringing it together

The months between design approval and first stock decide whether a product launches on time. Treat them as a sequence of stages and evidence-based gates: a controlled technical package, a carefully reviewed tooling quote with clear ownership terms, an off-tool sample and correction loop that is planned rather than hoped away, testing of real production parts, and a production release controlled by configuration rather than the calendar. Include freight and stock checking in the schedule, show contingency openly and use history to set durations. Launches still meet surprises, but planned surprises rarely move the launch date.

---

Source: KEVOS editorial notes, drawing on earlier KEVOS product development handbooks on tooling quotation and approval schedules, off-tool testing and correction schedules, production readiness and launch schedules, and special characteristic traceability across APQP documents. The worked example is illustrative. This article is general information.