Tooling Risk Assessment

Tooling Risk Assessment Skill

Cutting steel converts design uncertainty into cash at the worst exchange rate in hardware. This skill assesses a tooling decision the way a seasoned NPI/ME lead does: match tool class to forecast confidence, do the cavitation math against peak demand, put the T1→T2→T3 timeline on the calendar, price the "what if the design changes after tooling" scenario honestly, and write the kill criteria before the money moves.

What This Skill Produces

• A soft vs hard tooling recommendation per part, with the tradeoff shown
• Cavitation and capacity math against the forecast ramp
• A T1 sample timeline with tuning-loop buffer
• An ECO-after-tooling cost narrative (steel-safe vs weld territory)
• Explicit kill criteria and total capital-at-risk summary

Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided; if forecast confidence is unstated, assume it is low and label the assumption:

• Part list going to tool — which parts, materials, cosmetic surfaces
• Forecast — peak monthly/weekly demand and lifetime volume, with confidence
• Design maturity — which build validated this geometry (pre-EVT? post-DVT?)
• Cycle time estimates and target resin(s)
• Tooling quotes if in hand — cost, cavitation, steel type, lead time
• Hard dates — launch window that the T1 timeline must serve

Tooling Framework

Tool class tradeoff:

Cavitation math — show the work: parts/week/cavity = (3600 ÷ cycle-time-s) × press-hours/week × yield. Cavities needed = peak weekly demand ÷ parts/week/cavity, rounded up, plus a stated overhead for maintenance downtime. Sanity-check tool life: lifetime volume ÷ cavities vs shots-of-life; flag if a second tool is inevitable and when.

T1 timeline — T1 (first shots) at tool lead time; plan 2–3 tuning loops (T1→T2→T3) at ~2–3 weeks each for texture, warp, sink, and dimensional tuning. Cosmetic A-surfaces rarely pass at T1; do not let the schedule assume they will.

ECO-after-tooling narrative — classify the plausible changes: steel-safe (change removes steel / adds plastic — days, cheap), weld/re-machine (adds steel — weeks, risky on cosmetic surfaces), new insert or new tool (geometry change beyond repair — re-quote the lead time). State which open design questions land in which class.

Output Format

Tooling risk assessment: [product / part set]

1. Recommendation — tool class per part, cavitation, when to kick off, capital at risk
2. Forecast basis — the numbers used and their confidence [assumed] where inferred
3. Capacity math — the cavitation calculation shown, tool-life check
4. Timeline — kickoff → T1 → T2/T3 loops → parts for [build], vs the hard date
5. Change-risk narrative — open design questions mapped to steel-safe / weld / new-tool cost
6. Kill criteria — the specific findings (e.g. DVT reliability failure in a tooled part, forecast cut below X, cert failure implicating geometry) that stop or re-scope the tooling spend
7. Risk register — remaining risks with owner and trigger date

Quality Checks

• Cavitation math is shown, not asserted, and uses peak demand — not average
• Tool life is checked against lifetime volume per cavity
• The timeline includes tuning loops, not just T1
• Every open design question is mapped to an ECO cost class
• Kill criteria are specific and dated — someone could actually invoke them
• Capital at risk is totalled, including tools that may be scrapped

Anti-Patterns

• Do not size cavitation on average demand — peak week plus downtime overhead or the launch starves
• Do not cut hard tools on a design that has not survived its reliability testing — that is buying a very expensive opinion
• Do not let the schedule assume T1 parts are shippable — T1 parts are for tuning
• Do not treat "the factory says it's fine" as a change-risk analysis — classify each open question yourself
• Do not present a tooling recommendation without kill criteria — the moment to define "stop" is before the spend
• Do not hide the second-tool moment — if tool life runs out mid-ramp, say when and price it now