The tool picks the supplier, for years
The mould usually belongs to the moulder. Once it is cut, resourcing means paying for a new one, so the price agreed at launch is the price you live with. The leverage sits before the tool, not after it.
Injection molding · Direct procurement
The price is set when the tool is cut. Everything after that is negotiation.
Wall thickness sets the cooling, cooling sets the cycle, and the cycle is most of the cost. By the time the mould exists, the part costs what it costs. Parsio rebuilds the shot from the drawing, grade, weight, cycle, cavities and tonnage, and shows where the money was decided. Unlock 3 to 15% untapped savings.
Scope
Technical parts Housings & covers Closures & caps Overmoulding & inserts Two-shot moulding Blow moulding Extrusion Tooling & moulds Resins & masterbatch Technical parts Housings & covers Closures & caps Overmoulding & inserts Two-shot moulding Blow moulding Extrusion Tooling & moulds Resins & masterbatch
Why injection molding is different
Most of the cost is decided before anyone quotes.
What we learned mapping moulded portfolios with buyers and process engineers in automotive, consumer goods and electrical equipment. The cost drivers have nothing in common with glass, carton or aerosol, and a generic sourcing tool treats them as if they did.
Wall thickness is paid on every shot
Thickness drives cooling, cooling drives the cycle, and the cycle is most of the conversion cost. A part drawn thicker than it needs to be pays for it on every part, for the life of the tool.
Volume → press and the volume was a forecast
Annual volume sets the cavity count, cavities set the mould size, mould size sets the press tonnage. Forecast high at launch and you are amortising the wrong press for a decade.
€16 or €18 an hour, same supplier
In automotive the moulders already file cost breakdowns. The same supplier quotes one labour rate to one buyer and a different one to the next. Hundreds of breakdowns, none of them comparable.
Savings plays
Six ways the model pays for itself.
Collapse the variant tree
Language codes, market codes, colour codes: the same moulded part exists many times over. Cluster by geometry and grade rather than by SKU and the portfolio folds onto the tools it actually runs on.
Rebuild the shot, not the invoice
Grade, part weight, runner and scrap, cycle time, cavities, tonnage, presses per operator, local labour and energy. A should-cost that resolves to the shot, with every assumption editable.
Make the cost breakdowns comparable
You already hold hundreds of supplier breakdowns. Normalised against one model, a labour rate that moves between two quotes from the same moulder stops being invisible.
Take the weight out before the tool is cut
Search a new part against the portfolio, then price the wall, the cavity count and the grade while the drawing can still change. After the tool, the same decision costs a tool.
Challenge the spec, open the panel
Show which tolerance, which surface finish, which grade actually forces the process, and what relaxing it does to the number of moulders who can quote.
Model the shop, not the category
Presses by tonnage, what runs in-house, what goes out for decoration, plating or assembly, and how far. Two moulders with the same catalogue are good at different parts.
How it works
From a drawing to a costed shot.
Read every file
Drawings and 3D files, the supplier cost breakdowns you already hold, ERP transactions, tooling records. Parsio shows the fill rate per property before it shows a result.
Apply your rules
Your process and packaging engineers write them in plain language: "below this volume the cavity count is fixed"; "these two grades are interchangeable outside food contact". Versioned, so the rule outlives the engineer.
Model the press
Weight and grade give the shot. Wall thickness gives the cooling and the cycle. Volume gives the cavities, cavities give the mould, the mould gives the tonnage. Rates come from the moulder's own park and location, not a benchmark.
Compute both prices
Should-cost against predicted price, on every reference. Where they diverge, something is going on.
Customer outcomes
Outcomes, not features.
Save costs 8%
Of direct spend recovered on average, across the families we run
Cut complexity 1 in 4
References found interchangeable within the buyer's own tolerance
Move faster 1 week
From a folder of drawings to a specified, costed portfolio
Worked examples, all modelled
Technical parts · Automotive
Hundreds of cost breakdowns, none of them comparable.
The moulders file a breakdown per part: material, cycle, labour rate, overhead, margin. Nobody reconciles them, so the same supplier can carry two labour rates across two quotes and no one sees it. Parsio normalises every breakdown against one model built from the part itself, then shows the lines that do not survive the comparison. The negotiation stops being about the price and starts being about the cycle.
Technical parts
1 modelevery breakdown normalised against it
Cycleis the line that moves the price
Per shotnot per invoice
Illustrative. Modelled on portfolio structures mapped with procurement and process engineers. Not customer results.
Method built with teams in
Automotive & commercial vehiclesCosmetics & consumer healthElectrical equipmentIndustrial manufacturing
Named references available under NDA.
FAQ
Questions, answered.
We already get cost breakdowns from our moulders. What does this add?
A reference to compare them to. Today the breakdowns come from the supplier, in the supplier's format, and the same moulder can quote one labour rate to one buyer and another to the next. Parsio builds the cost from the part (grade, weight, cycle, cavities, tonnage) and normalises every breakdown against it, so the lines that do not hold up become visible.
We have a cost engineering team and a should-cost tool already. What do you add?
The scenario, not the number. If you already compute should-cost, you know what a part costs on the route it takes today. What is missing is what happens when that route changes: relax this callout, change the grade, halve the cavity count, and see which moulders can still quote and what it is worth across every reference carrying the same spec. Parsio runs that across the portfolio rather than one part at a time.
Where do your machine-hour rates come from? Public data is not good enough for us.
Agreed, and on its own it is not. Public sources give a starting point for energy and labour by country. The rate that matters comes from your own quotes: if you benchmark a vertical 100 tonne press across five moulders, that spread is the truth and we load it. The model is as good as what you put in it, which is why the first quarter is spent putting your data in it rather than ours.
The mould belongs to the supplier. Doesn't that kill any saving?
On a tooled part it removes resourcing, not everything. What is left is real: consolidating volume onto tools you already pay for, relaxing the specs that force the process, and the grade. The bigger money is upstream, on parts that are still drawings, which is why we push to be in the design review rather than the negotiation.
We mould in-house. Is this still for us?
Yes, and the model does not change. It tells you what your own plant should be achieving on a given part, which press it should be running on, and what the cycle should be. Internal transfer prices get the same treatment as a supplier quote.
Our volumes move a lot. Does the model cope?
That is most of the point. Volume drives cavities, cavities drive the mould, the mould drives the tonnage, so a forecast made once at launch is still being paid for years later. Parsio runs the scenario instead of assuming the launch case held.
Bring one moulded family.
Technical parts, housings, closures: a rough spend, whatever drawings you have and the cost breakdowns your moulders already send you. We'll tell you within a week whether it's worth a first phase, and we'll say so if it isn't.