What is Scientific Molding?
While the title "Scientific Molding" is definitely sexy, it's actually a methodology, not some kind of "science". In its best light, Scientific Molding mandates that users have capable machines, good molds, and a process set up by various experiments that can justify the optimization of each segment. This creates an optimized process delivering the maximum productivity of this particular mold with the least amount of scrap.

Does Scientific Molding need specialized equipment?
Much of the pushback is aimed at what I'll call the "true believers" who think every mold should have a transducer in it and every machine should be outfitted with a signal processor. Naturally this drives up costs. If this was the secret to Scientific Molding, machine manufacturers would have incorporated these electronics into their control panel and mold base manufacturers would sell transducers with every mold base. The facts prove otherwise: The principles of Scientific Molding can be applied successfully without this add-on equipment.

So, why the "pushback"?
What's interesting here isn't that people are resistant to the concept of better molding and optimized cycles. I believe it's more of a 'cult' thing. Let me explain:

(Cult #1) Remember all the stuff about "black belts"? Many companies took to bragging about how many black belts they had on staff. But when you began asking the King-Has-No-Clothes question of "What improvements all this training had contributed to the bottom line?" you saw very few concrete examples of hard, dramatic savings.

(Cult #2) Remember "Japanese Manufacture techniques/the Toyota way"? If you actually followed the principles, as well as made the cultural change of employees participating in improvements and supervision supporting the workers input (not the American way of "doing what the boss says"), you'd see some dramatic improvements in efficiencies. But most companies "adapted" the techniques and tried to implement them. Again, we looked at the bottom line and saw a lot of work but no real improvement in the vast majority of cases.

(Cult #3) Remember "Just in time manufacturing"? Yes, if you don't have to change materials and you spent a ton on quick-change equipment so you could do Single Minute Die Exchange (which, by the way, works well in the stamping industry but is really difficult in injection molding). Build to order can be done. However, since most customers work on a schedule forecast measured in days, what's really happened is that JIT has simply translated itself into a JIT Warehouse where unauthorized stock is warehoused at the molder's risk.

Many people have seen these techniques as "Management Philosophies du jour", and rightly looked on them with a skeptic's eye. Before you implement any change you have to ask and answer a simple question:

"What's in it for me (you personally or your company)?"

The pushback comes from seeing Scientific Molding and all its catch phrases and gadgets as something of a cult of true believers who spend a lot of effort and wondering does it show up in the bottom line?

That said, there's a flaw in thinking Scientific Molding is a cult of true believers. While I believe all the technogarble associated is a bit silly, let's look at the facts when it comes to applying the principles of Scientific Molding:

It's hard to come up with a better buzzword than Scientific Molding for a technique that causes you to explain and understand the entire molding cycles. However, there is nothing secret or proprietary about these principles. Many other companies/consultants have training programs and educational literature that promote these concepts and don't market the buzzword. 

There's a saying that goes "If you want a Harvard Law degree, you have to go to Harvard." True, but that doesn't mean just because you have a Harvard Law degree you'll be either a good or successful lawyer. In molding, it is not really the name of the technique you use to set up a profitable process. It's how you apply it. 

If people who don't accept scientific molding move away from the idea that they have to use the buzzwords, buy the gadgets, and have the diplomas with certificates in the front lobby and banners hung in the plant and instead focus on making the profits they deserve from applying these principles that are publicly available, I think we could get on with the business of improving our economy/profits and not dividing ourselves into "the IN group" and "the Pushback guys".

About the author: Bill Tobin has more than four decades of experience in the plastics injection molding industry, including time with GM, Ford, Mattel and Hewlett-Packard. He is also the founder of WJT Associates, a plastics firm.