“To address this, manufacturers should adopt digitisation tools such as ERP systems and IoT-based monitoring to track machine utilisation, process hours, and tool performance. Investing in the right machines, cutters, and process controls can help align output with global benchmarks,” says Shijesh Kokkodan, Director, MacPro Technologies Pvt Ltd, in conversation with Sanjay Chavre, Advisor, TAGMA India.
Can you please describe the complete manufacturing workflow for plastic mould making in India, covering stages such as enquiry, design, machining, trials, and delivery?
In India, plastic mould manufacturing typically begins with a Request for Quotation (RFQ). This includes 3D CAD data, 2D drawings, and other specific technical requirements. The initial step involves a feasibility assessment to determine the manufacturability and alignment with tooling standards. If the part is deemed feasible, raw material availability and pricing are evaluated to prepare a comprehensive quotation.
Following project approval, a project management framework is activated to oversee the entire life cycle. The design phase includes Design for Manufacturability (DFM) studies and preliminary tool concepts, often accompanied by a design review with the customer. Once the final 3D model is approved, the process transitions into manufacturing. This phase involves the procurement of steel and other raw materials, followed by precision machining based on the approved specifications. Quality checks are conducted to ensure compliance before the tool is assembled and prepared for trials.
The initial T0 trials are carried out using Scientific Injection Moulding (SIM) protocols to validate part quality. Based on the trials’ outcomes, dimensional corrections are implemented, leading to final trials and customer qualification. Upon approval, the mould is either transferred to production or delivered to the customer.
What is the typical timeline for plastic mould manufacturing? What key factors could affect the efficiency of this process?
The typical timeline for plastic mould manufacturing spans approximately 8 to 10 weeks from project award to final delivery. The initial RFQ and quotation phase generally takes 3 to 5 working days, followed by 1 to 2 weeks for design and DFM studies. Manufacturing and assembly processes usually require 4 to 6 weeks, while trials and corrections are completed within 1 to 2 weeks.
Customer involvement plays a critical role throughout the process, especially during feasibility analysis, design approvals, and trial validation. Timely feedback from the customer helps streamline execution and minimise rework. Common delays in the workflow often stem from late design approvals, raw material procurement issues, or extended trial iterations due to dimensional deviations. However, these challenges can be effectively mitigated through proactive communication and structured project tracking.
What major internal and external challenges do Indian mould makers currently face, particularly in areas such as skilled manpower, machine utilisation, market dynamics, and evolving customer expectations?
Indian mould makers face significant internal challenges across technical, financial, and workforce dimensions. The tooling industry struggles to attract skilled manpower due to low compensation compared to the IT and software sectors, despite demanding similar levels of precision and problem-solving. Many tool rooms fail within five years due to limited capital investment, lack of financial support, and constrained infrastructure. Even graduates from institutes like ITI, NTTF, or GTTC often expect salaries that tooling companies cannot sustain, further discouraging entry into the field. Additionally, enrollment in mechanical engineering and tooling programs has declined sharply over the past decade, indicating a future vacuum in qualified talent. Without a steady pipeline of trained professionals, the industry risks a severe skill shortage in the next five to seven years. To address this, structured and advanced training programs are essential to make the existing manpower industry-ready.
Externally, mould makers contend with volatile market conditions, rising customer expectations, and uneven competition. While quality standards are generally met, timelines remain a major pressure point, often linked to capacity constraints and skill gaps. Market turbulence leads to inconsistent order volumes, and customers frequently lack access to a centralised, reliable database of qualified suppliers. This results in fragmented sourcing and missed opportunities. Moreover, financial instability among suppliers can lead to underquoting, which distorts pricing and creates unhealthy competition. OEMs may favour lower-cost suppliers without fully evaluating their delivery capabilities, further straining the ecosystem. These factors collectively impact project margins, resource utilisation, and long-term sustainability for Indian mould makers.
What kind of external support is expected from the government, financial institutions, and industry associations to help Indian mould makers overcome challenges such as funding, skill development, and policy alignment?
One of the most critical needs is access to affordable CapEx funding for advanced machinery, which is essential for producing complex and reliable moulded components. Unlike home loans that span 20 to 30 years, machinery loans, despite similar asset lifespans, are typically restricted to five-year terms, making them financially unviable. Financial institutions often lack understanding of the tooling sector’s technical and economic dynamics, relying solely on balance sheets without mechanisms to assess industry-specific viability. There is no structured channel for manufacturers to communicate their requirements to policymakers or banks, resulting in a disconnect that hinders investment. A long-term funding model, aligned with asset life cycles, is urgently needed to support capital-intensive growth.
Equally important is targeted skill development. Machining, design, and tool assembly require specialised training that generic institutes cannot fully deliver. It is recommended that machine manufacturers establish in-house training centres, proportional to their sales footprint in India, with government support, to formalise this model. These centres, being closest to the equipment and its capabilities, are best positioned to train operators effectively. Basic education in drawing interpretation and tooling fundamentals can remain with institutes like ITI, while advanced, application-specific training should be led by domain experts at OEMs and tool builders. This dual-track approach would ensure industry-ready talent and reduce the burden of retraining at the company level.
What steps should India take to become a major global player in mould making? Which reforms should be prioritised in terms offinancial, infrastructure, or policy alignment?
India must begin by building awareness of the manufacturing sector at the school and college level, ideally from the eighth standard onwards. Students should be introduced to the career potential, earning capacity, and technological relevance of mould making, supported by clear guidance on sector-specific pathways. Institutes must update their syllabi to reflect current industry needs and include entrepreneurship as a core component. While technical skills are essential, understanding pricing strategy, cash flow, and business sustainability is equally critical. Without this foundation, many start-ups can fail within three to four years. A dual focus on skill and business acumen will help create a generation of professionals who can contribute meaningfully and scale capacity in the mould making ecosystem.
On the policy front, India must formally categorise tool and die making as a distinct industry. Currently, mould makers are subsumed under end-product sectors like soap, bucket, or lighting manufacturing, which obscures their foundational role. This lack of recognition prevents targeted support during sectoral downturns and limits access to government schemes. Tooling is the backbone of multiple industries, yet it remains unacknowledged in policy frameworks. Recognising mould making as a standalone category would enable more accurate tracking, better resource allocation, and inclusion in MSME upliftment initiatives. Financial reforms such as long-tenure CapEx funding must also be addressed to support infrastructure growth and global competitiveness.
What steps should Indian mould makers take to improve global competitiveness in terms of quality, delivery, cost, and technology? Should they prioritise automation, collaborations, or training?
Indian mould makers must focus on improving operational efficiency to remain globally competitive. Despite lower labour costs compared to countries like China, efficiency levels in machining and related operations are significantly lower, which erodes the pricing advantage. To address this, manufacturers should adopt digitisation tools such as ERP systems and IoT-based monitoring to track machine utilisation, process hours, and tool performance. Investing in the right machines, cutters, and process controls can help align output with global benchmarks. Efficiency is the foundation for achieving competitive cost structures without compromising delivery timelines or quality standards.
Equally important is the continuous upgrade of technology. Staying current with advanced CNC milling solutions, EDM systems, precision cutters, and high-accuracy measuring devices is essential to meet international expectations. Without technological parity, efforts to match global standards in cost and delivery will fall short. Indian mould makers must treat efficiency and technology as interdependent pillars, supported by targeted training and process discipline. Only then can they build sustainable competitiveness in the global tooling landscape.
How should Indian mould makers respond to emerging technologies like 3D printing? Can hybrid approaches help them stay competitive?
Emerging technologies such as 3D printing are increasingly influencing the mould making industry, particularly in areas like prototyping and short-run production. Based on recent experiences, 3D printing is effective for producing small batches and non-functional components where dimensional accuracy is not critical. It offers flexibility for low runners and larger parts with relaxed tolerances. However, for mass production involving complex geometries and tight tolerances, such as connectors or functional parts, traditional moulding remains essential. Producing components in millions with consistent precision is still beyond the practical scope of additive manufacturing.
Indian mould makers can consider hybrid approaches that combine CNC machining with 3D printing to meet specific requirements. For instance, non-functional zones may be printed while critical areas are milled to maintain accuracy. This method is suitable for early-stage testing and pre-production validation, but not for high-volume manufacturing. The decision to adopt such technologies should be based on part geometry, tolerance needs, and cost viability. While 3D printing is not a replacement for conventional moulding, it can complement existing processes when applied strategically.
If India opens its tariff-protected sector to competition from the USA, EU, and other global markets, what impact will this have on Indian mould makers? Will it lead to consolidation or drive efficiency?
The Indian mould making industry operates in a price-driven market. Its current cost structures already allow manufacturers to compete effectively with global leaders such as China. In fact, India’s tooling costs are slightly more favourable in some areas, which reduces the threat posed by international competition. As living standards rise globally, including in China, manufacturing costs are also increasing. This trend suggests that no country can maintain ultra-low pricing indefinitely. India is likely to follow a similar trajectory over the next few decades, making cost parity a moving target rather than a fixed benchmark.
Given this context, opening the market to higher-cost regions may not significantly disrupt Indian mould makers. The industry is already positioned to absorb competitive pressures without the immediate need for consolidation. Efficiency improvements will continue to be important, but pricing remains the dominant factor in most procurement decisions. As long as Indian manufacturers maintain their cost advantage and gradually enhance operational capabilities, they can remain resilient and relevant in a more open global landscape.
Considering that the cost of capital in India is higher than in competing nations like China, Korea, or Taiwan, what measures can Indian mould makers take to remain competitive? Can joint ventures or consortium models help?
To remain competitive despite high capital costs, Indian mould makers must explore joint ventures with established partners in similar industries and consider consortium models that enable shared investment and growth. Individual players often lack the financial strength to scale sustainably, and without continuous investment, they risk stagnation or failure. Inflation, rising employee costs, and retention challenges further compound the pressure to expand. Growth is the only viable path, and that requires access to long-term funding and consistent business acquisition. In countries like China, manufacturers benefit from low-interest loans with tenures extending up to 15 years; whereas, in India, tooling companies typically receive four-year loans at significantly higher interest rates. This disparity in financial support is a key factor behind the failure of many small and mid-sized tool rooms. Addressing it through collaborative models could help Indian manufacturers build resilience and scale effectively.
What are your recommendations for co-operation and support between OEMs, Tier I suppliers, government, and industry associations like TAGMA to strengthen the mould making ecosystem in India? What role should TAGMA play? What commitments should OEMs and Tier I suppliers make?
TAGMA can play a pivotal role by bringing all Indian toolmakers under one platform and creating a publicly accessible database that categorises members by competency and capability. This would help customers make informed sourcing decisions and enable toolmakers to access new business opportunities. Standardisation and grading across the industry would further strengthen visibility. Cluster-based manufacturing and collective negotiation for raw materials could also improve cost structures. TAGMA remains the only effective channel to communicate technical challenges to the government, and efforts must continue to establish direct dialogue for policy support. OEMs and Tier I suppliers must recognise the difference between production part suppliers with in-house tool rooms and dedicated toolmakers. When sourcing tools, they must offer fair pricing that reflects the actual effort and expertise involved. Categorising suppliers and optimising procurement strategies will ensure the sustainability and growth of India’s mould making industry.
This interview was published in TAGMA Times.
About the Author
Sanjay Chavre is Advisor to TAGMA India.
A respected technocrat and policy strategist, Mr. Chavre has been a pivotal figure in the evolution of India’s manufacturing and tooling ecosystem. With decades of experience at the intersection of government and industry, he has contributed to the development of forward-looking policies that promote indigenous technology, strengthen domestic capabilities, and uplift MSMEs within the tooling and precision engineering sectors.
Mr. Chavre has held key roles in various government departments. He has been instrumental in formulating and executing initiatives that align with India’s long-term vision for industrial growth and self-reliance. His expertise lies in enabling public-private collaboration, fostering innovation ecosystems, and building frameworks that support sustainable industrial development.
In his current role as Advisor to TAGMA India, he continues to guide efforts aimed at enhancing the global competitiveness of Indian toolmakers. His insights have been vital in positioning the Indian tooling industry as a reliable and technologically advanced partner in the global supply chain.
COMMENTS