Mold Management System Implementation in Thailand: Shot Counts and Ledgers

“How many molds do we have, where are they, who owns them, and how many more shots can each one run? Right now, that lives only in Excel and in people’s heads.” We hear this often from plant managers, production control managers and mold maintenance staff at Japanese-affiliated injection molding, stamping, die casting and automotive parts plants in Chonburi, Rayong, Ayutthaya and around Bangkok. This article walks through mold management system implementation step by step, from ledger design to maintenance and to recording the storage, return and disposal of customer-owned molds.

Here is the conclusion first. A mold management system is not a way to digitize a list of molds. It is a mechanism for keeping four things correct for every mold at all times: who owns it, where it is, how many shots it has left, and when it was last used. Whether implementation succeeds depends less on how many features the software has and more on who updates the four axes of the ledger (ownership, location, shots and operating status), and when.

The approach has three stages.

• Start with a physical count that checks the ledger against the actual molds (putting shot tracking on top of a ledger whose locations and owners are wrong is pointless)
• Switch maintenance from a time-based schedule to a shot-count-based one (the aim is not fewer maintenance jobs but directing maintenance to the molds that need it)
• Classify molds that are no longer running (idle molds) and keep records of discussions on their storage, return and disposal

Note that all mold counts, shot counts, maintenance counts, labor hours and other figures for “Model Plant B” in this article are original model settings and assumptions created for this article. They are neither industry averages nor survey results. Please read them as a “calculation template” to be replaced with your own plant’s numbers.

Why Mold Management Is Under Scrutiny in 2026

Japan is stepping up oversight of free mold storage

First, let us look at developments in Japan. Following the enforcement of an amending act, Japan’s Subcontract Act was renamed the Act on Prevention of Delayed Payment, etc. to Small and Medium-sized Entrusted Businesses in Manufacturing Consignment, etc. (unofficial translation; commonly abbreviated in Japanese as the “Toriteki Act”). According to a newsletter from the law firm Anderson Mori and Tomotsune (AMT) dated July 31, 2026, the act took effect on January 1, 2026.

On June 10, 2026, the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) published the enforcement status of the Toriteki Act for FY2025 (April 2025 to March 2026). In FY2025 there were 39 recommendations and 8,261 instances of guidance. According to the AMT newsletter explaining this release, 26 of the 39 recommendations were cases related to molds and similar tooling, arising from situations such as making contractors store molds free of charge even though no orders had been placed for a long period.

On November 13, 2025, the JFTC and the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency (SME Agency) published a leaflet titled “We are strengthening oversight of free mold storage.” The number of recommendations related to free mold storage shown in it is 1 in FY2022, 3 in FY2023, 9 in FY2024 and 13 in FY2025. However, the 13 cases for FY2025 are a figure as of November 13, 2025, not the final figure for the fiscal year.

The same leaflet explains that “molds, etc.” covers molds, wooden patterns, jigs, inspection gauges, manufacturing equipment and similar items. It lists four circumstances that may constitute a violation: not placing orders for the parts for a long period, the contractor wishing to dispose of or have the molds taken back, the ordering party being unable to indicate a specific timing for the next orders, and no reuse of the molds being expected. It also states that, after mutual consultation, it is acceptable to check the order status once per fiscal year and pay storage fees corresponding to the storage period in a lump sum.

The table below summarizes recent recommendation cases published by the JFTC that relate to mold storage. Each entry extracts only the facts from the JFTC’s published information.

The point most directly relevant to day-to-day mold management is that, in the Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus case, having the “annual physical count” performed free of charge was also treated as a problem. This shows that not only storing molds but also the labor of physically checking the molds can become an issue in the business relationship.

Japanese automotive associations call for written terms and centralized records

The Voluntary Action Plan of the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA, revised December 24, 2025) and the “Thorough Implementation Plan” of the Japan Auto Parts Industries Association (JAPIA, revised December 2025) both address fair mold transactions. Their main points are as follows.

• Decide the handling of mold storage and disposal through consultation and put it in writing
• Notify the transition from mass production to the service-parts period and discontinued part numbers at least once a year
• For molds where a certain number of years (15 years as a guideline) has passed since the end of mass production, hold consultations on the premise of disposal
• Reliably pay storage fees for molds for products that have had no orders for one year or more, or for which no orders are expected over the next year
• Hold consultations at least once a year, and record and centrally manage their content
• Include in consultations the storage fees incurred not only at direct suppliers but also further down the chain (Tier 2 and beyond)

What this means for factories in Thailand

There is an important distinction to make here. The Toriteki Act is a Japanese law. This article does not judge whether it applies directly to transactions between Thai companies. Because applicability can vary with the parties to a transaction and the form of the contract, please confirm it individually with a lawyer.

With that said, here is the author’s view. Japanese parent companies and Japanese-affiliated customers are likely to build internal systems for managing mold storage status and consultation records in line with industry association rules such as those above. As part of that trend, there may be situations where they ask overseas sites and those sites’ suppliers for records of the same standard. If you are asked, “How many of our molds are you holding, when were they last used, and what is planned for them?”, a ledger lets you answer immediately. Without one, you will have to search the warehouse from scratch.

Thai vehicle production and the EV shift will increase idle molds

Let us also look at the situation in Thailand. According to a Capital.com article carrying a Reuters report, figures released by the Federation of Thai Industries (FTI) show that vehicle production in August 2026 was 124,646 units, up 10.93% year on year. July production was also reported at 117,383 units, up 6.12% (NST). On the other hand, the FTI projects full-year 2026 production to fall 3.33% from the previous year, citing lower exports due to the situation in the Middle East.

Structurally, on May 14, 2026, ten Thai automotive and auto parts associations warned the government that parts makers are losing orders because of EV adoption and imports from China, and described 2027 as a “cliff” (Reuters). The ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office (AMRO) also pointed out in a December 2025 report that existing suppliers, especially SMEs, that specialize in parts not needed in EVs, such as engines, transmissions and exhaust systems, are facing a sharp drop in orders.

In addition, according to the Office of Industrial Economics (OIE) as reported by Trading Economics, the Manufacturing Production Index (MPI) rose 4.44% in August 2026, but because the calculation method has been revised, it cannot simply be compared with past figures.

What follows is the author’s inference. As more ICE vehicle parts reach the end of mass production or move into the service-parts period, plants will hold more molds that are “not used for mass production but kept for service parts” and molds “with unknown future orders.” The more idle molds there are, the more inquiries there will be about storage space, storage costs and disposal decisions. We believe 2026 is a good time to review your mold ledger.

What Is a Mold Management System: Managing Molds on Four Axes

A mold management system is a mechanism that keeps the following four axes correct for every mold, continuously.

You can create these four columns in an Excel mold ledger too. The problem is updating them. Location changes every time a mold moves, shots change with every production run, and operating status changes whenever a customer sends a notice. If the ledger is updated by hand only when someone remembers, it drifts away from the physical molds within a few months. The value of a system lies in creating a flow in which the four axes are updated automatically, or without fail, “as part of daily work”: changeovers, production results, maintenance and customer notices.

How mold management fits into production management for an entire injection molding plant is also covered in our article on injection molding production management systems.

Start by Checking the Mold Ledger Against the Physical Molds

Assumptions for Model Plant B

From here on, we use Model Plant B. To repeat, all of the following figures are original model settings for this article.

• A Japanese-affiliated automotive parts plant in Chonburi Province, Thailand, with 28 injection molding machines and 12 press machines
• 600 molds on the ledger: 380 loaned by customers (customer-owned) and 220 company-owned
• The Excel mold ledger has columns for location, ownership and last-used date, but updates are irregular
• Maintenance for all molds follows a uniform time-based rule of “every 3 months”
• Shot counts are copied by hand from the molding machine counters into daily reports

Results of checking all 600 molds on the ledger one by one

The table below shows the results when Model Plant B checked each of the 600 molds on its ledger against the physical molds.

The location match rate is 552 ÷ 600 = 92%. Put the other way, 48 molds, or 8%, made up of the 31 found in a different place and the 17 not found, cannot be located by looking at the ledger. In addition, there were 12 molds not on the ledger at all. The number of molds physically confirmed is 552 + 31 + 12 = 595. The 17 molds that were not found have not been physically confirmed.

At first glance, 92% may not look bad. But problems such as discovering “the mold isn’t here” just before a changeover, or being unable to answer when a customer asks “how many of our molds do you have?”, occur on the side of that 8%. In particular, if any of the 17 missing molds that may be on loan to a Tier 2 supplier are customer-owned, the customer will expect you to explain where they are.

Physical count labor can become a commercial term

Suppose this check took 30 minutes per mold. For 600 molds, that is 30 minutes × 600 = 18,000 minutes, or 300 person-hours. If done once a year, it costs 300 person-hours of labor every year.

As mentioned earlier, in the Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus case, having the annual physical count performed free of charge was also treated as a problem. A Japanese case cannot be applied to Thailand as is, but it is worth remembering that who bears the labor of physically checking molds can itself become part of the commercial terms with customers. At the very least, knowing in numbers how much labor your plant spends on it gives you material for discussions with customers.

What to decide during the ledger count

To keep the physical check from being a one-time event, decide the following three things.

1. How to assign mold IDs: Give each mold a permanent number on the mold itself, using one of an engraving, a nameplate, a 2D code or an RFID tag. Unless the number in the ledger matches the number on the mold, matching will always rely on people’s memory.
2. Location granularity: Specify not just “Warehouse 2” but “Warehouse 2, rack C-14.” Loans to subcontractors and Tier 2 suppliers are also kept in the ledger as locations.
3. When to update: Decide who updates the location, and on which screen, whenever a mold moves (changeover, return to storage, shipment to a subcontractor).

Whether to use 2D codes or RFID for mold IDs and locations depends on reading distance and environment. For how to think about the costs, see our article on RFID implementation costs for factories.

Switch Mold Maintenance to a Shot-Count Basis

Two problems created by time-based maintenance

Model Plant B maintains all molds uniformly “every 3 months.” It is an easy rule to understand, but because operating levels differ greatly between molds, the load a mold receives in the same 3 months varies widely.

Here we consider 120 injection molds that are in mass production and run heavily. The maintenance interval is set at every 100,000 shots. This is a model setting. Actual maintenance intervals vary with the mold structure, resin, number of cavities and other factors, so they should be decided by the mold maker or maintenance staff.

The total barely changes. The distribution does

Switching to a shot-count basis changes the total annual maintenance count from 480 to 414. That is 66 fewer, or about 14%. You may feel it does not drop as much as expected.

What this estimate is meant to show is not the total but the distribution.

• Group A (high utilization): With maintenance every 3 months, the mold runs 180,000 shots between one maintenance and the next, or 1.8 times the maintenance interval. Maintenance is insufficient. On a shot-count basis, each mold needs maintenance 7.2 times a year, or 216 times for Group A as a whole, which is 96 more than the 120 under the time-based schedule.
• Group B (medium utilization): At 75,000 shots per 3 months, it stays within the interval even on a time basis. On a shot-count basis, it is 3 times a year, or 150 times for Group B as a whole.
• Group C (low utilization): These molds are maintained even though they run only 30,000 shots in 3 months. On a shot-count basis, 1.2 times a year, or 48 times for Group C as a whole, is enough, 112 fewer than the 160 under the time-based schedule.

In other words, time-based maintenance simultaneously creates insufficient maintenance for high-utilization molds and excessive maintenance for low-utilization molds. A shot-count basis is not “a mechanism for reducing the number of maintenance jobs” but “a mechanism for directing maintenance to the molds that need it.” In plants that maintain a mold only after a mold problem has already caused molding defects, molds like those in Group A may be the very source of those defects.

This article does not estimate the effect of this switch in monetary terms. Reductions in maintenance labor, fewer defects and longer mold life overlap with each other, and simply adding them up would count the effect twice. Start by making visible which molds are under-maintained.

Three data points needed for a shot-count basis

To run shot-count-based maintenance, you need the following three items for each mold.

1. Cumulative shot count (how many shots the mold has run since it was made)
2. The shot count at the time of the previous maintenance
3. The maintenance interval (in shots)

With these three, the “shots remaining until the next maintenance” can be calculated by subtraction. The problem is item 1, the cumulative shot count: when a mold moves between several machines or goes out to a subcontractor, counts get missed somewhere. We cover this in detail in the system requirements section later.

For how to connect maintenance orders and history with your equipment maintenance system, see also our article on equipment maintenance management systems.

Idle Molds and Storage of Customer-Owned Tooling: Recording Return and Disposal Discussions

Model Plant B has 190 idle molds

Next, we classify the 600 molds on the ledger by the date they were last used (last-used date).

The 128 molds not used for 12 to 36 months and the 62 not used for more than 36 months together make 190 molds, or about 32%, which are idle. Of these 190, 142 are customer-owned and 48 are company-owned.

We divide the 190 idle molds into three groups by their current situation.

If each mold uses one rack slot, idle molds alone occupy 190 slots. We do not convert this into cost here, but for plants that feel short of warehouse space, classifying what is in those 190 slots is the first step.

Actions for each of the three situations

The 70 molds whose mass production has ended and that are in the service-parts period may still be used. However, you need to confirm with the customer when the service-parts period will end. Record the expected end date and how storage fees will be handled until then in the ledger as consultation records.

The 45 molds with a discontinuation notice but no disposal discussion yet are the ones to tackle first. The customer has judged them unnecessary, yet the molds remain. Discuss whether to return them, dispose of them, or run a final batch production before disposal, and put the agreed content in writing.

The 75 molds with unknown future orders start with asking the customer about the timing of the next order. When a reply comes, record the date and content in the ledger. Even if no reply is received, it is important to keep a record of “when, to whom and what was asked.”

Note that while JAMA and JAPIA call for consultations on the premise of disposal using 15 years after the end of mass production as a guideline, this 15-year criterion is not used in the classification for Model Plant B in this article. We introduce 15 years only as a guideline; the actual decision should be made through consultation with the customer.

Translating industry association rules into ledger fields

When the points set out by JAMA and JAPIA are converted into fields a mold ledger should hold, they look like this. This is the author’s own mapping based on the industry associations’ documents.

What this table shows is that without a ledger that can hold the last order date, end-of-mass-production date, owner, location and consultation records for each mold, you cannot operate in line with the industry associations’ rules.

Customer-owned molds and IATF 16949

At automotive parts plants, IATF 16949 requirements are also relevant to customer-owned molds. Clause 8.5.1.6 requires that customer-owned tools and equipment bear permanent markings that make their ownership and application identifiable. On the Elsmar Cove forum, a quality community, the view has been expressed that even without engraving the owner’s name directly, the requirement may be met with a permanent identification number plus a control list from which the owner can be looked up by that number.

Mold IDs and the owner field in the ledger may serve as this control list. However, please confirm individually with your certification body whether your own practice meets the requirement. For the overall approach to traceability, see our article on IATF 16949 traceability.

12 Fields Your Mold Ledger Should Hold (Checklist)

Here we summarize the discussion so far as 12 fields a mold ledger should hold. You can use them as is, whether reviewing an Excel ledger or writing an RFP for a system.

1. Mold ID: A permanent identification number, using one of an engraving, a nameplate, a 2D code or an RFID tag
2. Owner: Customer name or your company, plus a reference to the document showing ownership
3. Part numbers: Your part number, the customer part number and the number of cavities
4. Current location: Plant, building and rack slot, including subcontractors and Tier 2 suppliers the molds are loaned to, plus the date last confirmed
5. Status: In mass production, service-parts period, discontinuation notified, under repair, disposed of, returned
6. Shot count: Cumulative shot count and the shot count at the previous maintenance
7. Maintenance interval: The maintenance interval in shots and the shots remaining until the next maintenance
8. Maintenance and repair history: Date, work done, parts replaced, person in charge
9. Last-used date and last order date: The last production date and the last order date for the part numbers that use the mold
10. End of mass production and service-parts period: The end-of-mass-production date and the expected end of the service-parts period
11. Consultation records: Date, counterpart, agreed content and document reference for consultations on storage, return and disposal
12. Link to molding conditions and changeover records: Which lot was made with which mold ID (traceability)

In Excel ledgers, it is not unusual for some of items 1 to 5 to exist as columns while items 6 to 12 are missing or not kept up to date. Items 9 to 11 in particular are important for preparing for developments on the Japanese side. For how to organize master data such as part numbers, customers and suppliers, see our article on master data management in manufacturing.

Mold Management System Requirements and Integration with MES, ERP and Maintenance

Getting shot counts from molding machines: EUROMAP 77

For data exchange between injection molding machines and MES, there is a standard called OPC 40077 (EUROMAP 77). According to the specification published by the OPC Foundation (v1.01, published June 1, 2020), its scope includes general information about the molding machine, the current configuration and status including molds and injection units, job and cycle information, and the transfer of molding-condition data sets. Within the job information, the mold ID (MouldId) and the number of cavities (NumCavities) are mandatory items.

On the other hand, the mold object in OPC 40083 (EUROMAP 83), the common type definition, has properties such as ID, presence, description and status, but no cumulative shot counter at the mold level is defined. Cycle counters are provided at the job level and the machine level.

What follows is the author’s reading. What EUROMAP 77 gives you is “with which mold ID, and how many cycles ran in that job or on that machine.” The lifetime shot count of a mold, meaning the cumulative total across multiple machines and subcontractors, needs to be designed so that it is accumulated per mold ID on the mold management system or MES side. In addition, the supported specification version may differ by molding machine maker and model, so please confirm the version supported on the machine side in your RFP.

What to do with machines outside the scope of EUROMAP 77

Press machines and die casting machines are outside the scope of EUROMAP 77. The same applies to older molding machines that do not support EUROMAP 77. On these machines, shot counts are obtained by one of the following methods, or a combination of them.

• Capture the machine’s counter signal
• Fit a retrofit shot counter to the mold
• Scan the mold ID at changeover and enter the production quantity from the daily report

There are many retrofit counter products. As examples of functions: according to an announcement by Matsui Mfg., its “Smart Shot Counter” attaches to the mold with a magnet and captures five items: shot count, cycle time, mold surface temperature, ambient temperature around the mold and ambient humidity. According to a 2010 trade magazine article, the “CVe Monitor” from Progressive Components in the United States is a monitor mounted on the mold that records cycle time, operating status and the cycle intervals at which maintenance was performed. These are examples of functions, not recommendations of any specific product.

Scanning the mold ID at changeover is the key

Both shot accumulation and lot linking start from “which mold is currently mounted on which machine.” Without that, however many shots the machine counter records, you cannot tell which mold they belong to.

That is why the key practice is to scan the mold ID at changeover and fix the machine-mold combination in the system. If scanning the wrong mold blocks the start of production or triggers a warning, it also helps prevent defects caused by mounting the wrong mold.

Integration with MES, ERP and maintenance

A mold management system does not work on its own. The main integration points are as follows.

• MES and production management (ERP): Receive the part number master, customer master and production results (lots). The last-used date and last order date can be updated automatically from here. For the big picture of MES, see our article on MES implementation at Thai factories.
• Equipment maintenance: When the shots remaining until the next maintenance reach a threshold, a maintenance order is raised automatically. When maintenance is completed, the result is received and the remaining shots are reset.
• Permissions and audit: Changes to the owner or status require approval, and the change history is kept. A ledger in which the owner can be rewritten freely is of no use either for explaining to customers or for audits.
• Multiple languages: Screens and labels used by mold maintenance staff and warehouse staff are provided in Thai.

There are also mechanisms for managing mold handovers between companies. As an example of functions, CIM Research Institute’s “Dr. Katakan Cloud” lists features such as a workflow for mold handovers between companies and visibility of maintenance schedules through maintenance thresholds and shot management. This, too, is an example of functions, not a recommendation.

For the relationship with production management at automotive parts plants as a whole, see also our article on production management systems for automotive parts. Issues specific to plastic molding are covered in our article on production management systems for plastic molding in Thailand.

RFP and Acceptance Testing for Mold Management System Implementation

Items to include in the RFP

When ordering a mold management system from an outside vendor, include at least the following items in the RFP (request for proposal).

Example acceptance test criteria

For acceptance testing at the plant (FAT, SAT), set criteria such as the following. All of them, including the numbers, are model criteria for this article.

• Scanning a different mold ID at changeover blocks the start of production (or triggers a warning)
• In one week of parallel operation, the difference between the system’s accumulated shots and the machine counter is within ±0.5% (model criterion)
• A maintenance order is raised automatically when the threshold is reached
• Changing the owner or status in the ledger leaves an approval and a history record
• A list of stored molds for each customer (with last-used date and status) can be output

The second item, parallel operation, is especially important. If shot accumulation is off, maintenance timing is off too, and people stop trusting the whole system.

A 90-Day Plan for Mold Management System Implementation

Using Model Plant B as an example, here is how to proceed in the first 90 days.

Days 0 to 30: Get the ledger in order

• Define the 12 ledger fields
• Physically check all 600 molds (location, ownership, status)
• Attach mold ID labels
• Extract the idle molds

Days 31 to 60: Switch the most heavily used molds to a shot-count basis

• Switch the 120 most heavily used molds to shot-count-based maintenance (set thresholds, scan mold IDs at changeover)
• Trial shot capture from the molding machines

Days 61 to 90: Start consultations on idle molds

• Divide the 190 idle molds into the three categories and build a consultation list for each customer
• Start operating consultation records
• Start monthly reviews (location match rate, maintenance delays, consultation progress)

The 90-day targets, set as targets for Model Plant B, are a location match rate of 99% or higher and zero maintenance delays for Group A. This is an example of how to set targets, not a promise that they will be achieved. Rather than putting all 600 molds into the system at once, proceeding in defined scopes, in the order of ledger cleanup, heavily used molds and then idle molds, keeps the burden on the shop floor down.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is a mold management system? Isn’t an Excel mold ledger enough?

A mold management system is a mechanism for keeping four axes correct for every mold at all times: ownership, location, shot count and operating status. You can create the columns in Excel too, but they must be updated by hand at every changeover, production run, maintenance job and customer notice, and they tend to drift away from the physical molds within a few months. If you have few molds and have decided who updates the ledger and when, starting with Excel is fine.

How can mold shot counts be counted automatically?

With injection molding machines that support EUROMAP 77, you can obtain the mold ID and the cycles for each job. However, because a mold-level cumulative shot counter is not defined in the standard, the author believes the mold management system or MES needs to be designed to accumulate shots per mold ID. On machines that do not support it, and on press machines, shots are captured through a combination of the machine’s counter signal, retrofit shot counters, and mold ID scans at changeover with daily report entry.

Should mold maintenance be based on shot count or on time?

If you have a mix of molds with different utilization levels, we recommend using shot count as the basis. In this article’s model, uniform maintenance every 3 months simultaneously produced insufficient maintenance for high-utilization molds and excessive maintenance for low-utilization molds. That said, there are cases where time-based management is better, such as inspections during storage of molds that are not used for a long time. The maintenance interval itself should be decided by the mold maker or maintenance staff.

What should be managed for molds held on behalf of customers (customer-owned tooling)?

At a minimum, we recommend holding a permanent mold ID, the owner and the document showing ownership, the location, the last-used date, and consultation records on storage, return and disposal. IATF 16949 Clause 8.5.1.6 requires permanent markings on customer-owned tools that make their ownership and application identifiable. Please confirm individually with your certification body whether your practice meets the requirement. Also, for the customs and BOI treatment when accepting customer-owned molds from overseas, please confirm individually with the BOI or other specialists.

Does Japan’s Toriteki Act (free mold storage) matter to factories in Thailand?

The Toriteki Act is a Japanese law. This article does not judge whether it applies directly to transactions between Thai companies. Please confirm applicability individually with a lawyer. However, Japanese automotive industry associations call for putting mold storage and disposal in writing, holding consultations at least once a year and centrally managing records, and the author believes Japanese-affiliated customers and head offices may ask overseas sites for records of the same standard. With a ledger, you can answer such inquiries.

How long does mold management system implementation take, and how should it proceed?

It depends on the number of molds and the scope of integration, but this article introduced an approach that divides 90 days into three parts: ledger field definition and physical checks in the first 30 days, switching the most heavily used molds to shot-count-based maintenance in the next 30 days, and starting consultation records for idle molds in the last 30 days. Full-scale systemization, including integration with molding machines and MES, involves less rework if it is expanded after this ledger groundwork is in place.

Summary

Implementing a mold management system does not mean digitizing a list of molds. It means continuously keeping four axes correct for every mold: ownership, location, shot count and operating status. Success depends on who updates them and when.

At Model Plant B in this article, 552 of the 600 molds on the ledger (92%) matched their recorded location, while 48 (8%) were either in a different place or could not be found. Switching the 120 most heavily used molds to shot-count-based maintenance reduces annual maintenance only by about 14%, from 480 to 414, but it reveals that maintenance for the high-utilization Group A had been insufficient. There were also 190 idle molds (about 32%), and 45 of them had a discontinuation notice yet no disposal discussion.

In Japan, oversight of free mold storage is intensifying, and the automotive industry associations call for written mold terms and centralized management of consultation records. In Thailand, idle molds may increase as the shift to EVs proceeds. Start by comparing your current mold ledger against the 12 fields in this article.

At TOMAS TECH, we are happy to help even at the stage of reviewing the fields in your current Excel mold ledger, or trialing shot management on your most heavily used molds only. If you are struggling with managing mold location, ownership or shot counts, please feel free to get in touch through our contact form.

References

• Japan Fair Trade Commission (Enforcement status of the Toriteki Act in FY2025, etc., June 10, 2026): https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2026/jun/260610.html
• Anderson Mori and Tomotsune (newsletter, July 31, 2026): https://www.amt-law.com/asset/pdf/bulletins8_pdf/260731.pdf
• Japan Fair Trade Commission and SME Agency (We are strengthening oversight of free mold storage, November 13, 2025): https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2025/nov/251113_katanomusyohokan.m.pdf
• Japan Fair Trade Commission (Recommendation to Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus, November 13, 2025): https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2025/nov/251113_mitsubishifuso.html
• Japan Fair Trade Commission (Recommendation to Daihen, June 26, 2026): https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2026/jun/260626_kinki_toriteki.html
• Japan Fair Trade Commission (Recommendation to Noritz, July 8, 2026): https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2026/jul/260708_kinki_toriteki.html
• Japan Fair Trade Commission (Recommendation to Minebea Access Solutions, July 10, 2026): https://www.jftc.go.jp/houdou/pressrelease/2026/jul/260710_kyuusyuu_toriteki.html
• Sendenkaigi AdverTimes (report on the recommendation to Minebea Access Solutions): https://www.advertimes.com/20260710/article550344/
• Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (Voluntary Action Plan, revised December 24, 2025): https://www.jama.or.jp/release/docs/release/2024/20240531_01_rev251224.pdf
• Japan Auto Parts Industries Association (Thorough Implementation Plan, revised December 2025): https://www.japia.or.jp/files/user/japia/work/torihikitekiseika/JAPIA_tetteiplan_kaitei_25.12.pdf
• Capital.com (Thailand’s August car production rises 10.9% on year): https://capital.com/en-gb/news/thailand-s-august-car-production-rises-10-9-on-year
• New Straits Times (Thailand car production rises 6.1% in July): https://www.nst.com.my/amp/business/economy/2026/08/1518403/thailand-car-production-rises-61pct-year-july
• Trading Economics (Thailand Industrial Production): https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/industrial-production/news/587981
• Yahoo Finance (Thai auto sector facing crisis, Reuters): https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/thai-auto-sector-facing-crisis-082852558.html
• AMRO (Thailand’s Automotive Sector at a Crossroads, December 2025): https://www.amro-asia.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Selected-Issue_Thailands-Automotive-Sector-at-a-Crossroads_Managing-the-Transition-to-EVs.pdf
• OPC Foundation (OPC 40077 EUROMAP 77): https://reference.opcfoundation.org/specs/OPC-40077/full
• OPC Foundation (OPC 40077 v1.01): https://reference.opcfoundation.org/specs/OPC-40077/v1.01
• OPC Foundation (OPC 40083 MouldType): https://reference.opcfoundation.org/specs/OPC-40083/15.2.1
• OPC Foundation (OPC 40083 9.4): https://reference.opcfoundation.org/specs/OPC-40083/9.4
• Elsmar Cove (IATF Clause 8.5.1.6 Customer-owned tooling identification): https://elsmar.com/elsmarqualityforum/threads/iatf-clause-8-5-1-6-%E2%80%A2-customer-owned-tooling-identification.91840/
• Kyodo News PR Wire (Matsui Mfg. Smart Shot Counter, July 2021): https://kyodonewsprwire.jp/release/202106286862
• Ipros (CIM Research Institute Dr. Katakan Cloud): https://pr.mono.ipros.com/cim/product/detail/2001661326/
• MoldMaking Technology (New CVe Monitor for Tracking Mould Activity, 2010): https://www.moldmakingtechnology.com/articles/new-cve-monitor-for-tracking-mould-activity