The ultimate setup time is zero setup time. Theoretically the ultimate process standardization would use only one tool, one holding device, and one program for all parts. That would mean zero setup, always. Unfortunately, things do not work that way. The point to remember is, the more we can standardize, the more we automatically minimize setup. (Note: Quality always comes first, so If quality requires another tool, then the best we can do is use another standard tool.) One of the prime advantages of standardization is the minimizing of tool setup. Yet, one of the reasons we often substitute one tool for another is for productivity advantages. Let’s see here: on one hand we keep a standardized tool in the machine to avoid setup time losses to gain productivity, and on the other hand we change to specialized tools to gain productivity. This sounds contradictory! That’s because both actions are taken to gain productivity. Which process yields the best productivity? Here comes the balancing act. We have to very carefully compare the advantages and disadvantages of a standard tool with the advantages and disadvantages of a special tool in order to determine which choice minimizes the total cost of the process, including setup time. We are essentially comparing setup time savings using the standard tool versus potentially improved run time savings, minus setup time, if we change to another tool. The best process wins by producing lower cost products. Standardization often wins if all of the other factors, such as the costs associated with selecting, sourcing, purchasing, storing, tracking, and setup of specialized tooling are considered, Be aware of the significant hidden costs associated with having “just one more tool” in the cabinet. Setup often costs more than expected making the costs even more difficult to recoup; especially with the smaller lot sizes were seeing. Nonstandard tooling, however, is always lurking in the shadows calling out to us “Use me, I can run it better/faster”. We all want to run better/faster, so we are easily lured into the better/faster trap. Before we know it we have special tools for every job, costing setup time for ourselves, plus the hidden costs mentioned above of adding “just one more tool” to the inventory. The bottom line is; we must carefully balance standardization with specialization. As a general rule, standardization should always win unless there is overwhelming proof that specialization is cost justified. Then, the last question to be answered before adding a new tool to the inventory is, “What current tools can be eliminated if we do add this new tool to our tool box? On one hand we want to minimize the number of tools we use, and at the same time we must constantly evaluate new tools and technologies in order to have the most productive tools available to use! Only one thing is certain; standardized tooling helps setup reduction.