How Can Manufacturers Reduce Time Spent Searching for Tools?

Every plant has some version of the same story: a job held up because the right tool wasn't in the crib, wasn't where the log said it was, or was three departments away being used for something else. It rarely gets logged as a formal incident. It just becomes part of the accepted friction of running a busy floor - until someone adds up how often it's actually happening.

The good news is that this isn't a discipline problem you fix by asking people to be more careful. It's a structural gap in how tool location gets recorded, and it has a structural fix.

How much this actually costs

Tool search time doesn't show up as its own line on a P&L, which is exactly why it tends to be underestimated. Industry research on the topic consistently points to a real, sizeable cost rather than a minor inconvenience.

Sandvik Coromant, a major industrial tooling supplier, has estimated that around 20% of worker productivity in manufacturing environments is lost to time spent searching for missing tools - and separately found that a substantial share of tool stock sits unused while other tools are overused, a pattern that inflates both replacement spend and search time simultaneously (*1).

Other industry sources put the daily time cost per worker in the range of 10 to 15+ minutes searching for tools, which sounds modest until it's multiplied across a full workforce and a full year - a figure commonly cited in the tens of hours of lost productivity per worker, annually (*2).

These figures come from industry and vendor research rather than a single controlled academic study, and specifics vary by facility type, so treat them as a credible general range rather than a number to quote precisely for your own plant. The consistent theme across sources, though, is that this is a real and recurring drain, not a rounding error.

Why tool cribs, checkout logs and 5S don't fully solve it

Most manufacturers already have some system in place - a tool crib with a sign-out sheet, a digital checkout log, or a 5S programme designed to keep everything in its place. These help, but they share a common weak point: they depend on someone updating the record correctly, every time, under production pressure.

That assumption breaks down in a few predictable ways:

• Informal borrowing - a tool gets picked up between stations without going through the crib process, because it's faster in the moment.
• End-of-shift handovers - tools move between shifts or teams without the log being updated to match.
• "I'll put it back later" - a tool set down mid-task, meant to be returned, gets left where it was last used.
• 5S drift - a well-run 5S programme keeps things in place initially, but without a way to verify compliance automatically, discipline tends to erode gradually rather than fail all at once.

None of this is a workforce failing. It's what happens when a system depends entirely on human diligence being maintained perfectly, indefinitely, on a floor where the priority is always getting the next job out.

What actually closes the gap

The structural fix is the same principle used across other high-friction tracking problems: remove the dependency on someone remembering to log a movement, and capture it automatically instead.

RFID-based tool tracking tags each tool with a unique identifier, then reads that identifier automatically as it moves past defined points - a tool crib exit, a department boundary, a storage cabinet - without requiring anyone to scan, sign, or log anything by hand. The result is a location record that reflects what's actually happened on the floor, not what someone remembered to write down.

This changes the practical experience in a few concrete ways:

• Tools are found in seconds, not minutes - instead of walking the floor asking around, a quick check shows the last known location.
• Missing tools are flagged, not discovered - a tool that hasn't returned to where it should be within an expected window can be surfaced as an exception, rather than only being noticed when the next job needs it.
• Tool crib data becomes trustworthy - stock and usage records reflect reality, which helps address the overstocking-and-underuse pattern that inflates tooling budgets.
• No new habit for operators to maintain - because the read happens automatically, the system doesn't rely on the same discipline that a manual log requires.

This is the same underlying approach behind Identec's Joanus platform - tagging tools and assets, then reading their movement automatically at defined points on the floor, rather than asking operators to add a manual step to an already busy process.

Where to start, practically

A full-floor rollout on day one isn't usually the right starting point. The plants that get the fastest, clearest return tend to start narrower:

• Identify your highest-friction tools first - the specialist or shared tools that cause the most delay when they can't be found, rather than trying to tag everything at once.
• Focus on the crib exit and key department boundaries - these are the points where visibility typically breaks down first, and where automatic reads have the most immediate impact.
• Use the data to fix stocking levels, not just find tools faster - once real usage patterns are visible, overstocked and underused tools become obvious, which is where some of the biggest cost savings actually sit.
• Expand from there - once the approach proves out on a defined set of tools or one area of the floor, extending it to work-in-progress, returnable assets, or a wider tool inventory is a smaller step.

Frequently asked questions

Is this really a significant cost, or just an everyday inconvenience?

Industry research consistently frames it as a meaningful productivity cost - commonly cited in the range of 10 to 20% of worker time or productivity lost to searching, depending on the source and facility (*3). It varies by plant, but it's rarely negligible once measured properly.

We already have a 5S programme - isn't that enough?

5S is valuable, but it depends on ongoing manual discipline to stay effective. Automatic tracking doesn't replace 5S - it adds a layer of verification and real location data that helps 5S compliance hold up over time, rather than gradually drifting.

Does tool tracking require operators to change how they work?

No - the read happens automatically as tagged tools pass defined points, so it doesn't add a scanning or logging step to an operator's normal task.

How does this help with tool stocking and purchasing decisions, not just finding tools?

Once actual usage and movement data exists, it becomes possible to see which tools are genuinely in demand and which are rarely used, addressing the pattern where facilities overstock some tools while underusing others.

Can this work alongside our existing tool crib process rather than replacing it?

Yes - automatic tracking is generally added on top of existing crib and inventory processes, giving them accurate, real-time data rather than requiring the process itself to be rebuilt.

* References:

1 Sandvik Coromant. "Tool Logistics." Sandvik Coromant. Accessed 2026.
https://www.sandvik.coromant.com/en-us/services/logistics/pages/tool-logistics.aspx

2 - Nokia. "Lost Tools, Lost Time: The True Cost of Missing Equipment in Manufacturing." Nokia.com, 2025. 

https://www.nokia.com/blog/lost-tools-lost-time-the-true-cost-of-missing-equipment-in-manufacturing/

3 - SME (Society of Manufacturing Engineers). "A Hero's Journey: Automating Tooling Management." SME.org, September 2023.
https://www.sme.org/technologies/articles/2023/september/a-heros-journey-automating-tooling-management/