Hello everyone! This is Alfredo Garcia and, in this newsletter, I will try my best to illustrate a recurrent situation that we handle at EastBridge day in and day out, sourcing custom vs “Made to Print” parts.
In addition to building complete products, one of our lines of business is supplying components, parts and subassemblies, which are used to assemble complex finished goods. We can focus on one key component or the entire BOM. Our “technical inputs” empower manufacturers to build high value products without the need to have their own specialized (and international) sourcing team.
EastBridge can deliver both custom and “made to print” parts. Sourcing custom parts versus “made to print” parts (a term derived from “blueprints” a process that’s almost as old as “drawings” and not much of either is happening nowadays) presents distinct challenges for contract manufacturers and OEMs. Custom parts are typically developed collaboratively between the designer or engineer and the supplier. This process often starts with a concept rather than a finalized drawing. That introduces uncertainty into the specification, material set, tolerances, and manufacturing methods to be utilized.
Buyers must rely on the factory (and usually an ecosystem of several subcontractors) expertise and know-how. It’s also critical that the supplier understands how the parts will be used at the product level. Stepping off with the wrong supplier can lead to variability in quality, longer development cycles, a mismatch with your design and disappointment all around.
Close and granular communication is critical, and in our experience, iterative prototyping, testing, and process optimization are always required before production begins. And to protect intellectual property, clear agreements are needed to protect your design.
In contrast, “made to print” parts are produced strictly according to detailed engineering drawings provided by the specifying party. This shifts responsibility for design accuracy and completeness (but not functionality or quality) to the buyer. This reduces ambiguity for the factory and the customer.
The primary challenge here lies in ensuring that the drawings, CAD files and specifications are accurate, fully defined and manufacturable. Any oversight—such as missing tolerances or unclear material specifications—can lead to production errors or delays. However, once validated, made-to-print sourcing tends to be more predictable, with easier “QVR” (quality-value ratio) comparison and clearer technical benchmarks.
Another key difference is cost structure. While custom and made-to-print parts can require made-to-order tooling, custom parts often involve upfront “NRE” (non-recurring engineering) costs, while made-to-print parts allow for more competitive bidding due to standardized requirements. Lead times also differ as custom parts usually require longer timelines due to development work and made-to-print parts can move directly into production.
In the end, sourcing any component, part or subassembly, especially CTF (critical-to-function) parts involves risk. At EastBridge, we specialize in guiding this process, reducing risk (and time) allowing our customers to focus on building and shipping great products.
Cheers,
Alfredo Garcia