“Managed Customization” in the Garment Industry 4th International Conference on Mass Customization and Personalization in Central Europe (MCP - CE 2010)

1. “Managed
Customiza1on”
in
the
Garment
Industry
4th
Interna*onal
Conference
on
Mass
Customiza*on
and
Personaliza*on
in
Central
Europe
(MCP
-­‐
CE
2010)
Oct
2010
roland@brandvis.com
CTO
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 1

2. Financial
Crisis
…
and
Mass-­‐Customiza4on
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 2

3. The
Brandvis
Solu4on
− SoHware
• Template-­‐based
Garment
Customiza*on
Engine
• Patented
mechanism
provides
immediate
cer*fica*on
against
safety
standards
• Fastest,
most
accurate
way
to
customize
technical
workwear
− Garment
Manufacturing
(if
required)
• Brandvis
owned
facility
in
Suzhou,
China
• Samples
in
one
week
• Focuses
on
low
batch,
custom
orders
• Short
lead
*mes
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 3

4. Key
Finding(s):
The
garment
industry
is
changing
− Pressure
to
innovate
–
Introduce
customiza*on
• “Get
out
of
the
race
to
the
buUom”
− Pressure
to
save
money
–
In
small
batches
• Reduce
“money”
in
stock,
Reduce
requirement
for
large
upfront
investment/commitment
• “60%
of
the
business
will
be
framework
tenders”
− Pressure
to
save
*me
–
With
short
lead*mes
• Legisla*on
was
introduced
in
2003
to
cer*fy
technical
workwear
against
EU/EN
and/or
ANSI
standards
• Cer*fica*on
can
take
up
to
3
month
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 4

5. Key
Finding(s):
The
current
state
− Designer/”Market”/”Customer”
driven
• The
Design/Marke*ng
departments
own/rule
Product
Mgmt
• Products
get
created
on
the
fly,
based
on
(perceived)
customer
feedback
and/or
based
on
“the
looks”
− Catalogs
have
become
unmanageable
• 900+
Products,
10000
Parts/Fabrics,
20%
reuse
− Costs
are
exploding,
Prices
are
under
pressure
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 5

6. Key
Finding(s):
The
way
out
− Introduce
the
concept
of
“Managed
Customiza*on”
• Not
“new”.
Other
industries
(e.g.
Automo*ve)
already
use
it.
• What
is
missing
is
a
clear
understanding
what
a/the
equivalent
to
a/
the
VW
PQ35
“plahorm”
is
and
how
to
maximize
the
reuse
of
parts
between
the
configurable
cars
(e.g.
Audi
A3,
VW
Touran,
…)
− Introduce
the
concept
of
a
Garment
“ Template”
• Makes
the
customiza*on
manageable
• Makes
the
journey
manageable
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 6

7. Managed
Customiza4on
Template
Configurator
Builder
Everything that a template can build
Everything that the BOM can build
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010

8. Managed
Customiza4on
What Manufacturing can build in batches
Template
Configurator
Builder with a lead-time of 4 weeks!
of 50
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010

9. Managed
Customiza4on
• Optimizing production for
maximum efficiency
Chg Production
• The relative cost of
change/cost of setup is
marginal
• Optimizing production for
sufficient efficiency
C P C P C P C P
• Minimize cost of change/
cost of setup since it is
substancial
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010

10. Reverse
Engineering
of
Catalogs
%
of
Garments
#
of
Templates
%
of
Parts
overlap
as
Templates
between
Templates
Brandvis
100%
18
80%
Catalog
1
40%
5
30%
Catalog
2
80%
2
50%
Catalog
3
100%
1
100%
Catalog
4
50%
12
50%
Catalog
5
60%
6
80%
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 10

11. Sales
Breakdown
<=50
<=250
<=500
>=501
2009
60%
37%
0%
3%
2008
63%
36%
1%
1%
2007
49%
46%
3%
1%
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 11

12. Summary
− The
financial
crisis
did
had
an
impact
in
the
Garment
Industry/Technical
Workwear
Market
• Smaller
contracts
(but
more
deals),
…
at
best
stable
revenue
− But
companies
who
embrace
these
changed
condi*ons
(e.g.
by
introducing
mass-­‐customiza*on
concepts
to
deliver
innova*ve
value-­‐add)
do
con*nue
to
grow
(at
the
expense
of
the
dinosaurs)
− “Managed
Customiza*on”
is
a/the
concept
to
manage
the
journey
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 12

13. Backup
Slides
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 13

14. What
will
we
talk
about?
And
why?
− Adop*ng
mass-­‐customiza*on
strategies
and
concepts
is
s*ll
challenging.
I
think/believe
for
all
industries,
but
especially
for
the
garment
industry.
Reasons
are
…
• Cost-­‐oriented
thinking
(race
to
the
buUom)
• Lack
of
pressure
to
innovate
• Confusing
personaliza*on
with
customiza*on
− E.g.
Nike.ID,
blue-­‐cuUon,
…
− Going
for
one
of
two
extremes:
Un-­‐managed
customiza*on
vs.
pseudo
customiza*on
• Un-­‐managed
customiza*on
is
expensive,
slow
and
has
therefore
limited
value
for
a/the
customers
• Pseudo
customiza*on
is
less
expensive,
but
delivers
very
limited
customiza*on
choices/op*ons
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 14

15. What
will
we
talk
about?
And
why?
− Anecdotal
and
sien*fic
effidence
show
that
this
is
beoming
a
big
problem
• Lets
take
for
instance
the
workwear
market.
In
Europe
alone
this
is
a
EUR
3000M
market
(USD
16000M
in
the
US)
.
By
now
large
workwear
brands
need
to
customize
30-­‐50%
of
their
orders
and
one
very
big
fabric
manufacturer
did
a
study
that
showed
that
35%
of
its
customers
orders
are
(by
now)
framework
tenders,
means
tenders
which
will
cover
a
big
volume
(e.g.
50.000
Jackets
for
a
Police
Force),
but
will
be
manufactured
in
customized,
small
batches
(e.g.
500
Jackets
for
a
given
region/sta*on).
• Vendors/Suppliers/Manufacturers
which
will
learn
how
to
deliver
on
these
projects
will
create
a
compen*tve
advantage
their
companies
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 15

16. Who
am
I
and
what
does
Brandvis
do?
− CTO;
20
years
industry
experience;
Manufacturing;
IT
− “Mass-­‐customiza*on
delivered”;
5
pillars
− Today
I
want
to
talk
about
the
relevance
and
importance
of
plahorms
and
templates
to
make
customiza*on
manageable
and
the
experience
we
have
gained
so
far
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 16

17. My
view
on
mass-­‐customiza4on
− “Deliver
customized
goods
at
(near)
mass-­‐produc*on
cost”
− It
is
more
an
aim,
an
ambi*on,
a
journey,
a
vision
than
something
that
you
will
achieve
(ever
reach).
It
is
not
a
goal/target
that
you
can
declare
to
have
conquered
− But
on
the
journey
you
can
materialize
good
value
for
customers
and
enterprises
• Yes,
the
customized
goods
might
not
get
delivered
at
(near)
mass-­‐
produc*on
cost.
There
might
be
an
upliH
of
50%,
but
this
is
s*ll
beUer
than
100%
upliH
that
you
see
if
you
are
not
going
on
the
journey
• “Know
your
customer”
–
beUer
insight
into
what
customers
want
• Get
out
of
the
race
to
the
boUom
–
create
a
differen*ator/an
innova*on
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 17

18. Customiza4on
of
Workwear
− Not
as
simple
as
it
looks
like
− Simple
solu*on/approach
• Take
a
mass-­‐produced
garment
and
s*ck
a
logo
on
it
− That’s
not
(really)
working,
because
…
• The
customiza*on
can
hurt
the
fabric
− S*tching
through
will
make
the
garment
leak
(EN
343)
• The
customiza*on
can
hurt
a
standard
− Changing
the
amount
of
visible
reflec*ve
material
(EN
471)
− Means
the
only
approach
that
really
works
in
BTO
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 18

19. Placebo
Customiza4on
− Not
REALLY
customiza*on
• E.g.
10
colors
on
a
T-­‐Shirt
− Normally
implemented
using
BTS
− (Very)
Limited
customer
value
• Avoids
the
problem
of
managing
customiza*on
at
the
expense
of
a
bad
customer
value
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 19

20. “Un-­‐managed”
customiza4on
− Everything
is
allowed
− “Full”
customiza*on
• Not
ETO,
but
close
to
it
because
in
general
you
offer
to
build
whatever
your
parts
database
can
produce
− Good
for
the
customer
in
terms
of
flexibility;
bad
for
the
company
in
terms
of
complexity
that
needs
to
be
managed
• As
a
result
the
value
to
the
customer
is
limited,
because
the
price
of
these
goods
can
be
high
(more
than
3
*mes
the
cost
of
a/the
mass-­‐
produced
good)
and
the
delivery/lead-­‐*me
can
be
very
long
(3-­‐6
months)
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 20

21. The
concept
of
plaPorms
and
templates
− Not
new
• E.g.
Automo*ve
industry
− Obvious
value
• One
plahorm
can
produce
mul*ple
templates
− E.g.
the
VW
plahorm
PQ35
– Audi
A3/Q3/TT,
VW
Touran/Caddy/Golf,
SEAT
Altea/Toledo/León,
Škoda
Octavia/Ye*/Superb
• One
template
can
produce
a
lot
of
configura*ons
• While
minimizing
the
number
of
parts
you
need
to
produce
the
end-­‐product
(deprolifera*on)
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 21

22. The
concept
of
plaPorms
and
templates
− Non-­‐obvious
value
• Allows
the
company/en*ty
to
communicate
internally
(between
departments
–
e.g.
engineering,
manufacturing,
sales,
marke*ng)
and
externally
(e.g.
customers/markets,
legal/cer*fica*on)
• Makes
the
journey
possible
–
allows
you
to
start
with
a
non-­‐perfect
level
of
ability
to
customize
and
get
beUer
at
it
over
*me
− Makes
adop*on
possible
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 22

23. The
concept
of
plaPorms
and
templates
− Currently
limited
acceptability
in
the
garment
industry
• Mainly
product-­‐
and
catalog-­‐oriented
• Product
thinking
prevails;
driven
by
customer
requirements
− No
product-­‐line/-­‐management
thinking
− No
“lets
build
more
with
less”
ambi*on
− Experience
from
reverse
engineering
catalogs
• 80%
of
a
catalog
can
be
expressed
in
terms
of
templates
• Every
template
can
express
10
catalog
products
• Some
catalogs
are
beUer
than
others
− Plahorm
thinking
vs.
Product
thinking
− Our
own
templates
share
more
than
80%
of
fabrics
and
components/parts
• The
differen*ator
is
in
the
design/style
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 23

24. Different
levels
of
(mass-­‐)
customiza4on
− Engineer-­‐to-­‐Order
(ETO)
• The
product
will
be
designed
to
fit
the
order
− Built-­‐to-­‐Order/Make-­‐to-­‐Order
(BTO/MTO)
• The
product
will
be
built
to
fit
the
order
• The
opposite
to
Built-­‐to-­‐Stock
(BTS)
• Suitable
for
highly-­‐customized/low-­‐volume
goods
− Assemble-­‐to-­‐Order
(ATO)
• The
product
will
be
assembled
to
fit
the
order
− Configure-­‐to-­‐Order
(CTO)
• The
product
will
be
configured
to
fit
the
order
− Built-­‐to-­‐Stock/Make-­‐to-­‐Stock
(BTS/MTS)
• The
order
needs
to
fit
to
what
is
in
stock
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 24

25. Comparing
*TO
Engineer’g
Manufac’g
Manufac’g
Manufac’g
Logis1cs
Design
Parts
Comp./ Product
Shipping
Usage
Assemblies
ETO
On-­‐Order
Produc*on
BTO/MTO
P/O
Pr.
On-­‐Order
Produc*on
ATO
P/O
Produc*on
On-­‐Order
Produc*on
CTO
Pre-­‐Order
Produc*on
On-­‐Order
Produc*on
BTS/MTS
Pre-­‐Order
Produc*on
On-­‐Order
Prod.
© Brandvis Ltd. 2010 25