Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

"Managed Customization” in the Garment Industry - 10/2010


Published on

“Managed Customization” in the Garment Industry

4th International Conference on Mass Customization and Personalization in Central Europe (MCP - CE 2010)

  • Be the first to comment

"Managed Customization” in the Garment Industry - 10/2010

  1. 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   CTO  © Brandvis Ltd. 2010 1  
  2. 2. Financial  Crisis  …  and  Mass-­‐Customiza4on   © Brandvis Ltd. 2010 2  
  3. 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. 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. 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. 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. 7. Managed  Customiza4on   Template Configurator Builder Everything that a template can buildEverything that the BOM can build © Brandvis Ltd. 2010
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 13. Backup  Slides  © Brandvis Ltd. 2010 13  
  14. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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