1. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316023695
Apparel product development: An overview of existing models
Article in International Journal of Product Development · January 2016
DOI: 10.1504/IJPD.2016.10004447
CITATIONS
0
READS
3,683
3 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
comparison of indian anthropometric data and sri lankan data students View project
Decision making in the apparel innovation View project
Gamini Lanarolle
University of Moratuwa
12 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Niromi Seram
University of Moratuwa
12 PUBLICATIONS 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Julian Nanayakkara
University of Kelaniya
26 PUBLICATIONS 20 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Niromi Seram on 17 January 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
3. 332 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
Biographical notes: Niromi Seram is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of
Textiles and Clothing Technology, Faculty of Engineering, University of
Moratuwa. After graduation, she gained industrial experience working in the
apparel manufacturing industry in Sri Lanka for seven years holding executive
positions. She has a Master’s degree in Fashion Design & Technology from
London College of Fashion, University of Arts London, UK, and is currently
studying for PhD. Her main research interests are optimising value and
decision-making in product development and application and combination of
techniques for apparel manufacturing.
Julian Nanayakkara is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Industrial
Management, Faculty of Science, University of Kelaniya. He completed PhD
in 1983 in the area of Production Management and Manufacturing Technology
from the University of Strathclyde, UK, and worked as Lecturer, Researcher
and Consultant to industry for over 35 years. He specialised in the area of
production and operations and management and manufacturing technology. His
research interests are resource planning and control in ERP systems, modelling,
simulation and optimisation of production and supply chain operations and
quality management and productivity improvement in business processes.
Gamini Lanarolle is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Textiles and
Clothing Technology, Faculty of Engineering, University of Moratuwa. He
qualified with PhD in the area of Knitting Technology and Structures from
University of Manchester, UK, and worked as Lecturer, Researcher and
Consultant to industry for over 20 years. He specialised in the area of knitting
technology and productivity improvements. His research interests are knitting
technology and structures and lean and process improvements.
1 Introduction
Starting as a cottage industry, the textile and apparel industry underwent rapid growth,
transforming into a globalised industry after the industrial revolution. The escalation of
environmental turbulence and innovations such as the advent of synthetic fibres in the
late 1950s shaped and reshaped the industry (Kilduff, 2000). At present, the apparel
industry is recognised as one of the largest industries in the global economy and is
unique. It creates employment opportunities for millions of people and accelerates the
development journey for the developed as well as newly industrialised countries
(Adhikari and Yamamoto, 2007; Glock and Kunz, 2007). The apparel industry is serving
to diverse markets which are split into a number of segments based on price, and the
competitive strategies which span from low-priced mass market apparel to custom-made
couture garments selling for thousands of dollars each (Bruce and Daley, 2006; Renfrew
and Renfrew, 2009). While serving the diverse market segments, the apparel industry
produces an enormous range of different product categories based on function and end
use such as apparel for formal, casual, sports and other uses and for men, women and
children. Further, changes are made to the product lines within the year (Nuttle et al.,
1991; Kunz and Garner, 2007).
4. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 333
Globalisation in the 1990s has had a major impact on all commodity supply chains
including textiles and apparel. As Kilduff (2000) observes, consumers have become not
only increasingly sophisticated, demanding more frequent innovation, greater exclusivity,
wider choice and better service, but also more discriminating about getting value for the
money spent. The growing trend towards more informal and active lifestyles has created
a demand for new fabrics and garments and this has not only increased the diversity of
products in the market, but also introduced uncertainty about future needs while leading
many to believe that the market will be subject to more frequent changes. As Zulch et al.
(2011) noted, personal dressing preferences are increasingly shifting to customised
products. With increasing number of consumers window shopping on the internet, and
many more engaged in fashion blogging and social networking, personalised fashion
trends have seeped through into the market. Moreover, Jackson and Shaw (2009) declare
that ready access to a wide range of media that publicise the availability of fashion
products and tempt buyers are the major factors influencing fashion consumers.
Since the desire of people to look well dressed and updated in fashion provides a big
opportunity for apparel manufacturers, most firms place relatively heavy emphasis on
originality and fashion-forward products (Suh et al., 2010). In order to do this, the
manufacturers have to move from the traditional producer-driven strategy to a customer-
focused strategy while maintaining rapid responses and greater flexibility to withstand
the competition (Tyler et al., 2006). In order to respond adequately to the demands of the
customer, to maintain speed to market and to fulfil the quality requirements, Andersen
and Christensen (2005) state that the operational activities need to be flexible enough.
Moreover, the product development approaches must be shifted to focus on what people
want, and create experiences for the consumer rather than being simply limited to
designing superficially appealing products (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Raymond,
2007). In this context, the design process itself is becoming more transparent to
consumers (Morris, 2011).
The philosophy of ‘fast fashion’ (Zulch et al., 2011), which is a recently emerged
trend, is not only leading the apparel industry to an important transformation, but also a
challenge to the industry. The major characteristics of this trend are shorter product life
cycles, quicker response production, faster distribution and high variety of customer
preferences (Zulch et al., 2011). Since the retailers have introduced a number of phases
within seasons, each lasting on average 8–12 weeks, the trend in the traditional two-
season fashion regime has changed to mid-season purchasing (Tyler et al., 2006). The
rapidly changing technology is one of the major factors responsible for the shortening of
the life cycles and declining phases of apparel products. Accordingly, new styles need to
be introduced within a shorter lead time.
Barnes and Lea-Greenwood (2006) acknowledge that fast fashion is associated with
pressure to reduce lead time to respond to fast changing styles, trends and demand. It is
directly linked with supply chain management. As Lee (2002) judges, the apparel
retailers are forced to streamline the supply chain processes in order to respond to
customer preferences and manage the complexity of the product design process. As a
result, for responding quickly to customer demands, the involvement of customers as
well as suppliers is encouraged throughout the development process (Christopher and
Peck, 2004).
5. 334 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
The speed to the market is associated with the quality of the product too. With the
emerging trend of fast fashion, it is recognised that low-quality materials and
construction of the apparels and textiles are associated with mass-produced apparel
designs, which create major implications for the environment and society (Nelson, 2009).
This has an impact on the design function within the fashion cycle too. However, it is
revealed that the quality requirements and the perceptions regarding these products vary
according to the preferences of different generations of consumers. While generation ‘Y’
prefers a higher number of low-quality, cheap, but fashionable clothes, baby boomers
prefer a fewer number of higher quality clothes (Menon and Lukas, 2004).
Though basic apparel products do not change radically, the fashion and the seasonal
products keep changing with the demand of the market and the environment. The
seasonal apparel product changes are dictated by environmental factors such as the
prevailing weather, seasonal events and cultural traditions. The set of attributes and
styling of an apparel product accepted by a large number of people within a specific
period of time is considered fashionable for that apparel (Glock and Kunz, 2005). It is
important to note that there are cutting-edge experiments and remarkable innovations that
can be identified in the textile and apparel sector resulting from the fact that the products
offered to market needed to be differentiated to match the more sophisticated purchasing
decisions of consumers. Not only the innovation of new textile materials such as electro-
conductive textiles, eco-friendly organic materials, nano-textiles, etc., but also
ultrasonically bonded and welded seam free apparel, seamless knits, body-hugging
thermal products, etc., were introduced to the apparel sector and all this was done without
eliminating the aesthetic touch of the materials. These are indeed significant innovations
of the apparel sector. These technological advances can be put to profitable use by
matching them to the more demanding needs of the changing marketplace (Senanayake
and Little, 2001). It is known that the task and responsibilities of the designer can vary
across different sectors of the apparels (Gwilt, 2012). The designer labels will be led by
the designer himself managing all aspects of the business, whereas in the case of mass
market products, various stakeholders will be involved in managing the process (Renfrew
and Renfrew, 2009). The strategies of the design process and the supply chain can be
changed to fit the needs of the diverse market segments.
For the long-term success and survival of organisations, particularly of firms in either
fast-paced or competitive markets, the product development process is identified as an
essential element (Brown, 1995). Krajewski et al. (2007) acknowledge that the consumers
in each apparel market segment have a set of Functional, Expressive and Aesthetic (FEA)
requirements different from those of another market segment. In order to fulfil the varied
requirements of the market segments, it is believed that the design and production
methods for various categories of fashion garments can also vary greatly to suit the
market for which the garments are being produced (Glock and Kunz, 2005). Accordingly,
manufacturers and retailers are expected to adopt appropriate and efficient customer-
responsive supply chain strategies in a timely manner (Kahn and Creazza, 2009).
Ahmend and Shepherd (2010) propose the operation of an ‘efficient supply chain’ for
high-volume mass market products and a ‘responsive supply chain’ for the products
having a considerable level of product variety. Ongoing collaboration between suppliers
and buyers is encouraged in this context (Tartaglione and Antonucci, 2013).
6. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 335
Developing products consists of setting up of various functional areas, handling of a
large flow of information, juggling with multiple requirements and the involvement of a
considerable number of people. Maintaining an effective interrelationship among these
elements will require the necessary coordination to better manage the process to create
more ‘on-point’ products. Collaborating with partners from multidisciplinary areas in the
apparel product development process would facilitate transfer of specialised knowledge
essential to withstand the competition. Further, the process of product development may
be viewed as a system of decisions that influence each other in a complex way
(Maccarthy et al., 2006). Since a model is considered as a representation of a real system
(Schwaninger, 2010), a product development model will act as a guide to instruct and
suggest ways to control the process more precisely to fulfil the changing market needs.
The literature presents various models to describe and explain the interrelationship
among the various elements in the apparel product development process. However,
re-examining the design and product development process itself will also provide an
opportunity for a design evolution (Glock and Kunz, 2005).
Thus, the objective of this paper is threefold. The first objective is to evaluate how
thoroughly the existing apparel product development models outlined in literature discuss
the design and development process. The second objective is to identify the gaps with
respect to customer–supplier collaboration as it is considered essential to study this
question for ensuring supply-chain-wide responsiveness. The final objective is to
evaluate how far the existing apparel product development models outlined in literature
discuss the decision-making involved in the product design and development process as
this has a tremendous impact on the quality of the design solution.
2 Methodology
This study undertakes a systematic review of literature on existing apparel design and
product development models. The literature on product design and development
processes published between the years 1992 and 2012 was reviewed and 16 models were
evaluated for process stages and activities. The models were evaluated with respect to the
product category, demands of the customer and environmental sustainability. As Glock
and Kunz (2005) highlight, there is no distinctive boundary between apparel product
development models and design process models since they overlap each other. According
to their viewpoint, the design process is the starting point for apparel production, but
without understanding production techniques, apparel design cannot be realised.
The apparel product development models reflecting the state of the art were evaluated
with respect to the contemporary fashion apparel supply chain in which ongoing
collaboration between suppliers and buyers is encouraged as it will help to effectively
and efficiently respond to the changing styles, trends and demands within the concept of
fast fashion. In order to identify the current gaps in customer–supplier collaboration in
the apparel design and product development process, the aforementioned models were
critically evaluated.
7. 336 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
3 Literature review
Product development is defined as the design and engineering of products that are fit for
the purpose of the target consumer, while being manufacturable, marketable and
profitable (Kunz, 1995). The translation of customer-oriented value to company-oriented
value is necessary to better manage the process(Schoeler, n.d.).
3.1 Apparel product development
The apparel manufacturing industry has its own specific characteristics. Hence, the
apparel product development process too varies substantially from the processes used for
developing other products (May-Plumlee and Little, 1998). The apparel products are
developed using seasonal, product-oriented lines that are flexible rather than by using a
rigid layout of machines. Owing to its seasonal nature, the product development lead
time is very tight and strict according to the seasonal fashion calendar. The product
planning and development rely highly on forecasting, feedback from retailers and
product performance analysis (Ariyatum and Holland, 2005).
The time frame allowed for fashion apparel product development is relatively short
when compared with other industries (Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004). The entire product
development process is run at least twice a year, one per season for the seasonal apparels.
However, the retailers have introduced a number of phases within seasons, each lasting
on average 8–12 weeks, the trend known as ‘fast fashion’ (Tyler et al., 2006). With this
trend, the time to market has been drastically reduced. As a result, the manufacturing
companies are forced to move towards more open product development approaches
(Barnes and Lea-Greenwood, 2006).
The machine layout for apparel manufacturing varies from order to order unlike the
machine layout for many other engineering products. However, due to fast changing
fashions, order quantities may be small and the emphasis is placed on manufacturing a
range of products or a product mix within a given line (Lanarolle et al., 2007), and so the
production sequence has to be carefully planned. May-Plumlee and Little (1998) suggest
that the process for developing an apparel line could be presented by combining multiple
processes, each representing a single product. Since several lines of new apparel products
need to be produced annually, stages of the development process may overlap. When one
line is developing ideas for a product, the other line may be in the product development
stage and the next line may be in the actual production stage. This highlights the
importance of managing the product development process strategically to align with the
requirements.
Owing to its nature of catering for diverse market segments and different product
categories based on function and end use, the strategies used for developing apparel
products may differ from the strategies used for developing other products (May-Plumlee
and Little, 1998). Accordingly, the final appearance, fit and functionality desired will
influence the decisions and the strategies implemented. Further, apparel is considered as
one of the products that should be highly appealing to the aesthetic sensibilities of the
user because it is a personal use product. Studying consumer preferences between
functional needs and aesthetic desires will be beneficial during the product design and
development process where the location of core stages may be changed according to the
product categories (Suh et al., 2010). If the decisive factor is functional (technical
8. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 337
performance), the development process steps need to be more focused on product
feasibility and need to be chosen based on the degree of integration between fashion and
technology. However, Regan et al. (1998) demonstrated that there is a direct relationship
between engineering design process theory and the process steps used by apparel design
associates. After observing ten apparel designers, they concluded that “the apparel design
process uses scientific and problematic building block processes”, since it utilises a
systematic and analytical approach to restructure complicated design problems into
simple ones.
Ariyatum and Holland (2005) identified the unique characteristics of the apparel
industry that differentiate it from the other industries and categorised them into five
types. First, the product development is driven by seasonal demand. Second, the
emphasis is placed on presenting a range of garments. Third, it is an iterative process.
Fourth, the short life cycle of products leads to frequent planning and development.
Finally, the retail buyers are considered the decision-makers regarding the final products.
Owing to the considerable direct involvement of retailers in the new product development
cycle, the retail buyers are considered the key decision-makers on the specifications
governing fabric quality, style, colour, sizes and quantity to be manufactured. However,
with the changes in the fashion industry, retailers understand the importance of
streamlining the flow of apparels from suppliers to salesrooms to offer apparel in a
timely manner. As a result, apparel retailers are forced to develop alliances with their
suppliers in order to face and survive in the competition (Tyler et al., 2006).
The emphasis on improving the product development process of apparel is
concentrated in two areas. The first is the effort taken to improve the cost-effectiveness
of the process by streamlining and shortening the product development cycle. The second
is improving the market receptiveness of new products through the addition of
customised products (May-Plumlee and Little, 1998). Regan et al. (1998) insist that the
aim of the research on the product development process is to maximise the effectiveness
of successful product development by increasing the reliability of actions and by making
decisions earlier in the development process.
The responsibility of determining the customer needs, developing concepts and
producing and marketing new products in apparel firms is coordinated and shared by the
four functional areas of marketing, merchandising, design and development, and
production. However, according to Wu and Wu (2011), the apparel product development
process varies depending on the type and size of the company, product type and business
plan. The size of a firm also affects production volume and the number of people with
product development responsibilities. The stronger the focus on fashion, the more
important is the designer’s influence on the product development process (Glock and
Kunz, 2005).
3.2 Apparel product development models
Product development models are the usual approaches to manage the product
development organisation, process, activities, tasks and decision-making. May-Plumlee
and Little (1998) emphasise the importance of a model to understand the critical
convergence points, concurrent processes and porous phase boundaries. Each product
development model consists of different process arrangements and has its own
characteristics that may vary depending on whether the products are wholesale brand,
9. 338 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
private label or store brand, licensed brand or customised (Wu and Wu, 2011). As Suh
et al. (2010) noted, the sequence of core stages of a product development process may
change with the product category. The smart clothing product development may differ
from bra product development. The custom-made couture garments development process
is significantly different from the process for the ready-to-wear garments created for a
wider customer base (Renfrew and Renfrew, 2009).
An exponential rise in the sale of inexpensive fashion garments with the emerging
trend of fast fashion has created major implications on the environment and the society.
The green market, organic clothing and fair-trade concepts have assumed importance
among conscious consumers, which implies that manufacturers need to align their
products to match the market needs. In order to reduce the negative environmental
impacts caused by garments, sustainable strategies such as design to disassemble, design
for waste minimisation, and design for user participation are identified as being more
relevant now during the fashion design process (Nelson, 2009). Taking the environmental
aspects into consideration, Gam et al. (2009) propose a ‘Cradle-to-Cradle’ Model
(C2CAD) for apparel.
Recent studies suggest different models for apparel product development. These
models can be seen from the academic (design education) and procedural (stages,
activities, decisions and actors involved) perspectives, representing the main flow of
information, influential factors and different product categories within the apparel
product development process. Though the apparel and textile industry comprise a vast
collection of product development models, it is noted that many of them are not
environmentally sustainable within the modern fast fashion cycle (Nelson, 2009). Several
authors have worked since 1998 on new approaches to facilitate communication,
coordination, integration and decision-making in the apparel product development
process.
3.2.1 Managing the process: the stages and activities
The product development process consists of several stages (Maccarthy et al., 2006). The
details of all the stages and activities undertaken to complete the product development
are considered as being helpful in managing the process smoothly to achieve a product
with consumer appeal (May-Plumlee and Little, 1998).
Lamb and Kallal’s (1992) model presented a sequential six-step process that included
problem identification as the first stage, followed by preliminary ideas, design
refinement, prototype development, evaluation and implementation as the rest of the
stages. The details of activities undertaken are not clearly indicated in the model, though
the emphasis is on fulfilling the variety of customer needs. The people responsible for
undertaking the activities or the allocated responsibilities to achieve the final product
have not been addressed or discussed. The main focus of the presented model has been to
address the academic issues relating to apparel production and recommendations to use
diversified apparel designs such as protective apparel, ready-to-wear garments and
costume design products.
After reviewing literature on the design processes covering architectural, engineering
and industrial design and in addition referring to the activities of a university design team
working with industry clients, LaBat and Sokolowski (1999) identified three main/
common stages and ten activities within each stage of the proposed development process.
The model is promoted as beneficial in providing a structured approach to the project and
as a means of communicating the working methods to industry personnel and the
10. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 339
university design team. Regan et al. (1998) have developed a very similar model by
comparing the textile/apparel product development process with generic product
development processes, which can be used for any apparel product development that
comprises multiple stages and activities. The responsibilities of the different divisions or
the people involved in the process have not been considered.
The retail product development model of Gaskill (1992) was developed based on the
activities of two specialty stores and ended at line presentation for adoption. It depicts the
sequence of events in the retail product development process along with internal and
external variables impacting the process. It does not clearly discuss the responsibilities of
the different divisions and coordination between them at each of the defined stages.
Wickett et al. (1999) proposed a model extending the model developed by Gaskill
(1992), but they changed the names of the stages and the places of influencing factors. A
post-adaptation stage was introduced for this new model. Though the backward and
forward movements are shown in the line conceptualisation phase, the responsibility of
the different divisions and coordination between them at each of the stages were not
considered or defined.
Five phases were identified and the key factors were indicated for each phase in the
generic fashion design process model (Sinha, 2001). It is recognised as an information-
rich model on teams and process, though there is no emphasis on idea generation and it is
difficult to identify the priorities of each stage. In the conceptual fashion design process
model (Han et al., 2012), four main phases were identified: investigation, interaction,
development and evaluation. Besides that, it focuses on the role of social, aesthetic and
historical influences on fashion designers of the industry based in Hong Kong.
In order to develop a model for intimate apparel, Chan et al. (2002) have used a
seven-stage design framework and object-oriented analysis as guidelines for bra
designers. Considering the interactions, activities and the time frames, Pitimaneeyakul
et al. (2004) developed a knitwear product development model examining the processes
used by the US sweater companies, which comprises five major stages. Though it
discusses the activities and the involvement of the different divisions in the work, the
production process is described only briefly. Ariyatum and Holland (2005) developed a
conceptual model for smart clothing product development, but it has not been tested on
other apparels. It explains the relationships between all tasks as well as the roles and
responsibilities of all participants explicitly.
The no-interval coherently phased product development model (May-Plumlee and
Little, 1998) was based on practices found in the US apparel industry and it incorporates
overlapping stages and fuzzy gates that allow for various items within an apparel line to
be selectively advanced or recycled through previous development phases. It is identified
as a non-sequential model and it is further indicated that for almost all of the divisions
involved in the process their responsibilities are in six phases, which makes it different
from all the other models. However, it is believed that the model does not provide the
depth needed for optimising the product development process. Extending the above
concept, Wu and Wu (2011) developed a model named “Redesigned No-interval
coherently phased product development model,” which was based on a study of Chinese
apparel companies; it indicates the responsibilities of the different divisions and
coordination between them at each of the defined five stages.
11. 340 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
3.2.2 Satisfaction of customer requirements
Jackson and Shaw (2009) identify the customer as the most important asset to an
organisation. Every customer and consumer has a unique set of needs, wants and
demands. Gotzsch (2004) insists that the consumer has a greater decision-making power
to accept or reject a fashion and consumers of all categories, at almost all levels of
buying power, are better informed and instructed in terms of fashion and consequently,
keenly aware of what it represents.
Figure 1 The apparel product development process stages
Lamb &
Kallal (1992)
Regan,et al.,
( 1998)
Han et al.,
( 2012)
Gaskill
( 1992)
Sinha
( 2001)
Pitimaneeyakul,
et al., (2004)
May- Plumlee&
Little( 1998)
Research
& analysis SelectionSynthesis Manufacture Distribute
Problem
identification
Prototype
development
Evaluation
ImplementationPreliminary
ideas
Design
refinement
Trend
analysis
Concept
evolvement
Fabrication
Palette selection
Fabric design
Silhouette/ style
Prototype
construction
Analysi
Line
presentation
Problem
recognition
problem
definition
Evaluation &
decisions
Specification
s of
communication
of solutions
Exploration
of problems
Search
alternatives
Investigation
phase
Development
phase
Evaluation
phase
Interaction
phase
Market
Research
Design
with cost
estimation
Present CAD
printout to
customers
sample
making
Production
line
Line planning
& Research
Design / concept
development Design development & style selection
Marketing
the line
Pre-
production
Line
optimization
Changes in consumption patterns and customer behaviour influence the industry to
develop appropriate supply chain strategies in order to effectively respond to customer
demands within a shorter period of time and manage the complexity of the product
design process. This implies a shift from supplier-driven to demand-driven supply chains,
with manufacturing companies becoming more sensitive to the needs of the consumer
(Morris, 2011). In this context, Whatne and Heide (2004) insist that greater attention has
to be paid to the quality offered, delivery speed and the innovation tenacity. Andersen
and Christensen (2005) declare that the operational activities need to be flexible enough
to respond adequately to the demands of the customer. Accordingly, Ahmend and
Shepherd (2010) propose a ‘responsive supply chain’ for the products having a
considerable level of product variety, which involves planning of the supply chain
backwards from the end customer. The customer is identified as the key for the product
development process in the demand-driven supply chain. It is all about focusing on
customer needs and demands. In that context, Morris (2011) identifies that the design
process itself is becoming more transparent to consumers.
Lamb and Kallal (1992) developed a model for assessing consumer needs which aids
in developing design criteria for a variety of customers before moving on to the product
development process, where the FEA needs are mainly considered and assessed.
According to their perception, the functional consideration of apparel products relates to
their utility. The expressive considerations are related to the communicative and
12. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 341
symbolic aspects of a garment, whereas aesthetic considerations deal with the human
desire for beauty. From the beginning of the design process to the end, priority has been
given to assess the satisfaction of the customer.
The three-stage design process model (LaBat and Sokolowski, 1999) highlights the
designer’s role in connecting design criteria to meet the Functional, Aesthetic and
Economic (FAE) needs of the consumer by providing guidelines on how creative
thinking can contribute to the product design process. This model is useful for designers
working with clients who may not be familiar with design issues when trying to reach
agreement with them on setting realistic timelines.
The collaborative product development model (Morris, 2011), which was developed
based on the FEA model (Lamb and Kallal, 1992) and three-stage design process (LaBat
and Sokolowski, 1999), uses end customers as a source to obtain necessary information
for apparel development. The customer requirements are incorporated from the beginning
of the development process.
Sustainable C2CAD (Gam et al., 2009) incorporates the customers’ FAE needs
during the first stage of the development process and during the second stage of the
model, the above needs are evaluated for further modifications of the apparel.
Reviewing the published literature, May-Plumlee and Little (2006) proposed a
proactive product development model integrated with the consumers’ purchasing
decisions. It is believed that this model helps to understand how consumer input
facilitates the product design and development process and to visualise the impact of the
changes in the business environment.
Evaluating the apparel design and development process models, it was noted that
some models mainly focused on meeting the FEA needs of the consumer (Chan, 2002;
Lamb and Kallal, 1992; Morris, 2011). A few models considered mainly the functional
needs and aesthetic aspects in the development process (Ariyatum and Holland, 2005).
Some researchers tried to incorporate the customers’ FAE needs from the beginning of
the development process (Gam et al., 2009; LaBat and Sokolowski, 1999; May-Plumlee
and Little, 1998; Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004; Wu and Wu, 2011). Only one model (May-
Plumlee and Little, 2006) focused primarily on the customer’s behaviour when selecting
and purchasing products in the market.
3.2.3 Customer and supplier collaboration as a tactic
During the recent past, with the shift from supplier-driven to demand-driven supply
chains, the traditional approaches to sourcing and buying have been challenged by the
momentum of the fashion cycle (Barnes and Lea-Greenwood, 2006). The apparel
retailers have been forced to streamline the supply chain processes (Lee, 2002).
Businesses have had to focus on developing ‘agile supply chains’ providing the
background for the quick-response movement to mitigate the risks of the supply chain
(Christopher, 2005). The adoption of the lean principle is also considered as appropriate
for commodity products with predictable demand (Childerhouse and Towill, 2000).
Bruce et al. (2004) propose a ‘leagile’ concept to achieve the combined effects of lean
and agile supply chain management methods to respond to changing markets to provide
quick replenishment, especially for fashion markets. In order to be competitive as well as
efficient, Lee (2004) proposes the agile, adaptive and aligned concept: the ‘triple-A
supply chain model’.
13. 342 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
The presence of responsive partners upstream and downstream of the focal firm is
identified as a key to responsiveness (Christopher and Peck, 2004), where
multidisciplinary collaboration would be beneficial in the apparel product development
process to create more on-point products. The interaction with the consumer would act as
a means to better understand his requirements. Moreover, the information required for
developing a product is expected to be more readily accessible to the developers if the
activities of the network partners are aligned to the demand to facilitate operational
activities within the supply chain (Thatte et al., 2013).
Sandmeier et al. (2010) from their analysis highlighted that “the iterative
incorporation of customers’ contribution into the product development process enables a
faster and more efficient reaction to market changes and the discovery of new product
innovation potentials”. It is evident that the customer is identified as the key to the
product development process. The customer can be involved in different phases of the
new product development process. Some customers are only involved in the initial stages
of the process, some in the final stages, while others interact continuously with the
provider during the entire course of development (Lagrosen, 2005).
Synchronisation of activities between suppliers and customers through sharing
information and the ongoing collaboration between suppliers and buyers (Tartaglione and
Antonucci, 2013) are encouraged to improve effectiveness and efficiency in responding
to customer demands and preferences. Suppliers’ operational and technical capabilities
are identified as being important to react quickly to customer demands (Thatte et al.,
2013). It is highlighted that not only the customers but also the suppliers are recognised
as important assets to the manufacturing organisation during product development
as they provide access to external knowledge that complements the firm’s internal
knowledge base (Rosell and Lakemond, 2012; Ragatz et al., 2002; Un et al., 2010).
Schoenherr and Swink (2012) and Verona (1999) believed that integration with suppliers
and customers enabled firms to manage better and achieve a smooth and efficient flow of
products through the supply chain, besides providing them access to resources and
capabilities as supply chain partners.
The no-interval coherently phased product development model (May-Plumlee and
Little, 1998) can be used as an effective tool for intra-company and inter-business
analysis of the apparel product development process, though it does not clearly define the
responsibilities of the customers. A co-development approach with fabric suppliers which
was not suggested in the other models was discussed in this model.
The impact of external and internal collaboration on product development was
considered in the collaborative apparel product development model (Morris, 2011). The
internal departments or the divisions are considered as internal, while the customer is
considered as external. However, it is not clear whether there is supplier interaction
throughout the process.
Though the above models identified new approaches to collaborating with the
suppliers and the customers, the other models do not seem to have paid any attention to
this; nor have they discussed how the customers and suppliers interact at each stage of
the development process (Lamb and Kallal, 1992; LaBat and Sokolowski, 1999; Regan
et al., 1998; Gaskill, 1992; Wickett et al., 1999; Sinha, 2001; Han et al., 2012).
14. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 343
3.2.4 Prominence in decision-making
In an intense market race, front loading of decision-making is becoming more and more
important to gain a position of strategic advantage to secure competitive power and it
also contributes greatly to the communication both inside and outside a company
(Kawarabayashi et al., 2007). There are three levels of product development decisions:
in-stage, review and strategic (Maccarthy et al., 2006). The in-stage decisions are the
operational decisions at each phase. The review decisions occur between the stages. The
strategic decisions are related to market and product strategies. Almendra and Christiaans
(2009) emphasised the importance of decision-making at different stages of the
development process stating that “for an effective product development process the
designers and product developers have to make countless decisions which have a
tremendous impact on the quality of the design solution and on the company’s success in
the market”.
The decisions regarding the quality of the product, value or the price, design features,
time to market and the production volume are based on the demands of the fashion
market (Morris, 2011). When designing for the high street or mass market, only subtle
silhouette changes are considered for the big volumes, whereas the couture apparels are
developed to suit a particular customer’s preferences and the quantity may be one or two
pieces. It is clear that the decisions have to be made according to the requirements of the
customer. Accordingly, decision models are used to provide insight into decision
situations and to support the decisions for the development process. However, the
product development models are usually considered as decision-making models, which
represent a way of making decisions in a sequential manner to develop a product
(Eriksson, 2009).
The no-interval coherently phased product development model (May-Plumlee and
Little, 1998) indicated the decision gates as well as the decisions taken at each stage, and
how the process proceeded forward and backwards. Starting from the key decisions of
the concept at phase 2, the model suggests decisions on materials and the prototype with
fit and style details in phase 3. Phase 4 of the model indicates the decisions on
modifications of the prototype and in the next phase the decisions on sourcing and
internal plans/schedules for the production are clearly indicated. At the final stage of the
model, to better balance the production line, decisions are taken on modifications for the
previous phase.
Though the extended (revised) retail product development model (Wickett et al.,
1999) and knitwear product development model (Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004)
concentrated on decision points, it is difficult to assess exactly how and when the process
moved forward with the decisions.
However, the other models have not discussed how the decision-making takes place
at each stage of the development process (Lamb and Kallal, 1992; LaBat and
Sokolowski, 1999; Regan et al., 1998; Gaskill, 1992; Gaskill, 1999; Sinha, 2001).
After evaluating the 16 models extracted from the published literature that deal with
the process stages and activities, the various aspects of the customer and supplier
collaboration and decision-making processes of the apparel product development models
can be summarised as in Table 1.
15. 344 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
Table 1 Comparison of the apparel product development models
Author/s
Proposedprocesses/
model/framework
Features
ProcessElementsinfluencedTeamsandtheirrolesDecision-making
Stages/activitiesCustomerOthersInternaldeptCustomerSupplierDecisionpoints
1LambandKallal(1992)
Aconceptualframework
(FEAmodel)
√√XXXXX
2LaBatandSokolowski(1999)Athree-stagedesignprocess√√XXXXX
3Bailey(1998)
Creativeappareldesign
processmodel
√X√XXXX
4Reganetal.(1998)
Modelaligningwithengineering
designprocesstheory
√ϴXXXXX
5Gaskill(1992)Retailproductdevelopmentmodel√ϴ√ϴXϴX
6Wickettetal.(1999)
Extended(revised)retailproduct
development
√ϴ√ϴXϴϴ
7Sinha(2001)
Thegenericfashiondesignprocess
model
√√ϴ√XXX
8Hanetal.(2012)
Conceptualfashiondesignprocess
model
√√ϴϴXXX
9Chanetal.(2002)
Conceptualmodelofintimate
appareldesign
√√ϴϴXXX
10Pitimaneeyakuletal.(2004)Knitwearproductdevelopment√√√ϴXXϴ
11AriyatumandHolland(2005)
Smartclothingproduct
development
√√ϴ√XϴX
12May-PlumleeandLittle(1998)
No-intervalcoherentlyphased
productdevelopmentmodel
√√√√Xϴ√
13May-PlumleeandLittle(2006)
Proactiveproduct
developmentmodel
√√ϴ√XXX
14WuandWu(2011)
Redesignedno-intervalcoherently
phasedproductdevelopment
model
√√√√Xϴ√
15Gametal.(2009)SustainableC2CAD√√√ϴXXX
16Morris(2011)
Collaborativeapparelproduct
developmentmodel
√√√√ϴXX
Notes:√–discussed;ϴ–discussedtosomeextent;X–notdiscussedatall.
16. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 345
4 Conclusion
This paper reviews the apparel product design and development models described in the
literature published from the year 1992 to date, and identifies the limitations of these
models; further, it puts forward the possible developments that could improve them’.
Among the more commonly identified limitations in the existing models are the
inconsistencies within the stages and the activities of the models. Understanding the
details of all the stages and activities undertaken to complete the product development
may be helpful in managing the process smoothly to achieve a consumer-responsive
product. Some of the existing models have discussed in depth the research, design and
design development and style selection stages. May-Plumlee and Little (1998) presented
their model based on the practices found in the US apparel industry, whereas Wu and Wu
(2011) presented their model after studying Chinese apparel companies. Both models
have scrutinised all the stages and activities in detail. Some other models have included a
phase on ‘marketing of the line’ (Gaskill, 1992; Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004; Sinha, 2001;
Wickett et al., 1999), while some authors have incorporated pre-production and sourcing
phases into the models (May-Plumlee and Little, 1998; Morris, 2011; Pitimaneeyakul et
al., 2004; Wickett et al., 1999). A few models have considered the integration of the
responsible divisions or departments involved in the process together with their
responsibilities or assigned activities to effectively respond to the requirements of the
customer (Sinha, 2001; Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004; Ariyatum and Holland, 2005). The
consideration of both the decisions and activities required for developing apparel started
with the no-interval coherently phased product development model (May-Plumlee and
Little, 1998).
The second gap identified in the existing models is that most published models have
not critically considered the product category. Suh et al. (2010) admit that the location of
core stages may be changed within the product categories. Lamb and Kallal (1992)
propose using their models for protective apparel, ready-to-wear garments and costume
design clothes. However, the model proposed by Chan et al. (2002) provides important
guidelines to new bra designers to rationalise all bra design aspects for commercial
intimate apparel. Pitimaneeyakul et al. (2004) presented a model for knitwear
development after examining the US sweater companies. They propose integrating end
users, quality assurance measures and pre-costing early in the planning stages and utilise
computer-aided design management software for the development process. Ariyatum and
Holland (2005) propose a conceptual model for smart clothing product development
where the technology is integrated with the aesthetic aspects based on requirements of
both existing and potential technical developments.
It is noted that many of the models have not considered the aspect of environmental
sustainability within the modern fast fashion cycle. Only Gam et al. (2009) have
considered the sustainability aspect in their model which provides a guideline for apparel
designers and manufacturers to solve some of the sustainability problems related to
apparel production.
The requirements of diverse market segments are another factor that has not been
critically addressed by the existing producers of development models. Though the
apparel product development process models differ from each other, a model needs to be
proposed to facilitate the producer to respond quickly, efficiently and effectively to meet
the demand of the customer and the environment at different market levels.
17. 346 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
The second focus of this research paper is to identify the gaps with respect to
customer–supplier collaboration of the existing apparel product design and development
models. The customer, supplier and the manufacturer are identified as three entities that
benefit from the product innovation (Hippel, 1988). An approach to co-development with
fabric suppliers that was not suggested in other models was discussed in the no-interval
coherently phased product development model (May-Plumlee and Little, 1998).
Collaboration with the customer is suggested in two of the models (May-Plumlee and
Little, 2006; Morris, 2011). However, integration with both suppliers and customers is
not discussed, though collaborative design is becoming an emerging avenue that can
provide valuable information during the apparel development process that could
dramatically influence how apparel and other products are developed (May-Plumlee and
Little, 2006). It is a crucial area that should be investigated further to minimise the risk of
developing unsuccessful products as the presence of responsive partners upstream and
downstream of the focal firm is accepted as a key to the creation of the right products
(Christopher and Peck, 2004).
Besides evaluating the models with respect to vertical integration, they were studied
further to identify whether the models considered the inside stakeholders involved in the
process. To align the supply chain to adequately respond to the demands of the customer,
horizontal integration is also identified as an essential strategy. A ‘multi-disciplinary
team approach’ is promoted and utilised in the apparel product development process at
present (Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004). All the relevant departments of the manufacturing
firm are encouraged to share information on consumer needs, marketing plans and
activities within the development process. The members of the teams are expected to
involve themselves actively in the critical and analytical decision-making tasks
(Ariyatum and Holland, 2005; Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004). Moreover, the distribution of
specific tasks and the timing or scheduling throughout the innovation process (Ariyatum
and Holland, 2005; Pitimaneeyakul et al., 2004; Sinha, 2001) are also important since the
apparel industry is dynamic in nature and competition is intense.
The study on customer–supplier collaboration in the apparel design process revealed
that the existing theoretical models have not sufficiently discussed the customer–supplier
collaboration and the role of the internal departments’ involvement in the apparel
development process.
The third objective of the study was to evaluate how well the existing apparel product
development models referred to in literature discuss the decision-making involved in the
product design and development process. It is noted that the prominence given to the
aspect of decision-making in the apparel development process is minimal in the
published models. Two models presented by May-Plumlee and Little (1998) and Wu and
Wu (2011) discuss the decision points and the decisions taken during the development
process. Though Wickett et al. (1999) and Gaskill (1992) discuss the backward and
forward movement, the decision points are not clearly defined. It is quite evident that
decision-making during the apparel product development process is not adequately
discussed in any theoretical model.
The models in the published literature, in their treatment of the process stages and
activities, aspects of customer and supplier collaboration and decision-making, have not
given sufficient consideration to the changes in consumption patterns and customer
behaviour, environmental turbulence, competition and technological developments. In
order to develop a model that would enhance product design and development, the
inherent characteristics of the apparel industry need to be identified clearly and the
appropriate strategies implemented effectively.
18. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 347
References
Adhikari, R. and Yamamoto, Y. (2007) ‘The textiles and clothing industry: adjusting to the post-
quota world’, in Industrial Development for the 21st Century: Sustainable Development
Perspectives, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York,
pp.183–234.
Ahmend, P.K. and Shepherd, C.D. (2010) Innovation Management, Context, Strategies, Systems &
Processes, Pearson Education, Harlow, UK.
Almendra, R.A. and Christiaans, H. (2009) ‘Decision making in design: a comparative study’, in
Chakrabarti, A. (Ed.): Research into Design: Supporting Multiple Facets of Product
Development, Research Publishing, Singapore, pp.508–519.
Andersen, P.H. and Chirstensen, P.R. (2005) ‘Bridges over troubled water: suppliers as connective
noded in global supply networks’, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, No. 9,
pp.1261–1273.
Ariyatum, B. and Holland, R. (2005) A strategic approach to new product development in smart
clothing. Available online at: www.idemployee.id.tue.nl/g.w.m.rauteberg (accessed on
12 January 2013).
Bailey, P.M. (1998) The Creative Apparel Design Process: A Personal Documentation and
Proposed Conceptual Model, Master’s Thesis, Department of Human Ecology, University of
Alberta.
Barnes, L. and Lea-Greenwood, G. (2006) ‘Fast fashioning the supply chain: shaping the research
agenda’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10,
No. 3, pp.259–271.
Brown, S.L. (1995) ‘Product development: past research, present findings and future direction’,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp.343–378.
Bruce, H., Jones, W. and Dumais, S. (2004) Information behaviour that keeps found things found.
Available online at: http://informationr.net/ir/10-1/paper207.html (accessed on 05 February
2016).
Bruce, M. and Daley, L. (2006) ‘Buyer behavior for fast fashion’, Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.329–344.
Chan, Y.C. (2002) A Conceptual Model of Intimate Apparel Design: An application to Bra Design,
Master’s Thesis, Institute of Textile and Clothing.
Childerhouse, P. and Towill, D.R. (2000) ‘Engineering supply chains to match customer
requirements’, Logistics Information Management, Vol. 13, No. 6, p.337.
Christopher, M. (2005) Logistics and Supply Chain Management. Creating Value Adding
Networks, Prentice Hall, London.
Christopher, M. and Peck, H. (2004) ‘Building the resilient supply chain’, International Journal of
Logistic Management, Vol. 15, No. 2.
Eriksson, J. (2009) Collaborative Product Development : A Collaborative Decision Making
Approach, Doctoral Thesis, Mälardalen University Press, Vancouver, Canada.
Gam, H.J., Cao, H., Farr, C. and Heine, L. (2009) ‘C2CAD: a sustainable apparel design and
production model’, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 21, No. 4,
pp.166–179.
Gaskill, L.R. (1992) ‘Towards a model of retail product development: a case study analysis’,
Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp.17–24.
Glock, R.E. and Kunz, G.I. (2007) Apparel Manufacturing: Sewn Product Analysis, Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Gotzsch, J. (2004) Creating products with symbolic value. Available online at: www.shu.ac.
lk/schools/cs/ead (accessed 4 April 2013).
Gwilt, A. (2012) Integrating Sustainable Strategies in the Fashion Design Process: A Conceptual
Model of the Fashion Designers in Haute-Couture, Doctoral Thesis, School of Architecture &
Design, RMIT.
19. 348 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
Han, A.U. (2012) Creation of Innovative Fashion and Textile Collection Based on the Conceptual
Fashion Design Process Model for Hong Kong, Doctoral Thesis, the Hong Kong Polytechnic
University.
Hippel, E.V. (1988) ‘Novel product concept from lead users’, in Urale, K., Child, J. and
Kagono, A. (Eds): Innovation & Management: International Comparisons, Walter de Gruyter
& Co, Berlin.
Jackson, T. and Shaw, D. (2009) Mastering Fashion Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire,
UK.
Kahn, O. and Creazza, A. (2009) ‘Managing the product design supply chain interface: towards a
roadmap to the design centric businesses’, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistic Management, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.301–319.
Kawarabayashi, K., Yamashita, M., Fujito, M., Kitani, Y. and Koyama, N. (2007) ‘Enlargement of
the design domain and front loading of design decision making in a product development
process’, Proceedings of the International Association of Societies of Design Research, Hong
Kong Polytechnic University.
Kilduff, P. (2000) ‘Evolving strategies, structures and relationships in complex and turbulent
business environment: the textile and apparel industries of the millennium’, Journal of Textile
and Apparel, Technology and Management, Vol. 1, No. 1.
Krajewski, L.J., Ritzman, L.P. and Malhothra, M.K. (2007) Operations Management: Process &
Value Chains, Prentice Hall, Upper saddle River, NJ.
Kunz, G.I. (1995) ‘Behavioral theory of the apparel firm: a beginning’, Clothing & Textile
Research Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.252–261.
Kunz, G.I. and Garner, M.B. (2007) Going Global: The Textile and Apparel Industry, Fairchild
Publications, Inc., New York.
LaBat, K.L. and Sokolowski, S.L. (1999) ‘A three-stage design process applied to an industry-
university textile product design process’, Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 17,
No. 1, pp.11–20.
Lagrosen, S. (2005) ‘Customer involvement in new product development: relationship marketing
perspective’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8, pp.424–438.
Lamb, J. and Kallal, M. (1992) ‘A conceptual framework for apparel design’, Clothing and Textile
Research Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp.42–47.
Lanarolle, G., Ratnayake, V., de Silva, N. and Perera, T. (2007) ‘The simulation of a novel
manufacturing cell for garment fabrication’, Proceedings of the 85th World Textile
Conference, 1–3 March, Colombo, Sri Lanka, pp.115–122.
Lee, H.L. (2002) ‘Aligning supply chain strategies with product uncertainties’, California
Management Review, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp.105–119.
Lee, H.L. (2004) ‘The triple A supply chain’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 10,
pp.102–112.
Maccarthy, J.P., Tsinopoulos, C., Allen, P. and Rose- Anderssen, C. (2006) ‘New product
development as a complex adaptive system of decisions’, The Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 23, pp.437–456.
May-Plumlee, T. and Little, T.J. (1998) ‘No-interval coherently phased product development
model for apparel’, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 10, No. 5,
pp.342–364.
May-Plumlee, T. and Little, T.J. (2006) ‘Proactive product development integrating consumer
requirements’, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 18, No. 1,
pp.53–66.
Menon, A. and Lukas, B.A. (2004) ‘Antecedents & outcomes of new product development speed’,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38, Nos. 1–2, pp.209–223.
Morris, K.D. (2011) Collaborative Product Development: Examining the Development of a
Nursing Sports Bra, Master’s Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
20. Apparel product development: an overview of existing models 349
Nelson, E.M.M. (2009) Developing Environmentally Sustainable Apparel through Participatory
Design, Master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
Nuttle, H., King, R.E. and Hunter, N.A. (1991) ‘A stochastic model of apparel retail process for
seasonal apparel’, Journal of Textile Institute, Vol. 82, pp.247–259.
Pitimaneeyakul, U., LaBat, K.L. and Delong, M.R. (2004) ‘Knitwear product development process:
a case study’, Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.113–121.
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B. and Petersen, K.J. (2002) ‘Benefits associated with supplier
integration into new product development under conditions of technology uncertainty’,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55, No. 5, pp.389–400.
Raymond, M. (2007) ‘The making and marketing of a trend’, in Hines, T. and Bruce, M. (Eds):
Fashion Marketing Contemporary Issues, 2nd ed., Elsevier, Oxford.
Regan, C.L., Kincade, D.H. and Sheldon, G. (1998) ‘Applicability of the engineering design
process theory in the apparel design process’, Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 16,
No. 1, pp.36–46.
Renfrew, C. and Renfrew, E. (2009) Basic Fashion Design & Developing a Collection, AVA
Publishing, Switzerland.
Rosell, D. and Lakemond, N. (2012) ‘Collaborative innovation with suppliers: a conceptual model
for characterizing supplier contribution to NPD’, International Journal of Technology
Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp.197–214.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008) ‘Co-creation and the new landscape of design’, Journal
of Co-Design, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.5–18.
Sandmeier, P., Morrison, P.D. and Gassmann, O. (2010) ‘Integrating customers in product
innovation: lessons from industrial development contractors and in-house contractors
in rapidly changing customer markets’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 19,
pp.89–106.
Schoeler, H.R. (n.d.) From the voice of the customer to the function oriented product concept: the
value management concept in product development. Available online at: http://www.
schoeler.com/pdf/voive.pdf (accessed on 4 December 2013).
Schoenherr, T. and Swink, M. (2012) ‘Revisiting the arcs of integration: Cross validation &
extension’, Journal of Operation Management, Vol. 30, pp.99–115.
Schwaninger, M. (2010) ‘Model based management (MBM): a vital prerequisite for organizational
viability’, Kybernetes, Vol. 39, Nos. 9–10, pp.1419–1428.
Senanayake, M. and Little, T. (2001) ‘Measures for new product development’, Journal of Textile
and Apparel Technology and Management, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp.1–14.
Sinha, P. (2001) ‘The mechanics of fashion’, in Hines, T. and Bruce, M. (Eds): Fashion Marketing:
Contemporary Issues, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp.165–189.
Suh, M., Cassill, K. and Carroll, N. (2010) ‘Critical review on smart clothing product
development’, Journal of Textile & Apparel Technology and Management, Vol. 6, No. 6,
pp.1–18.
Tartaglione, A.M. and Antonucci, E. (2013) Value creation process in the fast fashion industry:
towards networking approach. Available online at: http://ssm.com/ (accessed on 1 March
2016).
Thatte, A.A., Rao, S.S. and Ragu-Nathan, T.S. (2013) ‘Impact of SCM practices of a firm on
supply chain responsiveness & competitive advantage of a firm’, Journal of Applied Business
Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp.409–530.
Tyler, D., Heeley, J. and Bhamra, T. (2006) ‘Supply chain influences on new product development
in fashion clothing’, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International
Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp.316–328.
Un, C.A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A. and Asakawa, K. (2010) ‘R&D collaborations and product
innovation’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp.673–689.
21. 350 N. Seram, J. Nanayakkara and G. Lanarolle
Verona, G. (1999) ‘A resource-based view of product development’, The Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp.132–142.
Whatne, K.H. and Heide, J.B. (2004) ‘Relationship governance in a supply chain network’, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp.83–89.
Wickett, J.L., Gasskill, L.R. and Damhorst, M.L. (1999) ‘Apparel retail product development:
Model testing and expansion’, Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1,
pp.21–35.
Wu, C-S. and Wu, Q-Y. (2011) ‘Redesigning the apparel product development process based on
the no-interval coherently phased product development model’, Advanced Material Research,
Vol. 331, pp.603–606.
Zulch, G., Koruka, H.I. and Borkichei, M. (2011) ‘Simulation-supported change process for
product customization; A case study in a garment company’, Computes in Industry, Vol. 62,
No. 6, pp.568–577.
View publication statsView publication stats
