Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management

Emerald Article: Mass customization: points and extent of apparel customization Muditha M. Senanayake, Trevor J. Little

Article information:
To cite this document: Muditha M. Senanayake, Trevor J. Little, (2010),"Mass customization: points and extent of apparel customization", Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 14 Iss: 2 pp. 282 - 299 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13612021011046110 Downloaded on: 26-04-2012 References: This document contains references to 31 other documents To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com This document has been downloaded 1787 times.

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK For Authors: If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help for authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1361-2026.htm

JFMM 14,2

Mass customization: points and extent of apparel customization

Muditha M. Senanayake
Department of Apparel Merchandising and Management, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, California, USA, and

282
Received August 2008 Revised June 2009 Accepted September 2009

Trevor J. Little
Department of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, College of Textiles, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose Mass customization (MC) is one of the changes for the US apparel industry that will provide a competitive advantage and offer products needed by consumers. However, as the points of customization and their extent of customization characterize business models including the process strategies to achieve a successful MC strategy, it is imperative to dene the points of customization. The purpose of this research is to investigate and introduce the critical points of customization and their extent for apparel. Design/methodology/approach An apparel industry survey together with case studies was used to collect information to test and support the hypothesis developed through the comprehensive literature review. Findings Five critical points of apparel customization are dened. These points and their extents of customization are compared, analyzed and validated. It is suggested that the success and the capability of apparel MC will depend on how effectively a company can combine the dened points of customization and their extent of customization in pre-production, production and post-production of the apparel product. Research limitations/implications The research ndings of points of customization is for an apparel product. However, the concepts may be applied to products in other industries. Practical implications The post-production customization point using current technologies is a popular practice for mass customization. However, to achieve a higher level or extent of customization such as design point of customization, it is essential to use advanced product development, manufacturing and processing technologies. Originality/value The points of apparel customization and their extent of customization have not been studied before for the apparel MC domain. These points and extent of customization provide new insights into the mass customized apparel manufacturing and apparel MC business models. Keywords Mass customization, Clothing, Response exibility, United States of America, Mass production, Garment industry Paper type Research paper

Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management Vol. 14 No. 2, 2010 pp. 282-299 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1361-2026 DOI 10.1108/13612021011046110

1. Introduction MC is one of the approaches for the apparel industry in developed nations that will continue to offer a competitive advantage over the trend to migrate manufacturing base to lesser-developed nations. Mass production, mass customization, and fast fashion compete in the marketplace for the consumers purchase decision for apparel. This paper explores the opportunities and practices of mass customization and the implications for mass production and fast

fashion. Mass customization is creating variety and customization through exibility and quick responsiveness coupled with the voice of the consumer. This requirement to manufacture apparel products based on individual consumer needs have demanded the apparel industry to undergo a fundamental shift from MP to mass-customization (MC) for a segment of the marketplace. Technologies have developed and are readily available to support apparel MC. Academic interest in theoretical and managerial aspects of MC is growing with more books written on the subject of MC. More companies are attracted to the practice of MC business models. However, the success of MC depends on the ability to effectively handle the extent of customization in apparel design, development, production, and delivery. This research denes the critical points of customization for apparel and shows how Extent (or depth) of customization varies at a point of customization. Further, the ndings provide an important insight into customization limitations in pre-production, production and post-production of an apparel product. The research uses a multiple method approach including industry survey, case study, and personal communication together with ndings from the literature review to build a MC model for apparel. The research leads to an understanding of the points of apparel MC and their extent for a successful MC business strategy. 2. Research objectives and hypothesis In a mass production strategy, suppliers and retailers overload the market with a large quantity and variety, in effect pushing the variety into the market and anticipating the demands of the customer. While the customer can choose from a mass variety of products, there is no integration into the manufacturing and design processes. The customers only input is dened by purchase behavior. In contrast, with MC, the customer may be involved with the conception of the product, with its design, and working with the designers to best meet the needs of the consumer. The stages or path between these two ends denes the extent of customization. It is important to understand the points and extent of customization in the continuum from MP to MC for customized apparel so that manufacturers can make decisions based on where they best compete in the continuum or the point of customization. As the extent of customization moves from standardization towards customization in the MC continuum, the points of customization demand a system that can efciently manufacture variety complexity in the product mix. The objective of the research is to dene and validate the ve points of customization dened by the authors as design, fabrication, t, feature, and postproduction. With a comprehensive literature review and research methodology these points of customization and their extents are further analyzed characterized and validated. 3. Research methodology A comprehensive study using available literature was used to develop initial points and their extent of MC and an industry survey instrument followed to collect information and benchmark current industry MC practices. Personal communication with academics, industry experts, and consultants who are involved in MC of apparel and a case study of a current MC operation represent the methods discussed in detail. Information for points of customization discussed in the literature for various industries was analyzed to help dene the points of customization for apparel and

Mass customization

283

JFMM 14,2

284

these were then compared with the information obtained as a result of the research methods in nalizing a proposed set of points of customization for apparel. No empirical research has been carried out on points of customization for apparel thus this research explores new areas. A multiple method approach was used to gather qualitative and quantitative information as shown in the Figure 1. This approach was considered useful to generalize the ndings to a population set, and to establish meaning of phenomenon or concept for individuals (Cresswell, 2003). This multiple method approach benets the nal knowledge base representing both qualitative and quantitative information. 4. Mass-customization: denitions and insights The term mass-customization (MC) was rst introduced by Stan Davis in the book future perfect in 1987 (Davis, 1996). As Pine (1993) describes, a new paradigm of MC evolved in the 1960s and emerged into management consciousness in the 1980s. To cater for the market turbulences characterized by unstable and unpredictable demand levels, heterogeneous desires, price, quality and style consciousness, high level of buyer power, competitive intensity, product differentiation and saturation, the manufacturing focus is turning from MP to the new system of MC. As Silveira et al. (2001) explain, MC has a broader and a narrower approach. The broad concept denes MC as the ability to provide individually designed products to every customer through high process agility, exibility and integration whereas the narrowly dened more practical concept discusses MC as a system that uses information technology, exible processes, and organizational structures to deliver a wide range of products that meet specic needs of individual customers, at a cost near that of MP items. From another perspective, a customized apparel product can be identied in two broad areas. Occupational-customized apparel such as a product with the monogram on it, sports uniforms with the name and number on it, or uniforms for service, career and occupation, have existed in market place for long time. Consumer-customized

Figure 1. Research methodology to dene points of customization for apparel

apparel such as products that can be made to customers t, specications, design (print) or combination of these are becoming popular and the demand for these products continues to grow. Literature suggests the following types of customization that are important to analyze in relation to the research in points of apparel MC. 4.1 Adjustable customization As the name implies adjustable customization provides the ability of the product to be customized by adjusting the features. Adjustments can be manual or automatic (Anderson, 2004). An advantage in this customization is that it still can be mass-produced without having to forecast choices, build in many versions of variety of products. Apparel alteration can be considered as an example of customization. Companies have tried to use this principle of adjustable customization to customize apparel in many instances such as, adjustable seam allowances, waistband adjustment, lacings, draw cords, elastic, etc. In the research this is introduced as postproduction customization. 4.2 Dimensional customization Dimensional customization refers to permanent dimensional change such as cutting-to-t or tailoring (Anderson, 2004). In this research, this is referred to t customization point. Automatic pattern adjustment, automatic marker making and automatic fabric cutting are technologies that support dimensional customization for apparel. 4.3 Postponement Postponement is a mass-customization technique that is suitable for a product architecture that has a major platform part that can be built without variation and then customized by various adjustments, congurations, or bolt-on modules (Anderson, 2003). This technique is useful for companies who mass-produce or outsource their products and still have some capability to achieve customization before shipping to customers. This technique is introduced as the postproduction customization point for apparel. 4.4 Standardization Standardization of parts is a principle that is used in the MC manufacturing. This provides the product exibility for the manufacturing system. The standardization strategy for apparel needs to be addressed differently than other products as there is a fashion element involved in the product itself. Standardization limits the extent of customization but facilitates efcient production. In relation to MC of apparel a good standardization approach is to standardize the customization points such as fabrication, feature, and in some cases t. Standardization of these points helps reduce set-up and improve exibility for mass-customized manufacturing. 4.5 Delayed product differentiation Delayed product differentiation (DPD) is a design concept and a technique aimed at increasing product variety while maintaining manufacturing efciency. Increasing the level of part commonality at the early stage of the manufacturing process will help to delay the product differentiation. DPD refers to delaying the time when a product

Mass customization

285

JFMM 14,2

assumes its identity (He and Kusiak, 1995). The opposite of DPD is the early product differentiation. Designing parts as per the DPD concept is referred to as differential design and designing parts for early product differentiation is referred to as integral design. Most products are designed by combining these two systems (He et al., 1998). The DPD concept can be considered in line with postproduction customization point (Senanayake, 2004). 4.6 Customization from forecast parts inventory One of the ways to customize products is to draw parts from the forecasted inventory and assemble-to-order modular parts (Anderson, 2003). This type of customization is referred as postproduction customization point for apparel (Senanayake, 2004) where already produced apparel products are customized as per customer requirements. 5. Extent of mass-customization and points of customization Textile and Clothing Technology Corporation [TC]2 suggests that MC for apparel and footwear can be positioned into three main categories; personalization, t and design. For personalization, products are customized and produced in bulk for consumer requests. The dimensions of the product in relation to the body and/or the way the product t the body is explained as the t. The highest level of customization can be achieved when the customer decides on the design of the product. The designer can access the selections and design the product as per customers request (Textile Clothing Technology Corporation, n.d.). Based on consumer research, Anderson et al. (1998) indicates that in the process of mass-customized manufacturing, digital information and new technology would help in developing customized apparel with four approaches. These are expanded selection or search to access various manufacturers product lines, design option to select the design from options given by the manufacturer, co-design to obtain additional personal t, and total custom to communicate customers design to manufacturer. Consumer request for cloth-clones which is multiple versions of currently existing successful styles, total custom garments and co-design which is selecting from a menu of standardized products are discussed (Anderson et al., 1998). A MC functional model for digitally printed garments is discussed by Chenemilla (2001). This model is expressed in three sections, namely decision, order, and execution. The model allows for different levels of customization and includes the lowest level that is garment alteration, logo, fabric color and type to the highest level that indicates the garment style and textile design. In contrast with MP, in MC, the customer can work with the designer to become involved with the product concept and design to best achieve the needs of the customer. In contrast to MP, with MC, the customer may be involved with the concept of the product, with its design, and working with the designers to best meet the needs of the consumer. This important aspect of customers ability to enter into the product lifecycle and the point at which the inuence can be made is discussed by Lampel and Mintzberg (1996) using the model continuum of strategies. The process is described as a series of four processes or points of customization; design, fabrication, assembly and distribution. Senanayake (2004) and is shown in the Figure 2. The extent of customization in the continuum is also shown where the standardization of all processes denes the traditional MP strategy while the other options are developed as

286

Mass customization

287

Figure 2. Points and extent of customization

the needs of the customer that are progressively integrated with each upstream process. The strategy of pure customization is achieved with the customer integrated into the design process. A notion of customer order de-coupling point (CODP) is discussed in literature as a point up to which a customer is involved in the nal specication of the product. The paper written by Thoban in the book, The Customer Centric Enterprise, discusses that Wortmann (1997) refers to CODP as a point in the material ow from where customer order-driven activities take place (Wortmann, 1997). The customers inuence on the product can range from the denition of some delivery related product specications in end processes in the product life cycle such as packaging and transportation to modication of the product in the very early stages such as design (Tseng and Piller, 2003). The CODP are incorporated in Figure 2 to illustrate the points and extent of customization with the customers points of inuence. The t point of customization (Senanayake, 2004) can follow the CODP. Anderson et al. (1995) discuss the points and their extents using the term levels/layers of customization from design stage to production (Figure 3). These six levels/layers of MC extent/points emphasize design, production, t, location, fabrication, and styles that are considered as design, feature, t, post production and fabrication (ve) points of customization in this research. The levels/layers of MC intensity is discussed starting from MP and moving towards MC and is considered as the extent of customization. As shown in Figure 3, the number of layers (points) customized illustrate a non-linear fashion over the six layers dened by Anderson et al. (1995). Alford et al. (2000) and Silveira et al. (2001) compare the denitions of MC relating the denitions to four stages of customization namely design, manufacturing, distribution and customer, and eight generic levels of customization namely design,

JFMM 14,2

288

Figure 3. Points and extent of customization adopted from the levels/layers of customization

fabrication, assembly, additional custom work, additional services, package and distribution, usage and standardization respectively. The Figure 4 shows these denitions considering design, manufacturing, distribution and customer points of customization with few extents of customization. The reader can obtain further information on the specic approach by referring to publications from Silveira et al. (2001), Duray et al. (2000), Lampel and Mintzberg (1996), Ross (1996), Pine and Gilmore (1997) and Alford et al. (2000). According to Alford et al. (2000), there are three strategies to automotive customization namely, form, optional and core as graphically shown in the Figure 5. The gure shows points where customization occurs (full arrows) or points of customization as customer, distribution, manufacturing and design. In core customization, most of the options are already available to the customer but collaborate with the customer to change any core elements of design. Optional customization provides the customer to integrate into manufacturing and select from many options so that the product is assembled according to the customer wants. Form customization allows the consumer to customize at the tail end such as at the distribution center. The automotive model describes three points (design, feature and post production) where as apparel requires 5 points as shown in the research. One way that experts suggest manufacturing for MC is using modularity (Figure 6). The points of customization is important to dene modules and it is important to consider the customer involvement in the production process with the modularity type that is used. In the design and fabrication stage the modules can be altered for customer preference but at assembly and use stages the modules are added or interchanged but not altered. The rst two stages represent a time in the production cycle when customer preferences require a physical alteration of existing

Mass customization

289

Figure 4. Points of customization modied from comparing approaches to MC

Figure 5. Points of customization, modied from automotive customization

JFMM 14,2

290

Figure 6. Points and extent of customization matrix adopted from MC congurations

components or manufacturing unique components. Based on the point of customer involvement and type of modularity, four MC groups are discussed as illustrated in Figure 6. Fabricators involve the customers at the beginning in design and fabrication stages to come up with unique designs or major revisions to existing products. Research addresses this customization point in reference to design, t or fabrication customization. Involvers incorporate customer preferences in the design and fabrication stage but use modularity in the assembly and delivery stages. Feature customization is an example that addresses this concept in this research. Modularizers use modularity in early stages of the production cycle but will not get customer involvement until late stages. The assemblers provide MC by using modular components to present a wide range of choices to the customer. They more closely resemble the operations of MP than the other congurations of mass-customizers. Postproduction customization resembles both modularizers and assemblers. MC strategies described in the literature provided an understanding of MC strategies that have led us to developing the points of customization and their extents of customization for apparel. As the meaning and application of MC will be different for different product design and manufacturing systems, it is important to understand the concept and to be able to identify where it can offer the best business strategy in the path of moving from MP to MC. The question which is raised is whether the originating point of MC is clear for apparel in relation to product satisfaction and a sustainable business model and understanding this balance is important in dening the points of MC with respect to apparel. These research studies of conceptual and functional models provide valuable information in researching the points and extent of apparel MC. However, none of the models in the literature clearly address the overall picture of points of apparel MC achieved through this research.

6. Results The research led to the development of the following ve points of customization. These points are further compared, analyzed, benchmarked and validated using the current apparel industry practices in the following section. 6.1 Points of customization . Post-production customization point (PPCP). This point of customization customizes apparel after the production process. Post production customization can deliver customized apparel after manufacturing or from mass produced stocks. PPCP can be considered as the most commonly practiced point of customization as it makes the MC process less complex (no impact on manufacturing). . Fabrication customization point (FBCP). Fabrication customization point addresses how the customer is provided with the choice to decide on the materials within the existing product category. As explained, the extent of fabrication customization may affect the manufacturing operation thus needs to be limited strategically on the business model (no impact on production (sewing)). . Fit customization point (FTCP). Fit customization point is dened as the exibility offered to the customer to decide on the measurements needed, the general t ease and silhouette related to t. The extent of t can be varied from few measurement options or t options offered to the customer to obtaining the full body measurements. Fit customization point affects the MC process at the pre-production stage (impacts pre-production). . Feature customization point (FRCP). Feature customization denes the point in the MC process where the customer has the options to select or dene features. The extent of feature customizations may provide the customer the power of demanding features or accepting the offered features. This point of customization can affect the MC process in both pre-production and assembly (impacts pre-production and production). . Design customization point (DCP). Design customization point addresses how the customer is given the opportunity to design the apparel product. Within this point of customization there can be varying extents of customization such as allowing the customer to design the product with no limits or the options may be restricted so that manufacturing task can be achieved with less complexity. In the existing MC business practice the customer may not be given full control over the design but only a few features of the design. The DCP can greatly affect the entire process of MC (impacts entire process). 6.2 Survey analysis Out of the 24 companies surveyed, 16 responded yielding a response rate of 67 percent. The proposed research hypothesis that addresses the points and extents of apparel customization is analyzed and validated using the industry information. 6.2.1 Company proles. Figure 7 explains the average annual sales of the companies that participated in the survey according to their mass production and mass-customized apparel manufacturing business portions. The 16 companies are denoted with the letters from A to P. The code for sales range is dened as shown in Table I.

Mass customization

291

JFMM 14,2

292

Figure 7. Annual MP and MC apparel sales

Sales , 10M 10-50M 50-100M 100-200M 200-500M 500-1,000M . 1,000M

Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Table I. Code for sales range

It is apparent that all the companies that have responded practice MP sales level of $10 million or higher while the MC sales do not exceed $10 million range. A total of 63 percent of the companies have MC sales less than $10 million and about 13 percent of the companies have $10-50 million. A total of 25 percent of the companies have not disclosed their annual MC sales. 6.2.2 Apparel product categories. Figure 8 shows the company prole in relation to the apparel categories manufactured by the companies. Mens and womens tops, mens bottoms and outerwear are the most popular categories for MC apparel that are practiced by about 44 percent of the companies. A total of 37 percent of the companies manufacture womens bottoms and 31 percent of the companies produce accessories. It is apparent that the practice of manufacturing boys and girls apparel for MC is limited. In addition the limited practice of innerwear and swimwear for MC is due to the process difculty in customizing the t. One rm manufactures customized dresses. 6.2.3 Points of customization. Hypothesized points of MC and their extents are evaluated using the industry practice information. The survey instrument assisted in identifying whether there are any other industry practices for the points of customization other than what authors have developed based on the available literature in both apparel and non-apparel industries that practice MC. Figure 9 shows the industry practice of points of customization as a percentage of the total sample size.

Mass customization

293

Figure 8. Apparel products and percentage industry practice

Figure 9. Points of apparel customization: industry practice

Customized packing (for example, customized labels, hangtags, boxes, etc.) is an additional customization point which falls under the post production customization point that was discovered from the survey and is shown as an addition to the primary customization points. Addition of these two points make the post production customization the highest industry practiced point of customization. Almost all the rms that practice MC use fabrication and feature customization to some level. A total of 75 percent of the rms use t customization and 37.5 percent of the rms that practice MC use design customization. This is due to the complexity of the process (manufacturing) caused by offering the customer to make decisions on designing the product. These customization points are further analyzed for the industry practice by breaking down to extents of customization as discussed below. 6.2.4 Industry practice of fabrication customization point and extent of fabrication customization. Figure 10 describes the industry practices of fabrication customization which is discussed with its customization extent. The extent of fabrication customization is discussed with any fabric or accessory for high-end customization to company provided fabric, accessory or other fabrication materials at low-end customization. The idea behind the term company provided is that, the customer is given the choice to select from the company offered fabrication architecture; fabric types, colors, accessories, prints and designs. The terms any fabric or any

JFMM 14,2

294

Figure 10. Fabrication customization point

accessory means that the customer can virtually decide his/her own fabric or accessory for the product but usually is limited to the available materials in the inventory. An examples for company provided other is a fabric nish offered by the company. As clearly shown in Figure 10, the industry practice of high-end fabrication customization such as any fabric or any accessory is limited at 19 percent compared to most companies common practice of company provided fabrics (94 percent) and company provided fabric colors (87 percent). About 62 percent of the companies offer accessory options and about 38 percent offer fabric prints/designs options for MC. 6.2.5 Industry practice of feature customization point and extent of feature customization. Figure 11 shows the industry practice of feature customization point illustrated with its extent of customization. The industry practice of customization Features such as monograms, emblems/logos/prints/photos (E/L/P/P), construction, washing/nishing and other are discussed with customization options provided by the company or specied by the customer. Ornamental stitching is an additional customization feature that is researched. The responses from companies

Figure 11. Feature customization point

indicate that a company provided other Feature can be for example, waist band adjustment for jeans and a customer specied other for example, can be special nishes requested by the customer. As shown in Figure 11 customer specied features such as monograms and E/L/P/P leads with 57 percent of the companies practice feature customization. As the customer has the opportunity to demand the features, this practice has a higher extent of customization compared to the company provided E/L/P/P and construction features that is practiced by about 50 percent of the companies. About 19 percent of the companies practice ornamental stitching and other customer specied features while 13 percent practice other company provided features for MC. 6.2.6 Industry practice of t customization point and extent of t customization. The industry practice of t customization for apparel is explained by the Figure 12. The methods of obtaining the measurements for t customization are shown as the extent of t. Measurements taken from body scanning is considered as an extent of t at a high-end whereas general t options offered by the company are considered as a low-end t. Fit customization using measurements taken at the store/location by the sales associate, customer obtained measurements as instructed by the company and making t adjustments by customer try-on an existing size appear to be practiced by most companies (50 percent). A total of 31 percent of the companies use the practice of copying the measurements from customer provided garment and 25 percent of the companies customize t using general t descriptions. Examples of general t descriptions are relaxed t and regular t. Even though the body scanning technology is expected to be used by many companies who practice t customization, it is being used by only 13 percent of the surveyed MC companies. Customization t using sales people who visit customers to obtain measurements and providing the customer with guidelines to select the appropriate size are the responses that were received under the other category of the t customization point which is practiced by about 13 percent of the companies. 6.3 Case study: points of customization This case study was carried out with a company that practices both MP and MC mens shirts manufacturing with annual sales of less than 50 million dollars of MP and less

Mass customization

295

Figure 12. Fit customization point

JFMM 14,2

296

than $10 million of MC. The company manufactures about 500-800 customized shirts and about 700 dozens of MP shirts a week. Customized order turnaround time of one to two weeks and MP replenishment throughput time of three weeks is practiced. A MP order frequency of about 17 and MC order frequency of about 175 is expected for a week. The company manufactures for retail stores in the US supplying both MP and MC orders. Once the customer enters the retail store the sales associate provides a shirt of a closest size to the customer based on the interested style. Once the garment is t-on, specic t measurements are recorded by the associate for correct t. The t customization options are collar measurements, front and back length measurements, waist taper measurements, and sleeve length measurements. In some situations the customer provides a shirt that customer perceives as a good t for t measurements. Customization features as demanded by the customer is then recorded. Company provides the customer specic feature options to be selected from. These feature customization options are for collars, cuffs, sleeves, backs and fronts. In addition some construction features such as edge stitching and monogramming is offered. The monogramming options include color, style and position that is an additional feature that the customer can select. The placement can be on the pocket, cuff, front and placket which shows one of the extents of this feature customization point. Company maintains about 300 different fabrics from which customer can select for fabrication customization. The sales associate enters the design, t, feature, and customer information into the computer system that is accessible to the manufacturing facility in real time. 6.4 Personal communication: points of customization Four experts; a consultant for build-to-order MC, a president of a R&D company, a director for supply chain analysis and a corporate VP for research were interviewed. The summary of their input to this research is as follows: . MC is a viable business model for apparel. However the points must be congured so that extents of customization must not be at the extreme levels of MP or customization. . Technology today is in place; however, technology needs to be integrated for a more organized and developed supply chain. . More organized raw material supply chain with standardization of raw materials for build-to-order system for FBCP. . Until new technologies such as body scanning, digital printing, etc. are popular, use strategies to standardize customization to some extent by dening check-in-the-box t customization for FTCP and combining many standard feature options for FRCP. . MC of apparel would really be combining points of customization that can be put together on demand (build-to-order) with few cut to size (FTCP). . It is important to dene whether the product is for the ultimate consumer or for a customer and based on this decision the points and extents must be dened. . The companies which made effort to practice DCP business models have only been partially successful.

It is advisable to limit the choice or points of customization options offered to customer as the customer may not have sufcient knowledge to make intelligent decisions that can help to reduce manufacturing complexity. Wardrobe customization is a new trend that must be addressed in the MC and personalization context. New technologies such as body scanning, virtual tting, automatic pattern generation, etc. will assist to reduce the complexity of FTCP.

Mass customization

297

7. Conclusion Enterprises in all branches of industry are becoming more customer-centric. Increased consumer power in making purchasing decisions based on the satisfaction of consuming the apparel product, customizing apparel products to the needs of the consumer is an appropriate approach to increase customer satisfaction. This research has shown that the current MC practice in apparel can be characterized using ve distinct points of customization; post assembly, fabrication, feature, t, and design. Further, each point of customization is practiced at different levels called extents that dene the variety and depth of customizable options available. The industry survey, case study and personal communication were used to benchmark and validate the ndings of the ve points and extent of customization. In addition, the survey results explain the most common and viable points of customization and their extents used by the industry today. These ndings indirectly reveal that certain points and their extents of customization have limitations in effectively executing a MC business model. Post-assembly customization is most commonly practiced among the 16 rms surveyed. Fabrication and feature customization are also widely practiced because no signicantly different manufacturing technologies are required. Fit and design customization is less commonly practiced today. Several explanations include the need for advanced technologies to capture and process the voice of the consumer as well as the changes required in manufacturing technologies. Further, the cost differential to the consumer may exceed the perceived value of t and design customization for many consumers. Technology solutions for t and design customization have become more affordable and manufacturers will reevaluate the return on investment as a t and design mass customization business model. In conclusion, MC in apparel can be practiced at many points and to differing Extents depending on the needs of the consumer. Five critical points of apparel customization are dened. These points and their extents of customization are compared, analyzed and validated. It is suggested that the success and the capability of apparel MC will depend on how effectively a company can combine the dened points of customization and their extent of customization in pre-production, production, and post-production of apparel products. There are examples of rms conducting MC only as well as rms that have integrated MC into their MP business models. Firms recognize that digital technologies play a critical role in capturing the customer requirement and handling the order and payment stage and gain a competitive edge by offering product differentiation and mass customizing at points and extents that yield a sustainable business model.

JFMM 14,2

298

References Alford, D., Sackett, P. and Nelder, G. (2000), Mass customization: an automotive perspective, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 99-110. Anderson, D.M. (2003), Build-to-Order and Mass Customization: The Ultimate Supply Chain Management and Lean Manufacturing Strategy for Low-Cost-On-Demand Production without Forecasts or Inventory, CIM Press, Cambria, CA. Anderson, D.M. (2004), Build-to-Order and Mass Customization: The Ultimate Supply Chain Management and Lean Manufacturing Strategy for Low-Cost-On-Demand Production without Forecasts or Inventory, CIM Press, Cambria, CA. Anderson, L.J., Brannon, E., Ulrich, P., Marshall, T. and Staples, N. (1995), Discovering the process of mass customization: a paradigm shift for competitive manufacturing, National Textile Center Annual Report, August. Anderson, L.J., Brannon, E.L., Ulrich, P.V., Marshall, T. and Staples, N.J. (1998), Discovering the process of mass customiation: a paradigm shift for competitive manufacturing, National Research Center Research Briefs. Chenemilla, P. (2001), Integrating digitally printed designs for mass customization, unpublished Masters dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Cresswell, J.W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 2nd ed., Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Davis, S. (1996), Future Perfect, Addison-Wesley Publishing, Reading, MA. Duray, R., Ward, P.T., Milligan, G.W. and Berry, W.L. (2000), Approaches to mass customization: congurations and empirical validation, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 605-25. He, D. and Kusiak, A. (1995), The delayed product differentiation strategy in agile manufacturing, paper presented at the 4th Industrial Engineers Research Conference, Institute of Industrial Engineers. He, D., Kusiak, A. and Tseng, T. (1998), Delayed product differentiation: a design and manufacturing perspective, Computer-Aided Design, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 105-13. Lampel, J. and Mintzberg, H. (1996), Customizing customization, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 21-30. Pine, B.J. II (1993), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Pine, B.J. II and Gilmore, J.H. (1997), The four faces of mass customization, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 91-101. Ross, A. (1996), Mass customization: selling uniqueness, Manufacturing Engineer, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 260-3. Senanayake, M.M. (2004), Mixed mass production and mass customization: best practices for apparel, unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Silveira, G.D., Borenstein, D. and Fogliatto, F.S. (2001), Mass customization: literature review and research directions, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 72, pp. 1-13. Textile Clothing Technology Corporation (n.d.), available at: www.tc2.com/index.htm (accessed January 8, 2008). Tseng, M.M. and Piller, F.T. (Eds) (2003), The Customer-Centric Enterprise: Advances in Mass Customization and Personalization, Springer, Heidelberg. Wortmann, J.C. (1997), A typology of customer-driven manufacturing, International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 59-73.

Further reading Anderson, D.M. (1990), Design for Manufacturability: Optimizing Cost, Quality, and Time to Market, CIM Press, Lafayette, CA. Anderson, D.M. and Pine, B.J. II (1997), Agile Product Development for Mass Customization, Irwin, Chicago, IL. Dillman, D.A. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Istook, C.L. (2002), Enabling mass customization: computer-driven alteration methods, International Journal of Clothing Science and Technology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 61-76. Jiao, J. and Tseng, M.M. (1999), A methodology of developing product family architecture for mass customization, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 3-20. Lee, S. and Chen, J.C. (1999), Mass-customization methodology for an apparel industry with a future, Journal of Industrial Technology, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-8. Pine, B.J. II (1999), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Pine, B.J. II, Victor, B. and Boynton, A.C. (1993), Making mass customization work, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, pp. 108-19. Senanayake, M.M. and Little, T.J. (2001), Measures for new product development, Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, Vol. 1 No. 3. Ulrich, K. and Tung, K. (1991), Fundamentals of product modularity, Proceedings of the 1991 ASME Winter Annual Meeting Symposium on Issues in Design/Manufacturing Integration, Atlanta, GA. Yin, R.K. (2003), Case Study Research Design and Methods, 3rd ed., Vol. 5, Sage Publications, London. About the authors Muditha M. Senanayake is an Assistant Professor of Apparel Technology and Management in the Department of Apparel Merchandising and Management at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He graduated from the University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, with BS (Eng) in Textile and Clothing Technology. He obtained his Master of Textiles in Textile and Apparel Technology and Management and PhD in Technology Management from NC State University, USA. He has worked with Aitken Spence Garments and University of Moratuwa in Sri Lanka, and Maidenform Inc. and Kansas State University in the USA. His research interests include apparel mass customization, mixed mass production and mass customized apparel manufacturing, technology integration for rapid product development and responsive manufacturing and virtual technologies and 3D technologies. Muditha M. Senanayake is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mudithas@csupomona.edu Trevor J. Little is Professor of Textile and Apparel Management in the College of Textiles at NC State University. He graduated from the University of Leeds, UK with BS and PhD degrees in Textiles and has worked with CSIRO in Australia, Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science (now Philadelphia University), Danskin Inc., and NC State University since 1984. His research interests include functionally tailored textiles, nanobers, developing and delivering products that meet current consumer demand, automated garment design, digital printing and electrotextiles.

Mass customization

299

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints