Search results

The purpose of this study is to develop a modular garment assembly line simulator that can be used for various production methods such as traditional mass production or modern small quantity batch production.

For realistic simulation, the actual shape and sewing information of the garment patterns were used. The assembly line consists of process units including the cutter, preprocessor, module assembly, final assembly, finish, and stack units. Any number of units can be arranged and connected to form various layouts. The simulation can be run at an arbitrary speed.

This system can be used to estimate the time required to process the given order for a specific layout. Therefore, it can be utilized as the basis for optimum production line design.

This system is expected to be utilized by garment manufacturers for obtaining the productivity improvement, production cost reduction, and increased competitiveness.

This article aims to suggest to managers involved in re‐engineering projects a method to assess the feasibility of manufacturing re‐insourcing.

At first, an analysis of the textile sector is carried out. Subsequently, a methodology is described, able to assess the feasibility of manufacturing re‐insourcing. As a case study, a high production shop is then proposed and sized for the quick response requirements of a company producing young apparel lines on behalf of third parties. Finally, an economic evaluation is carried out in order to assess the profitability of the re‐insourcing strategy.

A methodology which can aid managers to assess the feasibility of manufacturing re‐insourcing in re‐engineering programs is proposed.

The proposed methodology is original.

Presents a case study on quick response practices in a supply chain within the Australian textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry, conducted as part of a government‐led project aimed at improving the performance of the Australian TCF industry towards becoming more internationally competitive. Details of the Australian TCF Industry Quick Response Program are provided, which comprised six major activities: assessing company commitment and readiness; formulation of supply chain clusters; roundtable meetings; workshops and seminars; implementation of quick response techniques and technologies; and audits to assess improvements. The supply chain consists of Myer/Grace Brothers (retailer), Diana Ferrari (shoe manufacturer), Burrowes (shoe components supplier), and Packer Tannery (leather supplier). The activities undertaken within this supply chain are discussed and some of the key lessons learnt from this case study are highlighted.

Discusses the adoption of quick response (QR) practices and technologies in developing supply chains within the Australian textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) industry. The results presented are based on a four‐year study in which 50 companies were involved. Discusses the in‐house practices identified which enable quick response. A case study is also presented of a company that is recognised in the Australian TCF as a leader in the adoption of QR practices. Identifies a number of key factors that impact on the success of QR and supply chain management.

Like most industries that adopt a reactive manufacturing strategy, the clothing industry changes only when external forces dictate that the current approach or strategy will no longer satisfy the prevailing business environment. This paper presents a case study of the modular manufacturing system and discusses the underlying premises that support the success of modular manufacturing both in the formative stages and during sustained operation. A review of the known origins of modular manufacturing illustrates how this production system can be used to advantage for clothing manufacture. Modular is the apparel industry's attempt to optimise the social and technical components of a Sociotechnical System (STS). No single solution fits all products/tasks in fully optimising STS, given different technologies, environment and people, etc. Consistent with the requirements for STS, the authors have formed five conclusive statements regarding the characteristics of modular manufacturing for apparel.

Examines the tenth published year of the ITCRR. Runs the whole gamut of textile innovation, research and testing, some of which investigates hitherto untouched aspects. Subjects discussed include cotton fabric processing, asbestos substitutes, textile adjuncts to cardiovascular surgery, wet textile processes, hand evaluation, nanotechnology, thermoplastic composites, robotic ironing, protective clothing (agricultural and industrial), ecological aspects of fibre properties – to name but a few! There would appear to be no limit to the future potential for textile applications.

The apparel industry must produce many different types of products in small quantities in shorter lead times. Trade journals and researchers have emphasized the importance of the right sewing system for achievement of high productivity rates. However, the findings of this research suggest that the actual technology of a sewing system is only one factor in achieving higher productivity. Product type was also highly correlated with high level of productivity. Considering the preliminary findings from this study, a manager should evaluate carefully the plant and the product before selecting a sewing system. Without more detailed analysis, managers should not change sewing systems just to get a new sewing system. The findings of this study suggest the need for more exploration of sewing systems including the impact on productivity.

The purpose of this study was to explore the dimensions of apparel manufacturing strategy (i.e. cost, quality, flexibility, delivery time) and their relationship to style and sewing systems. U.S. apparel producers are seeking strategies that will make their production competitive to production in low wage countries. Two style types were defined: new styles and standardized styles. Results indicated that the production of new styles of apparel is related to the manufacturing dimensions of quality and delivery. The standardized style is related to the dimension of cost. Significant associations were also found between the multiple‐sewing systems used by plants and dimensions of manufacturing strategy (cost, delivery, and flexibility).

Briefly reviews previous literature by the author before presenting an original 12 step system integration protocol designed to ensure the success of companies or countries in their efforts to develop and market new products. Looks at the issues from different strategic levels such as corporate, international, military and economic. Presents 31 case studies, including the success of Japan in microchips to the failure of Xerox to sell its invention of the Alto personal computer 3 years before Apple: from the success in DNA and Superconductor research to the success of Sunbeam in inventing and marketing food processors: and from the daring invention and production of atomic energy for survival to the successes of sewing machine inventor Howe in co‐operating on patents to compete in markets. Includes 306 questions and answers in order to qualify concepts introduced.

Demonstrates how different forms of assembly organization can be classified on the basis of three structural characteristics and analyses the possible relationships between these characteristics and the various dimensions of competitive advantage. Uses the resulting model of the “assembly organization cube” to show that ‐ apart from four “pure” forms of assembly organization ‐ there is a multitude of potential “hybrid” forms, all of which may be expected to support the competitive advantage of the business in different ways from one another. Applies the model to a case study of group working in a clothing manufacturing plant. Explains how the net effects of the move from progressive assembly in batches towards a form of assembly organization incorporating somewhat longer task cycles, tighter coupling, and a more horizontal form of co‐operation have been significant improvements in each of the dimensions of competitive advantage targeted (throughput times, product flexibility, in‐process quality, and production efficiency) as well as an increase in the level of job satisfaction of assembly operators.