Types of Apparel Mass Customization and Levels of Modularity and Variety

Abstract

Mass-customization (MC) is a hybrid of mass production and customization, and it offers potential solutions for problems in the apparel industry. This theoretical study contemplates on the contradicting concepts that are combined in the configuration of apparel MC. The study uses the segmentation principle of the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving for an analysis framework. Terms for apparel MC including the levels of modularity and variety and the attributes of design and fit are clarified. This study provides a theoretically grounded explanation of how an effective implementation of apparel MC can solve existing problems in the ready-to-wear industry. To offer a managerial tool to identify an efficient scope of apparel MC, this study proposed structured categories of apparel MC in a matrix based on modularity and variety levels for the attributes of design and fit. Examples of the implementation of MC using the proposed matrix were also provided.

Keywords

apparel mass customization theory of inventive problem solving types of apparel mass customization positioning

For decades, apparel manufacturers and similar firms producing apparel products have used mass-production methods to provide consumers with ready-to-wear (RTW) garments. Although manufacturers and retailers in the apparel industry have recognized the need to be more customer-driven, consumer complaints about apparel products (e.g., poor fit and lack of wanted designs) persist (MacDonald, Lazorchak, & Currie, 2009). For future financial success, apparel manufacturers must seek ways to understand these varied consumers’ demands and sell exactly what their target customers want (Lim & Istook, 2012). A few apparel firms (e.g., Inditex for Zara) have adopted strategies, such as integrating the manufacturing and retailing parts of the supply chain (e.g., just-in-time and agile manufacturing [IBM Corporation, 2004]). Another strategy to fulfill specific customers’ needs and wants is apparel mass customization (MC). MC is a highly customer-driven strategy that combines mass production and customization (Gilmore & Pine II, 1997; May-Plumlee & Little, 1998).

Although MC has been in the trade and business literature since the 1990s (Gilmore & Pine II, 1997; Pine II, 1992), many apparel companies have not fully adopted this competitive strategy (Lim, Istook, & Cassill, 2009). Anderson-Connell, Ulrich, and Brannon (2002) and Loker and Oh (2002) state that, although MC is beneficial for apparel manufacturers, much confusion exists about this customization process. For example, some MC theorists and researchers imply that MC would be most profitable for short runs of high fashion styles (S. Lee, Kunz, Fiore, & Campbell, 2002; May-Plumlee & Little, 2006). However, this perception of MC implementation is in conflict with findings that suggest, in apparel manufacturing, other product line groups (e.g., repeat runs of previous products) are also appropriate for use with MC production systems (Anderson-Connell, Ulrich, & Brannon, 2002). The conflicting definitions of impediments to implementation in production processes are again expressed 10 years later by Kincade, Kim, and Kanakadurga (2013). After 20 years of MC existence and research, MC is still not widely used in the apparel industry (Apparel and Textiles, 2011; Babu, 2006), and consumers continue to bemoan the sameness of product offerings and the need for more customized clothing (White, 2013). Although MC could solve some of these industry problems and provide financial benefits (Duray, 2002), limited change has occurred in apparel production; therefore, more research to clarify MC is necessary to improve its utilization by apparel companies.

The theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) is used in this study to provide a theoretical framework for a clarified view of MC. TRIZ was initially created as a product development tool by G. Altshuller, a Russian scientist and writer, in the late 1940s (Altshuller, 1999). Through application of this tool over many years for thousands of scientific inventions, the TRIZ was developed. Viewed through TRIZ, MC can be considered as a customer-driven solution to a problem existing in the RTW industry, and aspects of MC can be investigated in detail for improvement and wider usage. An examination based on TRIZ may yield a process for producing high-quality products, higher profits, higher market demand, and other desirable outcomes, which may lead to gaining competitive advantages within a market (Terninko, Zusman, & Zlotin, 1998).

TRIZ is useful to achieve the following goals: (a) produce an ideal design (i.e., consistent with goals of apparel companies), (b) creatively solve problems by identifying and understanding contradictions in the situation (i.e., needed in the understanding of MC), and (c) structure the product development process systematically (Hernandez, Schmidt, & Okudan, 2013; Terninko et al., 1998). The outcome of an examination with TRIZ will be the development of a framework and applications for MC. In addition, the goals of TRIZ fit with the apparel industry where a contradiction (e.g., mass production and custom tailoring) exists (Terninko et al., 1998). Thus, in this study, TRIZ is applied to apparel MC to achieve the following three objectives:

Define and compare RTW and traditional custom tailoring product development and manufacturing processes to identify contradictions,

Examine the systematic structure of apparel MC, and

Categorize and compare types of apparel MC to develop implementation strategies for apparel manufacturers.

Objective 1: Define and Compare RTW Mass Production and Traditional Customization to Identify Contradictions

A fundamental goal of TRIZ is to solve problems creatively by identifying and understanding contradictions in a situation. Understanding the contradictions within the traditional product development process and acknowledging how the apparel MC process merges the contradiction in the apparel industry is important in considering apparel MC as one of the ways to solve problems in apparel manufacturing and the resulting apparel products.

RTW Mass Production and Traditional Customization

The apparel design process involves a creative thinking process that finds solutions to a design problem within the scope of the broader product development process. The ultimate product development goal for RTW apparel manufacturers is to yield a salable product with profitable production efficiency. Watkins (1995) identified the following design process for RTW mass production: (a) accept, (b) analyze, (c) define, (d) ideate, (e) select, (f) implement, and (g) evaluate. To develop a salable product that may eliminate a recognized problem and engage in a creative product development process, systemic feedback is important. To achieve this goal, the manufacturer has to communicate effectively within the organization and with the entities outside the organization (Kotler & Armstrong, 2013). In a competitive apparel market, manufacturers and retailers should use a variety of metrics (e.g., collect and review sales data) and technologies (e.g., 3-D patternmaking software such as VStitcher, version 6.5) to seek information about consumers’ unmet needs and wants (Kincade & Gibson, 2010; Lim et al., 2009). However, apparel product development for many companies remains a designer-driven process or a repeat of best-sellers process, without direct consumer input reflected during the process. This traditional mass-production practice results in the development of products that may appeal to mainstream consumers but may also lead to a wide range of dissatisfied consumers.

For many years, the only alternative to mass production was traditional customization, where one designer works with one consumer to create one product. The contradiction between RTW mass production and traditional customization is represented by two extremes in operations—economies of scale (or volume) in RTW mass production and economies of scope in traditional customization. Economies of scale exist when output of similar products increases and costs decrease (Krugman & Wells, 2005). Economies of scope can be achieved when a firm provides a variety of products rather than the production of a single output (Panzar & Willig, 1981). As neither RTW mass production nor traditional customization provides both the cost benefits and the product targeting needed to satisfy individual consumers at the same time, MC can be an option to solve the problem in the apparel industry. MC combines the contradicting apparel product development processes (i.e., mass production and traditional customization).

MC as a Possible Solution

Tseng and Jiao (2001) explained that MC is a consumer-oriented business strategy because MC combines flexible production with extensive customer input during the design and product development process. Adopting the MC strategy, a firm may address the problems that consumers have with RTW (e.g., lack of unique design and poor-fitting garments) and provide an effective solution by offering made-to-order apparel at a price close to RTW retail. Apparel companies may offer several types of MC at varied levels or combinations of customization and mass production. For example, a suit company may offer extensive fit options such as allowing the customer to get an exact personal length for the inseam of the pants and to have a customized change in the amount of waist-to-chest drop. However, the customer would have limited design options because the shape of the lapel and the placement of back vents would be determined by the company with no customer input. In contrast, a T-shirt company may offer many design options (e.g., fabrications, colors, and design appliques) but be limited with size options (e.g., S, M, L, or one size fits most). As a solution to existing problems in the RTW industry, understanding the types and varied levels of customization for MC are important to an apparel manufacturer’s adoption of MC strategy.

When considering MC, the largest difference between the mass-production process used in the RTW industry and the MC process is the level of direct consumer involvement in the process. Although a traditionally operating manufacturer may identify consumers’ wants/needs in product development by gathering information from target consumers’ sales data or forecast predictions, this type of information is more likely to be generalized as comprehensive market information and not made in response to individualized requests (Kotler & Armstrong, 2013). During this MC process, consumer involvement may happen anywhere between the initial stage of the design process and the last stage of the implementation or production of final product. Effective communication between the manufacturer and the consumer enables the manufacturer to understand accurately what the individual consumer wants/needs to produce an ideal product for that consumer (Lim et al., 2009). MC allows manufacturers to provide garments with consumer-selected design and/or fit, which earns higher individual consumer satisfaction and higher productivity with lower return rate, greater efficiencies of production, and lower costly overstock (see Figure 1; Gilmore & Pine II, 1997; Lim et al., 2009).

Figure 1.

The concepts from theory of inventive problem solving (TRIZ) applied to the ready-to-wear (RTW) apparel industry in mass production and traditional customization, and apparel mass customization.

Objective 2: Examine the Systematic Structure of Apparel MC

Understanding a solution to a problem, according to a TRIZ goal, can be achieved through analyzing its structure. The TRIZ principle of segmentation is used at this point in the study to provide organization to further the understanding of apparel MC. Segmentation uses the technique of dividing an idea into parts so that it can be examined and reformed in a new way (Altshuller, 1999). Using this method of analysis, a synthesis of the systematic structure of MC based on previous literature was represented by the levels of variety and modularity offered.

Many authors in apparel and engineering fields defined the structure of MC based on the following two terms: (a) level of modularity in the cut and sew aspect of manufacturing and (b) the amount of product variety in the aspect of fulfilling consumers’ needs and wants (Ahlstrom & Westbrook, 1999; Duray, 2002; Kincade, Regan, & Gibson, 2007; Senanayake & Little, 2010). However, specific terminology for these two terms used in each study varies and is often conflicting. To better understand the structure of apparel MC, the following sections define and clarify both modularity and variety.

Modularity, in MC, is the use of precut and pre-assembled pieces (i.e., modules) for production (Duray, 2002). A high level of modularity means a greater use of modules that are mostly pre-assembled with fewer nonassembled pieces, whereas a low modularity uses fewer of the precut and pre-assembled pieces with more cut-to-order pieces. Using modules (i.e., precut and pre-assembled units) limits the range of choices, which decreases possible variety of components in apparel MC. Senanayake and Little (2010) proposed that the point in the product development process where customer involvement occurs determines the amount of modularity offered. In apparel MC with a high level of modularity, customer involvement may mean simply selecting from limited preset choices (i.e., modules). The customer input occurs at later stages of product development. For example, during the process of buying a John W. Nordstrom dress shirt (a mass-customized dress shirt brand) from a brick-and-mortar department store, a customer selects from available options presented by the store, and the customer input occurs near the end of the process. On the other hand, with low modularity, the manufacturer will communicate with the customer early and often, using fewer pre-assembled units or modules. Considering the potential ranges in modularity, companies must understand the meaning of modularity and adopt an ideal level of modularity in implementing apparel MC.

The second term, variety, is generated in MC by consumers’ needs and wants and is defined as customer-chosen or customer-specified differences in a product (Ahlstrom & Westbrook, 1999). The potential level of variety in MC ranges from a low level when a customer selects one of the few manufacturer-presented options to a high level when a customer specifies his or her design or measurements of a product. Variety can range from a low level of variety (e.g., few choices in fabrication) to a high level of variety (e.g., a wide range of fabrications and styles are available). The Blank Label Company, in contrast to the John W. Nordstrom shirt company, allows its customers to work with a company designer to get the variety (e.g., color, fabrications, shape of collar, and size of cuffs) that the customer, not the company, envisions.

The level of modularity in the aspect of manufacturing and the level of variety in the aspect of fulfilling consumer need are in an inverse relationship. When the level of modularity is high, the level of variety is usually low, and when the level of modularity is low, the level of variety is usually high. For example, if a manufacturer offers a standard-size dress shirt with the modular selections of two types of fabrics, three types of collar, two types of pocket, and three types of sleeves, it can offer 36 mass-customized dress shirt styles (2 × 3 × 2 × 3 = 36 combinations). Each pre-assembled unit (e.g., one collar style) is a module, and the module pieces are combined to make dress shirts. In this case, the level of modularity is high (i.e., most pieces are pre-assembled), and the level of variety is limited (i.e., total of 36 options).

Objective 3: Categorize and Compare Types of Apparel MC for Implementation

Combining variations of levels of modularity and variety provide usable and practical types or categorizations of apparel MC. This categorization is exemplified by previous researchers who have identified many types of MC (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002; Burns & Bryant, 2005; Duray, 2002; Gilmore & Pine II, 1997; Lampel & Mintzberg, 1996). The combinations of modularity and variety, based on the segmentation principle of TRIZ, have the potential to provide solutions for apparel manufactures. Using adjustments in the levels of modules and in levels of variety, a manufacturer can find the ideal product development and production solution to produce products that are valuable to the consumer and profitable for the manufacturer.

Types of MC in Previous Research Based on Levels of Modularity and Variety

Across 10 years of MC study, the terminology to describe types of MC has varied; however, when reviewing the content of these various terms, an underlying structure and pattern is recognized. Groups of types are identified and range from very low modularity and high variety to very high modularity with limited or no design or fit differences (see Figure 2). For example, Totally Custom (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002) requires very low modularity but a very high level of customization. Fabricators (Duray, 2002) are most likely to be involved in Totally Custom (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002), Tailored Customization (Lampel & Mintzberg, 1996), and Collaborative Customization (Gilmore & Pine II, 1997) to provide high levels of design and fit varieties. Fabricators (Duray, 2002) are the firms that allow customers to design their own products from the beginning of the product development process. During Tailored Customization (Lampel & Mintzberg, 1996), a product prototype is presented to a potential buyer based on customers’ needs and then the product is tailored. For example, a customer who decides to purchase a mass-customized T-shirt through Tailored Customization may select fabric, select style features of the product, measure his or her body, and request that the manufacturer produces the T-shirt according to his or her specification. Collaborative Customization (Gilmore & Pine II, 1997) is performed by communicating with a customer to facilitate the specification of the customer’s needs and to make customized products. Involvers (Duray, 2002) are the firms that offer customers selection of product components from existing design options and can perform Tailored Customization (Lampel & Mintzberg, 1996) or Collaborative Customization (Gilmore & Pine II, 1997) through the Codesign process (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002), whereby collaborative communications between the customer and the firm are required.

Figure 2.

Types of mass customization in previous research based on levels of modularity and variety. Note. *The term codesign was used as key words in many other previous studies including S. Lee et al. (2002), Ulrich, Anderson-Connell, and Wu (2003), Choy and Loker (2004), Fiore, Lee, and Kunz (2004), and Cho and Fiorito (2009).

Types of MC in Previous Research for Design and Fit

Unique and specific to the apparel sector, design and fit can be considered as the areas where consumers’ unmet needs exist, and MC can be used to cater to consumers’ desires in a garment (Y. Lee, Damhorst, Lee, Kozar, & Martin, 2012). Therefore, apparel MC can be categorized based on the two important attributes (i.e., design and fit; see Figure 2). For example, in Design MC (Burns & Bryant, 2005), the level of modularity may differ depending on consumers’ wants and needs, and it may be reflected in style preferences for colors, fabrics, and design features. Some consumers may want to design their own clothes from the ideation or concept step, while many others may prefer to choose from a number of options that the company provides. In product design-related MC (i.e., fabrication customization [Senanayake & Little, 2010]), company-provided apparel types, colors, and trims are the three most commonly offered MC options. In contrast, Fit MC (Burns & Bryant, 2005) is used by manufactures when measuring the customer’s body dimensions to make the product exactly fit the customer’s body (i.e., made-to-measure). Fit MC is done through several methods, namely, obtaining measurements at a store location, adjusting a try-on of existing sizes, obtaining customer-performed measurements, coping from a consumer’s existing garment, determining a general fit, or taking a body scan (Senanayake & Little, 2010). Because the levels of variety and modularity in Design MC of apparel can be independent from that of Fit MC, these two types of MC were placed in parallel columns in Figure 2. Design MC and Fit MC can be conducted in various degree of modularity through Collaborative Customization (Gilmore & Pine II, 1997), Totally Custom, Codesign, and Design Option with Standardized Sizes (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002). Personalization can be considered as a Design MC with a very high modularity (very low variety), and it does not provide Fit MC. Using this standardization of types, these types of apparel MC are further examined for their levels of modularity and variety and their impact on design and fit.

Comparisons of Levels of Modularity and Variety in Types of MC for Design and Fit

While combining the two aspects of variety and modularity at a desirable level may provide solutions to various problems, it is important for apparel companies and researchers to understand in which realm and at what level of apparel attributes (i.e., design and fit) the combination is most profitable. In other words, an apparel company that offers MC options should identify, in addition to what is profitable, the levels of variety and modularity (i.e., high or low) for the apparel attributes (i.e., design, fit, or both) it is capable of offering to the customers.

For apparel MC, modularity and variety (in the attributes of design and fit) can each range from a high level to a low level, including no offerings, within that attribute. In addition, the levels of modularity and variety for one attribute may be implemented independently from levels for the other attribute. As an example, a manufacturer may not offer any design options for MC, thus using the lowest level of variety in the design attribute, but may allow a customer to provide his or her body measurements for a custom fit, thus providing a high level of variety in fit. At the same time, the modularity of the design will be high because the design offerings are the same for each customer, and the level of modularity for fit is low because no components can be precut. In this case, the manufacturer has to cut the components of the garment based on the customer’s specific body measurement and his or her fit preference.

To provide further illustrations that the levels of modularity and variety in design MC and in fit MC can be independent, a matrix is presented with examples (see Figure 3). This matrix shows the levels of variety and modularity in most types of apparel MC. For example, the Totally Custom MC, from Anderson-Connell et al. (2002), can be located on spot (a) on the matrix, showing that totally custom provides products with very high variety (very low modularity) in both design and fit. In this case, apparel MC becomes similar to traditional customization, because it allows the customer input to be at the highest level, both in design and in fit aspects of a garment. An example of this custom MC is a company called Totally Outfitted Custom Show Clothes, which makes one-of-a-kind clothing for riders who show horses competitively. Each item is custom-made and designed to fit a specific rider and to provide an individualized style for that rider.

Figure 3.

Matrix of level of modularity/variety in design and fit mass customization. a = totally custom (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002); b = design option with standardized sizes (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002), for example, Timberland’s mass-customized boots and boat shoes; c = high variety in fit options and low variety in design options, for example, Polo Ralph Lauren’s Purple or Black label made-to-order suits; d = high variety in design options and low to medium variety in fit options; for example, Brooks Brothers’ mass-customized dress shirts.

Anderson-Connell et al.’s (2002) Design Option with Standardized Sizes can be located in spot (b) on the matrix, showing that design option with standardized sizes provides products with a medium level of variety/modularity in design but a very low level of variety (very high modularity) in fit (see Figure 3). Some of Timberland’s online offerings are examples of current retail products that exemplify Design Option with Standardized Sizes. Timberland has an online MC option for two product categories (i.e., boots and boat shoes for men, women, and kids). Customers can select the colors of various parts of boots (e.g., upper, tongue, hardware, stitching, and soles) and add monogramming to the boots, but the boots are offered only in standardized sizes.

If, for example, a customer wants to mass-customize a dress shirt by selecting one design among three options and basing the neck circumference and arm length on his measurements, the level of variety of this mass-customized dress shirt can be located on spot (c) as noted in Figure 3. This type of MC has low variety (high modularity) in design but high variety (low modularity) in fit. Polo Ralph Lauren offers the MC option for its Purple Label and Black Label products such as suiting, dress shirts, formalwear, and some accessories, only in brick-and-mortar stores. It offers limited design options, but the products are made-to-measure after a sales associate takes the customer’s necessary measurements.

If a customer wants to design his own dress shirt by choosing material, fabric, style, and colors from many of the manufacturer-offered design options but is limited to only four fit preferences, this case can be located on spot (d). This type of MC has high variety (low modularity) in design but low to medium variety (medium to high modularity) in fit (see Figure 3). Although Brooks Brothers offers many design options such as fabrics, colors, and styles in various parts of a dress shirt (e.g., collar, pocket, placket, and cuffs), it offers only four fit preference options (i.e., extra slim, slim, regular, and traditional) to the consumer.

The position of firms on the graphic map of Figure 3 can be comparatively analyzed. For example, the strategy of the Brooks Brothers’ MC for dress shirts located on spot (d) is different from the strategy of the Timberland boots located on spot (b). Although the Timberland MC allows customers to choose colors for each part of the boot, the overall design choices are very limited. In contrast, the Brooks Brothers’ dress shirt MC enables customers to choose many design elements in addition to choice of color. Therefore, Brooks Brothers offers a higher variety in the design of mass-customized dress shirts than Timberland does for its boots. In terms of fit, Timberland produces the boots only in standardized sizes so no customized fit options are offered. In contrast, Brooks Brothers’ MC dress shirts are produced with more flexibility to cater to the customer preference in fit (e.g., extra slim) with four fit options available as well as the full range of standardized sizes.

Implementation Strategies

The examples of the implementation of MC discussed relevant to Figure 3 effectively combine the contradictions (i.e., modularity, variety) of the apparel industry. The combinations offer a range of levels of modularity and variety in order to fulfill customers’ specific needs and can be applied to one or both of the apparel attributes (i.e., design and fit). A process of MC with levels and attributes allows the customers to provide information on what they want exactly and to engage in the design process, which leads to an ideal product development (Altshuller, 1999). Therefore, an apparel firm that offers the MC option to its customers must find the desired combination of modularity and variety that the target customers want and the company can deliver. Levels of modularity and variety should be determined based on the level of consumers’ interest for the desired stage(s) of the design process. For example, offering a high variety would be inefficient when the target customers do not feel the need for an extensive involvement. This is supported by Endo and Kincade’s (2005) finding that the level of consumer interest in the MC of shoes varied.

To aid in the decision-making process for selection of levels of modularity and variety that are most appropriate, the company can visualize its position on the matrix in Figure 3. For example, if a retailer’s target consumers are most interested in the fit of their apparel, then the company needs to implement fit MC, with a high level of fit variety and a correspondingly low level of fit modularity. When looking at the cost benefits of this decision, the company can benefit in savings of time and money because they do not need to hire designers who can codesign with the consumer nor do they need the video technology that allows for communication with the consumer regarding design aspects of garments. On the costs side, the company will need to work with a production partner capable of cutting product parts that are sized to each individual customer’s fit specifications. Understanding the possible combination of the types of apparel MC and the levels of modularity and variety can lead to a systematic implementation of apparel MC.

In addition to identifying the design or fit attributes of apparel MC and the level of modularity and variety related to the chosen type(s) of MC, with the matrix (Figure 3), the retailer can find a viable marketing position. A retailer who wanted to focus on variety in the design attribute might work with a named designer to codesign with customers who were motived by fashion and style changes regardless of fit (i.e., shoe comfort). For example, a dress shoe company, Shoes of Prey (SoP), offers a high level of design variety but low level of fit variety in women’s dress shoes through its website and brick-and-mortar Nordstrom stores. A customer of SoP can select the material (e.g., leather, patent leather, fabric, and suede) and color for parts of a platform high-heel pump (e.g., upper, platform, and insole), and also choose the style of each part of the pump including the shape of the toe, back, heel, and edge trim, as well as the front/back decoration. Design modularity would be low because each part is custom cut. Regarding the fit attribute, though it offers a wide range of European sizes from 31 to 49, the variety in fit is low (as the sizes are still standardized) so fit modularity would be high. In Figure 4, spot (a) represents the level of variety/modularity in design and fit attributes of mass-customized shoes sold from SoP. By using the matrix in Figure 4, a hypothetical competitor (HC) may analyze where its competitor (i.e., SoP) is located in the women’s mass-customized dress shoes market and can differentiate its products from the ones that SoP offers. If the HC finds that many consumers want products that exactly fit their feet, and if HC is capable of producing products that cater to the customers who want a better fit, to effectively differentiate the product offerings from those of SoP, HC can elevate the level of variety and lower modularity in the fit attribute. At the same time, HC would be lowering the level of variety and increasing the modularity in the design attribute (see spot [b] in Figure 4). This position is potentially appealing to a niche market (e.g., dress shoes consumers who want exact fit with a certain level of fashion, dress shoes consumers with foot problems, dress shoes consumers with one foot larger), as Endo and Kincade (2008) found that consumers with fit problems were often willing to forgo design to get good fit in shoes. Thus, this combination of design and fit attributes and levels of modularity and variety could be a viable position for the HC, and it creates a unique position in the market that clearly differentiates from its competitor (i.e., SoP).

Figure 4.

Strategic placement of companies based on selection of design and fit. a = Shoes of Prey (SoP); b = hypothetical competitor (HC) of SoP.

With the variety of fabrics, styles, and fibers available for choice in apparel, with the known variances in consumer preferences, and with the limitations of various manufacturing facilities, narrowing the scope of apparel MC is an effective and realistic strategy in implementing apparel MC. According to Kotler and Armstrong (2013), implementing niche marketing by targeting a smaller and narrower market niche and using effective marketing strategies is desirable for profitability. Therefore, apparel manufacturers that offer an MC option should target a specific level of modularity and variety for design and fit based on a consideration of the target customers’ demand. Using this strategy, the retailer and the manufacturing partner should be able to implement MC at the most efficient level and streamline the retailing and manufacturing process. Based on the TRIZ philosophy and analysis process, this practice will consequently lead to an adequate solution to a problem and will satisfy consumers.

Conclusions

Adoption of TRIZ as an analysis tool is reported to be beneficial in product and technology innovation, which can lead to creative problem solving and ideal product development (Hernandez et al., 2013). However, a review of previous research showed no apparel MC studies utilizing TRIZ. A structured solution to the contradictions in the apparel industry (i.e., economies of scale and scope to provide modularity and variety) was presented using the segmentation principle of TRIZ. The result of this theoretical review is a structured examination of the types of MC and the visual charting of the levels of modularity and variety for the apparel attributes of design and fit. These findings, highlighted in a figure and validated in examples, are beneficial for researchers and industry professionals to clarify understanding of apparel MC, to provide nomenclature for future research, and to improve implementation of this solution to issues in the apparel industry. For researchers, this study contributes to building a theoretical foundation in apparel MC research. With structured definitions, researchers can make more comparisons of findings and seek answers to future research questions with improved validity.

For apparel firms, this structure and the visual matrix provide a systematic positioning tool to identify the levels and types of apparel MC options potentially desired by consumers. The matrix developed in this study is inclusive of all probable levels of modularity and variety in apparel MC regarding design and fit, which is in contrast to previous research that listed several distinct and separate categories of apparel MC (Anderson-Connell et al., 2002). This positioning tool, shown in the comprehensive matrix, may assist apparel MC companies to effectively identify the company’s capability of a selected MC implementation and assess realistically their abilities to meet actual customer demands. Considering competitors’ marketing positions on the matrix, a viable marketing position can be identified based on the company’s selection of modularity and variety of mass-customized apparel in both design and fit attributes. Companies can use this matrix to delineate the competition within a market and to seek ways to position a new or revised firm for maximum market impact. Such analysis could lead to strategic expansion, reduction, or changes in the position of MC practice, for an increased profit.

This study is also meaningful in that it addresses the interdependence of modularity of MC and variety of MC and the independence between design MC and fit MC in implementation, which were not discussed in previous apparel MC literature. Future research related to apparel MC may examine and validate apparel MC practice with examples of companies representing levels of modularity/variety in design and fit beyond the examples given in this study. The matrix can also be used in a marketing analysis to examine advantages and disadvantages of various positions of specific companies in a market based on the targeted level of modularity/variety. In addition, other TRIZ principles, such as materials homogeneity of interacting objects (e.g., how similar precut fabrics possibly affect modular production) and feedback from system output to drive future input (e.g., how post-purchase satisfaction of consumers affect the future MC product development and mass-customized product offerings [Altshuller, 1999]), are available for study to provide further explanation of the apparel MC practice. As exemplified, the findings in this study provide many possibilities of future research with TRIZ, and the matrix from this research would provide practical information for companies, especially those that adopted or plan to adopt MC as an option within the apparel industry.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ahlstrom

Westbrook

(1999). Implications of mass customization for operations management: An exploratory survey. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 19, 262–274.

Altshuller

(1999). The innovation algorithm: TRIZ, systematic innovation, and technical creativity. Worcester, MA: Technical Innovation Center.

Anderson-Connell

L. J.

Ulrich

P. V.

Brannon

E. L.

(2002). A consumer-driven model for mass customization in the apparel market. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 6, 240–258.

Apparel and Textiles. (2011). globalEDGE: Your source for global business knowledge. International Business Center, Michigan State University. Retrieved from http://globaledge.msu.edu/industries/apparel-and-textiles

Babu

V. R.

(2006). Garment production systems: An overview. The Indian Textile Journal, 48, 22–25.

Burns

L. D.

Bryant

N. O.

(2005). The business of fashion: Designing, manufacturing, and marketing (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Fairchild Publications.

Cho

Fiorito

S. S.

(2009). Acceptance of online customization for apparel shopping. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 37 (5), 389–407.

Choy

Loker

(2004). Mass customization of wedding gowns: Design involvement on the internet. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22 (1/2), 79–87.

Duray

(2002). Mass customization origins: Mass or custom manufacturing? International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 22, 314–328.

10.

Endo

Kincade

D. H.

(2005). The developing direct relationship between manufacturer and consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9, 270–282.

11.

Endo

Kincade

D. H.

(2008). Mass customization for long-term relationship development: Why consumers purchase mass customized products again. Qualitative Market Research, 11, 275–294.

12.

Fiore

A. M.

Lee

Kunz

(2004). Individual differences, motivations, and willingness to use a mass customization option for fashion products. European Journal of Marketing, 38 (7), 835–849.

13.

Gilmore

J. H.

Pine

II, B. J.

(1997). Introduction: Customization that counts. In Gilmore

J. H.

Pine

B. J.

II (Eds.), Markets of one: Creating customer-unique value through mass-customization (pp. vii–xxv). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Book.

14.

Hernandez

N. V.

Schmidt

L. C.

Okudan

G. E.

(2013). Systematic ideation effectiveness study of TRIZ. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135, 1–10.

15.

IBM Corporation. (2004). The consumer driven supply chain: Meeting the needs of today’s demanding customers. Retrieved from http://www-07.ibm.com/innovation/nz/businessinsight/articles/pdf/ConsumerDrivenSupplyChain.pdf

16.

Kincade

D. H.

Gibson

F. Y.

(2010). Merchandising of fashion products. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

17.

Kincade

D. H.

Kim

Kanakadurga

K. S.

(2013). An empirical investigation of apparel production systems and product line groups through the use of collar designs. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 8, 1–15.

18.

Kincade

D. H.

Regan

Gibson

F. Y.

(2007). Concurrent engineering for product development in mass customization for the apparel industry. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 27, 627–649.

19.

Kotler

Armstrong

(2013). Principles of marketing (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

20.

Krugman

Wells

(2005). Microeconomics. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

21.

Lampel

Mintzberg

(1996). Customizing customization. Sloan Management Review, 38, 21–30.

22.

Lee

Kunz

G. I.

Fiore

A. M.

Campbell

J. R.

(2002). Acceptance of mass customization of apparel: Merchandising issues associated with preference for product, process, and place. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20 (3), 138–146.

23.

Lee

Damhorst

M. L.

Lee

Kozar

J. M.

Martin

(2012). Older women’s clothing fit and style concerns and their attitudes toward the use of 3D body scanning. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 30, 102–118.

24.

Lim

Istook

C. I.

(2012). Automatic pattern generation process for made-to-measure. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology Management, 7, 1–11.

25.

Lim

Istook

C. I.

Cassill

N. L.

(2009). Advanced mass customization in apparel. Journal of Textile and Apparel Technology Management, 6, 1–16.

26.

Loker

Y. J.

(2002). Technology, customization, and time-based performance in the apparel and sewn products industry. Journal of Textile and Apparel, Technology and Management, 2, 1–13.

27.

MacDonald

N. M.

Lazorchak

S. A.

Currie

K. M.

(2009). African American women’s satisfaction with the design and marketing of ready-to-wear clothing. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 37, 253–265.

28.

May-Plumlee

Little

T. J.

(1998). No-interval coherently phased product development model for apparel. International Journal of Clothing Sciences and Technology, 10, 342–364.

29.

May-Plumlee

Little

T. J.

(2006). Proactive product development integrating consumer requirements. International Journal of Clothing Sciences and Technology, 18, 53–66.

30.

Panzar

J. C.

Willig

R. D.

(1981). Economies of scope. American Economic Review, 71, 268–272.

31.

Pine

II, B. J.

(1992). Mass customization: The new frontier in business competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

32.

Senanayake

M. M.

Little

T. J.

(2010). Mass customization: Points and extent of apparel mass-customization. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 14, 282–299.

33.

Terninko

Zusman

Zlotin

(1998). Systematic innovation: An introduction to TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving). Boca Raton, FL: St. Lucie Press.

34.

Tseng

M. M.

Jiao

(2001). Mass customization. In Salvendy

(Ed.), Handbook of industrial engineering (3rd ed., pp. 684–709). New York, NY: John Wiley.

35.

Ulrich

P. V.

Anderson-Connell

L. J.

(2003). Consumer co-design of apparel for mass customization. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 7 (4), 398–412.

36.

Watkins

S. M.

(1995). The design process. In Watkins

S. M.

(Ed.), Clothing: The portable environment (2nd ed., pp. 334–355). Ames: Iowa University Press.

37.

White

(2013, April 11). Why it is all going wrong for M & S clothing? Telegraph. Retrieved from http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/article/TMG9986043/Lack-of-focus-and-complex-branding-the-problems-blighting-MandS.html