Although sounds simple apparel industry has one of the very difficult manufacturing processes.

It is a labor intensive, skill based industry. This industry contains lots of wastes and therefore opportunity for improvement. Apparel manufacturers allover the world is pressed to deliver high quality garments at low costs in shorter lead times. Most of the apparel manufacturers are turning to lean manufacturing to achieve these objectives. Manufacturing an apparel item involves lots of processes. Order inquiries, sampling stages, order confirmation, purchasing of raw material, inspection and storing of raw material, creation of cut plans and markers, cutting, sewing and packing are among key milestones of the process. If we define the value from the customers point of view only the cutting, sewing and packing operations adds value to the product (apart from the design and pre manufacturing processes). Lots of processes happen to achieve the efficiencies in cutting and sewing and even in packing stages. But the reality is when it is analyzed in the bigger picture the total effect is negative on the system. For an example hours of time and tons of money is spent in calculating and ordering correct economical order quantities of RM, inspecting incoming batches of material (especially fabric) and creation of efficient lay plans and tight markers to save fabric. But at the end of the day it is difficult to use the saved fabrics in other orders due to minor variations in colors and the fluctuation of the customer demands. So the material ends as write downs. Every effort and saving is lost. This is a classic example of not aligning the total process to fulfill the requirement of the customer. In lean context this is known as sub optimization.

I have an ideal lean apparel manufacturing unit in my mind. There only the required quantities of RM will be ordered by the procurement department based on the pre calculated consumptions. Then the incoming materials will be delivered in small frequent batches. Supplier ensures the quality of the material. When the goods reached manufacturing facility it is ready for manufacturing. Fabrics will not be cut in lots. Single ply cutters will cut all the panels for one garment at once. This operation will be synchronized to the TAKT time of the operation. Single ply cutting will prevent the requirement for color shade matching and complex lay planning handling. But it might consume little more fabric than if it is done in a conventional way. But the reduction of cost and lead time in inspection, lay planning, marker making and rejects will bring a net positive result to the process. Every manufacturing module will operate with a single piece flow. Output will be packed immediately and will be delivered to the customer in small batches. This will reduce the cost of the product, improve the quality and will deliver the goods to the customer fast. And more importantly this will simplify the process. Although there can be problems in achieving the ideal state described here I am sure you can achieve a near ideal solution with the application of lean manufacturing principles in apparel industry. Lean will bring the flexibility, high quality, shorter lead times and lower costs which are very essential for anyone in this sensitive market. No need to say that these improvements will bring you the competitive advantage over the conventional manufacturers.

Problem-solving in apparel manufacturing

Problem-solving often falls into two categories: workarounds and finding the root causes of difficulties. Workarounds are often unseen, preventing root-cause problem-solving from taking place. Why is this so? Workarounds have many causes. Here are some often found in apparel sewing plants:

Heroism - The individual becomes a hero by "rescuing" the product with a workaround. The plant (including peers and supervisors) fosters short-order problem-solving by rewarding such behavior. Reporting barriers -- no access to those who can make root-cause process changes. Status - Stitchers are thought of as being inferior to supervisors and pattern makers. Communication - There are logistical and language (written and spoken) barriers. Lack of testing - Untested inputs and processes reflect a culture that reacts to problems rather than managing them.

There are a number of ways to address the reasons for workarounds and product defects. Team sewing helps eliminate "heroism" Product integrity should be the responsibility of work teams rather than individuals. As it stands, individuals are held accountable for a single operation on a "bundle," a batch of pieces that travels through the plant. One stitcher's completion of a bundle affects other stitchers downstream in the process. Team sewing requires fundamental changes in equipment and its reorganization into U-shaped cells. The complete process may change. Rather than having many garments in various stages of completion throughout the plant, only one item is made per person at a time or, for example, eight per unit of eight stitchers. This sort of production, sometimes known as cellular manufacturing, blends the integrity of craft manufacturing with the controls of mass production. Moving the pattern department reduces reporting barriers If a workaround is needed, it is frequently due to failure in the pattern department. Pattern makers translate the design into detailed instructions for cutting and assembly. It doesn't matter if workarounds are reported if the information doesn't get to the pattern makers. Moving pattern makers to the plant floor is usually controversial. Presenting the change as a reorganization of people, departments and equipment on the factory floor, allowing departments to converge, may be better. Unfortunately, many plants will be unable to make such transitions at all. A core difficulty with improvement lies with blame-centered management: find a scapegoat and make that person responsible, saying "it was the pattern maker's fault." In fact, the entire department failed because the pattern should have been tested by no fewer than three people before it got anywhere near a sewing line. Therefore, it is the practice of vetting work in the pattern department that led to the failure. First, the pattern should have been checked before giving it to the cutter. The pattern supervisor was responsible for checking the pattern by "walking the seam lines" to ensure all seam lengths matched the corresponding seam lines precisely. Similarly, the supervisor was to verify the appropriate seam

specifications and the like. Next, the pattern had to be laid out and cut. Here a failure arose from inordinately high utilization -- using more fabric than is standard for a particular style and its price points -which should have been found and reported by the cutter. Finally, another failure occurred if the sample maker constructing the prototype did not note problems. If a production workaround is required, it's not the failure of one person; it is a symptom of system failure. The sewing line is not the place to rectify errors made in the upstream process. Yet, often the sewing line is blamed for the lamentable results of the shoddy workarounds. Blame is placed where the poor results are manifested, not where they were caused. Companies regarded today as "successful" apparel producers won't be able to make a lean transition because they rarely have design, pattern and sewing units in the same building, or even the same country. Cross training helps eliminate status barriers People are typically assigned narrow duties with little variation. Cross-training is considered only for emergency fill-in. However, people can be trained to rotate through positions upstream and downstream of their usual jobs. When a stitcher works in patterns some days and the pattern maker works where layers of fabric are fused together, each will be better able to find problems and communicate improvements. Perceptions of superiority and inferiority will give way to mutual respect. Managers may be bellowing at the idea of a pattern maker in the fusing department. The pattern maker may not be thrilled either. But through my fusing experience, I was able to institute a system that reduced errors and ambiguities in fusing. A simple schematic showing fusing layouts on mini-pattern pieces for each style was all that was required.

One more effect of cross-training is that everyone becomes more responsible for everything. It is more difficult to avoid responsibility regarding errors in the work of others when one has performed that job. Better communication prevents ambiguity and promotes problem solving Workers in most sewing facilities represent the gamut of nationalities and languages, complicating communication. These barriers are lowered when visual communication is used. The apparel industry has standard practices for labeling and marking patterns. Visual cues include color coding and schematics. Supervisors, pattern makers and stitchers, for example, should all know that black-marked pattern pieces belong to the garment shell (outer layer), blue refers to the lining, and so on. Notching and drill holes specify unambiguous instructions when used properly. Training pattern makers and stitchers to understand accepted conventions should be mandatory. As the pattern department provides the equivalent function of engineering in a sewing plant, I believe a company's best interests are served if the pattern department is situated directly on the factory floor. Communication is impeded by having flow divided up among functional departments and separating them by walls and doors. In most companies, the pattern makers have an office with a door that closes, carpeting on the floor, and their own telephones. While that leaves them accessible to others further upstream such as designers, it separates them from those whose work they most impact. Downstream, sewers do not have telephones or email. Rather, they're lucky if they're permitted to have even a single photograph in their work areas. I do not believe it will be functionally possible for a company to be lean if the pattern department is not working on the factory floor alongside stitchers. Having the pattern maker visible and working right alongside the sewing lines provides opportunities for sewing operators to suggest improvements to pattern makers through casual contact. Although facilitated communication can reduce errors between contractor production and patterns, direct communication is more efficient and less error prone. Another way to improve communication is to assign writing duties to one worker. This person does not necessarily need to be a supervisor, although the supervisor should be part of the process. Someone, preferably a peer, should have the responsibility and time (and pay) to document the problems encountered by fellow workers. Then the document can be forwarded to those in a position to investigate root causes and develop solutions. A "suggestion box" won't work in an environment where many people cannot write well enough to describe production problems that concern them. Weekly style meetings to discuss prototypes are required. Most companies have ineffective and useless style meetings because the most necessary parties are not invited. The reality is that you cannot discuss the fit or structure of a prototype unless both the pattern maker and sample maker are in attendance. Companies often mistakenly believe that the pattern supervisor -- who rarely has pattern making experience -- is an adequate representative -- but that is rarely the case. Without someone who understands the details of the patterns, the changes issued from the meeting are often wrong. For example, I was once directed to "shorten the shoulder" of a style by 1 inch. The corrected prototype now had sleeves that were 1 inch too short. Had I been at the meeting, I would have noted to shorten the shoulder 1 inch but to increase the sleeve length to compensate. The decision at the meeting resulted in waste of money and time. Testing requires resources Testing is imperative and requires the allocation of time, materials and equipment. Each piece of elastic,

each button, each fabric should be treated in the way it will be used by the customer. For example, if the garment is intended to be washable, it needs to be laundered using the methods common among customers. Surprisingly, even well-established companies fail to have standardized testing procedures. Some will not even permit tests that would seem obvious. It is absolutely ludicrous if a pattern maker who wants to have some fabric test-washed for shrinkage must steal the fabric to do it! I couldn't count the number of times I've had to steal fabric, take it home, go to a laundromat, and smuggle the goods back into the plant the next day. If you're a company manager, I'll bet you might think this doesn't happen in your plant, but don't be so sure. Pattern makers often don't have access to a sewing machine. This means they can't test new joining methods they think may save the company money. Yes, I know that the sample maker is supposed to make all of the samples, but sometimes you can't explain the process. With a sample, you can illustrate the concept to the sample maker who can then assist in tweaking it for production. Sewing operators also need time to experiment with new methods. A company can't cost-effectively upgrade the range of products it produces if stitchers are not permitted structured time to upgrade and learn new skills. Lean manufacturing is the only sane, sustainable, and economically and socially responsible form of manufacturing. Unless you're racing to the bottom, that is. Kathleen Fasanella has worked in the apparel industry for 27 years and is author of "The Entrepreneur's Guide to Sewn Product Manufacturing." She writes a blog on the apparel industry that can be found at http://www.fashion-incubator.com.