1. 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 customer’s 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.

2. 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

3. 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.

4. 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,

5. 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.