clothing and textiles research journal 1998 regan 36 46

8/12/2019 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal 1998 Regan 36 46

1/12

http://ctr.sagepub.com/Journal

Clothing and Textiles Research

http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0887302X9801600105

1998 16: 36Clothing and Textiles Research JournalCynthia L. Regan, Doris H. Kincade and Gwen Sheldon

Applicability of the Engineering Design Process Theory in the Apparel Design Process

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Textile and Apparel Association

can be found at:Clothing and Textiles Research JournalAdditional services and information for

http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1998Version of Record>>

at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.refs.htmlhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.refs.htmlhttp://www.itaaonline.org/http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.full.pdfhttp://www.itaaonline.org/http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.full.pdfhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.full.pdfhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.full.pdfhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.full.pdfhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.refs.htmlhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.itaaonline.org/http://www.itaaonline.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/content/16/1/36http://ctr.sagepub.com/


2/12

36

Applicability of the

Engineering Design Process Theoryin theApparel Design Process

Cynthia L. ReganDoris H. Kincade

Gwen Sheldon

AuthorsAddresses: Cynthia L. Regan,Apparel Merchandising andManagement Program, California State Polytechnic University,Pomona, CA 91768; Doris H. Kincade, Department of Clothing andTextiles, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,Blacksburg, VA 24061-0410 and Gwen Sheldon, Social ScienceProgram, California State University, Chico, CA 95926.

Abstract .

An effective apparel design process is key to the successful launch of an apparel product. Application ofengineering design process theory, the foundation of the design process, may enhance understanding of the appareldesign process. Goals of this research were to: (a) interpret actions and decisions made during the apparel designprocess, (b) determine whether the specific stages of engineering design process theory were used by appareldesigners and merchandisers, and (c) determine applicability of engineering design process theory to appareldesign. The research method was interpretive qualitative research employing triangulated methods of longinterview and observation. Interview questionsfocused on actions and decisions made during the apparel designprocess. Inter-rater reliability and respondent validation were used to increase research reliability. Resultsshowed that there is a systematic building block process to designing apparel lines and a direct relationshipbetween engineering design process theory and process steps used by apparel design associates.

Key Words: design process, productdevelopment, apparel design.

Regan, C. L., Kincade, D. H. & Sheldon, G. (1997). Applicability of the engineering design process theory in theapparel design process. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 16(l), 36-46.

A current apparel manufacturing industry focus is toincrease the efficiency and effectiveness of the appareldesign process (Senior Engineer, personal communication,February 1995; Director of Merchandise Services, personalcommunication,April 1995). Inefficient product designcan create bottlenecks for improved product quality andtime to market (Elmaraghy, Seering & Ullman, 1989).Design is inherently unstable and needs to be monitoredand controlled to achieve optimum performance (Medland,1992). Importance of researching the apparel design pro-

cess is in concert with Fiore and DeLongs (1994) view thataesthetics is not solely an intuitive process but a step-wiseprogression of product development.A designers lack of knowledge regarding manufactur-

ing processes and manufacturing alternatives can result innonsalable designs. Products must be designed at least twotimes: original design and design revisions (Hayes, Desa,& Wright, 1989).A prevalent apparel industry practice islate product design changes during production (Senior En-gineer, personal communication, February 1995; Directorof Merchandise Services, personal communication,April1995). While costs to change designs are low in the con-cept design stage, redesign costs become higher the closer a

design is to production (Menon, 1992).A thorough under-standing of actions and decisions is a first, step towards

process improvement.The goals of this research were to: (a) determine appli-

cability of engineering design process theory to appareldesign, (b) interpret actions and decisions made during theapparel design process, and (c) determine whether the spe-cific stages of engineering design process theory were usedby designers and merchandisers.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the UnitedStates Department of Energy Integrated Manufacturing Pre-Doc-toral Fellowship.

at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014ctr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/


3/12

37

Review of Literature

DesignActivities in Product DevelopmentProduct development cycle is defined as a set of activi-

ties, tools, methods and procedures that translate customerneeds into product design (Carter & Baker, 1992).Appareldesign is part of the product development process (Gaskill,1992; Stephens-Frings, 1994). In traditional product devel-opment, the design process is the first stage in development(Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). Apparel product develop-ment activities include: (a) line plan, (b) line plan sum-mary, (c) product development, (d) line preview, and (e)line release (Table 1).

Table 1. Steps in Product Development(Adapted from Cohen, [1991]; Glock & Kunz [1990])

Often operating in isolation from product developmentactivities, the sequential apparel design process includesactivities in the line plan and line plan summary. Line planinvolves gathering information for fashion scope, marketinformation, past line sales (Glock & Kunz, 1990) and

editing ideas for successful combinations of fabric, styleand price (Stephens-Frings, 1994). The line plan summaryincludes an analysis of information that was gathered dur-

ing the line plan stage (Glock & Kunz, 1990). The focus ofthis research is on actions and decisions made in line planand line plan summary stages (Table 2).

Table 2. Details of Line Plan and Line PlanSummary Stage

Defining Design&dquo;Design is a plan for making a change&dquo; (Blaich & Blaich,

1993, p. 8). It implies that a creative activity is takingplace. Design can be viewed as a creative, magical, intui-tive and elusive process (DeJonge, 1984; Hanks, Bellistonand Edwards, 1977) and as the performance of a verycomplicated act of faith (Jones, 1992). Design is creative;however, the process leading to successful designs is

predictable (Chapman, Bahill, & Wymore, 1992). Designis a process of creating a boundary around a problem,eliminating extraneous variables, and finding the best so-lution (Hanks, Belliston and Edwards, 1977; Medland,1992). The design process transforms ideas into realityand occurs from the conception of an idea until the devel-opment of a workable solution (Medland, 1992). Design-ers develop solutions based on skill, knowledge, inspira-tion, experience, and problem solving techniques(Navinchandra, 1991).

Designers strive for something new by creating changeor finding new solutions to old problems (Blaich & Blaich,1993). New designers may mistakenly think that all designparameters are told up front, but design parameters can beillusive and surface during detailed designing or in manu-facturing (Medland, 1992; Navinchandra, 1991). Blackbox designing sometimes refers to a magical design processthat takes place inside the designerss head (Orlando, 1979;Jones, 1992).Another approach is glass box or transparentbox designing (Orlando, 1979). Glass box designing is asystematic, visible, and analytical design approach in whichsubfunctions and links between functions are mapped out(Jones, 1992; Cross, 1989). Working in isolation, a de-signer may not need to describe the design process. Whenwork involves a team, the designer needs to convey thedesign intention and the process (Medland, 1992). Industryemphasis on apparel teams and partnerships creates theneed to convey design information to all individuals in-

volved.A controlled design process is advantageous, be-cause it facilitates a quality product and increases companyprofits (Chapman, Bahill, & Wymore, 1992).

Theoretical Framework

Engineering Design Process TheoryThe primary objective of design is to restructure com-

plicated problems into simple ones. To accomplish thisobjective, an individual needs to use a systematic designapproach (Jones, 1992). The foundation of this approach is

engineering design process theory. Engineering design isthe process of identifying needs and developing a productto meet identified needs (Wilcox, 1987). Design successcan be attributed to a designers ability to identify andhandle the boundary conditions of design problems(Medland, 1992; Middendorf, 1969). Engineering designprocess theory includes the following stages: (a) problemrecognition, (b) problem definition, (c) exploration of theproblem, (d) search for alternatives; (e) evaluation anddecision making, (f) specification of solution, and (g) com-munication of solution (Lewis & Samuel, 1989).

http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/


4/12


5/12

39

and graphic designer Badnell (1973) for major steps in the

design process. The FEA model details two stages of the

design process: problem identification and evaluation.Watkins (1988) design process model refined Koberg andBadnells (1973) seven design phases of accept, analyze,define, ideate, select, implement and evaluate to developthe apparel design process. Orlandos New Design ProcessModel (1979) is based on Jones (1973) design process andmethod. Jones design model has three stages: (a) diver-gence, the extension of a design boundary; (b) transforma-tion, the stage of creative insight and guesswork; and (c)convergence, the identification of variables and objectives.The specific stages of Jones (1973) design method were

adapted for Orlandos apparel design process model.Orlandos model, developed for functional apparel design,includes the following stages: (a) request made, (b) designsituation explored, (c) problem structure identified, (d) de-

sign criteria established, (e) specifications described, (f)prototype developed and (g) design evaluation (DeJonge1984; Orlando, 1979). Basing apparel design process mod-els on intermediate sources adds subsistence to appareldesign; however, it is advantageous to base the appareldesign process on its root source, engineering design pro-cess theory. Engineering design process theory is recog-nized by other academic disciplines as a structured holisticapproach and provides improved understanding of the pro-cess (Elmaraghy, Seering & Ullman, 1989).

Methods

Sampling and Data CollectionThe method used was interpretational analysis qualita-

tive research. This approach emphasizes meaning and

problem solving (Tesch, 1990). To accomplish interpretivedepth, design associates from two large apparel manufac-

turing companies in their natural setting were interviewedand observed. Design associates were defined as appareldesigners and merchandise managers. To synthesize the

design process, the researcher concentrated on design asso-ciates to capture all actions and decisions in the designprocess. Companies were selected based on the followingcharacteristics: (a) design associates were located at com-pany headquarters, (b) apparel manufacturing segments werenon-competing, and (c) company was willing to participatein the study. Company profiles were two, large, indepen-dent, apparel manufacturers with non-vertical operations.Production was done in company-owned facilities or with

independent contracting facilities. Companies were lo-cated in southeastern U.S. Apparel manufacturing is amajor industry in this region (Dickerson, 1991). The com-panies represented multiple merchandise classifications withan annual production volume of over five million units.Both companies sold a durable, mid-price, basic apparelproduct with high brand recognition. Both companiesworked closely with textile suppliers for new colorationand fabric print variations per season.

The sample were ten design associates who were em-ployed by the apparel manufacturers in Spring 1995. Pro-

fessional work experience of design associates ranged fromtwo years to thirteen years. Nine design associates workedat the individual company headquarters, and one designassociate was an independent design consultant. The goalof using a purposive sample, in qualitative research, is topenetrate into the research setting (Patton, 1980). Theresearch goals were to understand phenomena about selectcases and not to predict or control the experience. A

sampling goal of qualitative research is to provide exten-sive process detail for readers, to attain in-depth experi-ence, and to deepen understanding of the issues (Seidman,1991). These design associates were responsible for four tosix apparel lines each year. In one years time, an indi-vidual design associate was responsible for approximately200 to 400 new designs or revisions of existing designs.A triangulated method that incorporated observation

and interview was employed and took place at the respec-tive headquarters. Triangulation used multiple sources fordata collection to increase validity. Observation is benefi-cial to understand routine activities of individuals and to

allow the researcher to see through the eyes of the interviewee(Silverman, 1993). Observations lasted two to three hours andwere not structured by the researcher. Design associateswere observed while conducting normal design activities. _

The in-depth interview is an unstructured, direct, per-sonal interview that is designed to uncover underlying mo-tivations, beliefs, and feelings on a specific topic (Malhotra,1993). The in-depth interview process lasted one to threehours per selected individual and allowed the primary re-searcher to probe for information. Each interviewed sub-ject was questioned about current design activities. Ques-tions followed line plan and line review activities as out-lined by Glock and Kunz (1990). Follow-up interviewswere conducted that lasted one to two hours per individualand included specific questions on design process theory.Generic definitions to the design process stages were pro-

vided, and design associates were queried on actions anddecisions made at each stage. The primary researcher taperecorded interviews and took field notes for all interviewsand observations. Audio recording and field notes weretranscribed by the primary researcher. Typed transcriptswere sent to design associates for minority reports.

Data Evaluation

In qualitative research, data analysis is an integralprocess of data collection and analysis. Data analysis

included segmenting text, decontextualizing text, coding,and recontextualizing text as outlined by Tesch (1990).Common to qualitative research is the establishment of

categories to interpret the data (Ely,Anzyul, Friedman,Garner, & McCormack-Steinmetz, 1991). Engineeringdesign process theory was used to create the categories tocode the data.

Reliability and validity. Qualitative research reliabilityis increased through inter-rater reliability (Silverman,1993).Inter-rater reliability involves giving the same data to otheranalysts to analyze according to a set of agreed categories.

http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/


6/12


7/12

41

Fable 3. Comparison of Engineering Design Process Stages andApparel Design Process Stages



8/12

42

houses, textile vendors, company libraries, and focus groups.Design inspiration was attained by use of freelance artists,textile vendors, and New York City print houses. Textileresources were used for color matching ofyam dye fabrics;however, textile resources were sometimes limited by ven-dor certification agreements.A small vendor without priorvendor certification but with a novelty print may snot beused. When

refiningor

developingan

apparelline,

designassociates referred to their own silhouette library, colorstandardization notebooks, and focus groups.

Establishment of design boundaries. Design bound-aries, as defined by design associates, were market ap-proach, design limitations, and design allotment. For mar-ket approach, designs were based on pre-existing param-eters. The market was examined for something to fill aspecific hole. For example, one design associate said, &dquo;It isfocused, theres no wavering from it. It comes down to Ineed a white swatch, so you look for a white swatch.&dquo;

Design limitations were set by a garments silhouette andconstruction. Design associates knew before designing thatsize dimensions stayed constant and construction was spe-cific. Concern was

expressedabout

designvariation, be-

cause it slowed production and increased cost. In designallotment, a predetermined color allotment translated into xdozen garments. On the basis of color allotment, designassociates determined fabric allocations for filling lot col-ors. Design associates determinedhow many patterns wereput into the line.

Identification of sub-problems. In developing a newline, sub-problems were identified as size and fabric type.For example, some design associates designed a new linefor producing five sizes; however, the retail target marketcarried six sizes for this garment category. Retail buyersindicated that they would not buy the line without theadditional size. This sub-problem created a systems prob-lem for size handling.A fabric market assessment showedthat the competition predominately used different fabrictypes from the past. This information was a sub-problem,because product engineers were concerned with cutting andsewing new fabric types. Selected fabrics affected designstrategy and resulted in line adjustment.

Exploration of the ProblemDesign associates identified exploration of the prob-

lem as market research for inspirational shopping, competi-tive shopping, and using fashion services. Decisions re-volved around what was adapted into the apparel line forprints, textures, colors and fabrics.

Information search. Design associates identified in-formation search goals as absorbing information, knowingspecific design needs, seeing how industry peoples ideasparallel their own, and remaining open to other influences.Design associates determined what influenced their mar-kets and used the information to make better design deci-sions. Information search covered a wide variety of sources.

Design associates walked through retail stores to examinevisual displays, departmental color transition, and garmentbody styles. Designers used many of their own resourcesincluding: sketches, old patterns, previous paintings, tearsheets, photographs of people on the street, clothes fromtheir own or familys closet, and observations at social

events. One design associate described previous designsfor new inspiration as &dquo;setting up your history to knowwhere your future is.&dquo;

Textile suppliers relayed information to apparel manu-facturers about color, and fashion trends from domestic and

foreign markets. Design associates noted that most textile

suppliers received information from the same sources; there-

fore,they generally predicted

the same color and fashion

trends. Design associates observed people at market weeksand listened to comments from industry associates. Sales-men sent consumer information or opinions of new direc-tions.A design associate noted, &dquo;It can be first hand to fifthhand information.&dquo;

Assumptions and estimations. Design ideas were evalu-ated based on perceived value and subjective opinions.Design details that increased perceived garment value werefabric features, trims, fancy buttons, and packages. Designassociates admitted a need to break the paradigms of assum-ing that a design feature was not affordable without checking.Subjective statements were used in evaluating a design andwere assumed to capture reasons why consumers buy cloth-

ingitems. Cute was a

typical subjectiveevaluation.

Design strategy. Important design strategies were iden-tified as cohesiveness, purchase desire, coordinate groups,re-orderable designs, and fashion items.A cohesive designstrategy made sure that strategic business units had cohe-sive rather than different color and style direction. Designstrategy included creating designs as core items, coordinatedriven designs or key item designs. Core items were re-orderable and stayed on the retail floor the whole season.Freshness was added through fashion styles to match thecore re-orderables and to continue the color flow.A coordinate

grouping strategy designed outfits as mix and match items.This design strategy affected color, print and texture decisions.

Market and competition assessment. One design asso-ciate articulated market assessment as looking at the marketas a consumer. He said, &dquo;Its like going to a bookstorewhere most consumers are bombarded with information.

People are looking at the headings where the fiction depart-ment of a clothing store is high fashion and biographydepartment is the service end of the business.&dquo; Apparelmarkets were considered a social indicator of world influ-

ences from film, music, social, political or other directions.Design associates assessed fabric lines, retail stores, printhouses, and art firms for market direction. Fashion servicesused by design associates provided information on specificcolor, trend, and theme direction. They noted that theircompetitors used the same color and fashion services. Re-tail buyers shared information with key apparel designassociates. Influential and mainstream apparel manufactur-ers were reviewed for consumer market acceptance, ap-parel trend influence, and fashion inspiration.

California was considered to lead domestic fashiontrends. Design associates traveled to the West Coast toshop the California stores, examine what people wore andwatch their activities. California competitor clothing wasbought with the awareness that &dquo;I know this is strictly LosAngeles, but the concept is cute so maybe we can tone itdown a little bit.&dquo; Design associates searched Europe foraesthetic influences including forward fashions, unisexlooks, color variation, garment details and garment con-

http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/http://ctr.sagepub.com/


9/12

43

struction. They bought garments for inspiration and at-tended trade shows, even though many European construc-tions were considered unaffordable by U.S. apparel manu-facturers. Design associates viewed the European con-sumer as buying more expensive, fewer, and nicer clothesthan the U.S. consumer. European information was relayedto all design associates through concept boards of currentEuropean trends.

Comparisons were important during market assess-ment. Design associates looked at competitors garments foroverall concept and design details. Focus groups providedinformation for comparison of body styles, for example,form fitting shirts versus oversized shirts. Design associ-ates compared and analyzed color information from focusgroups with information from color and fashion services.

Customer objectives.A difficult design objective is tobe design specific: to be consumer recognizable and not tobe all things to all people. Market and social influencesmade it difficult for design associates to stay specific. De-signing to meet a targeted customer affected the selectionof design attributes including garment components, gar-ment fasteners, design authenticity, garment size, color,and patterns. Matching design interpretation with targetmarkets was identified as an important objective. Designassociates shopped retail markets to determine targetedconsumer preferences and competitive price ranges. Theydesigned apparel lines by how the perceived consumer

shops for apparel items. Design associates used focusgroups and sales personnel to solicit information on con-sumer objectives or to determine potential target markets. Ifa targeted consumer preferred outfits already put together,design associates designed mix and match coordinates.Conversely, if the targeted consumer preferred buying oneitem, garments were designed to sell in isolation.

Cost for manufacture. Design associates continuallythought about costing issues during the design process.

Design constraints were price points, price increase re-strictions and margin goals. Design associates determinedfirst costs on garments with technical service personnelor product engineers. Garments were evaluated at marginreview meetings for contribution to profit margin. Pastpractice was to change trim details of the garment to makemargin; however, the practice of removing garment de-tails can create an unsalable garment. Value-added designwas an important selling point to management for a lowmargin garment.

Depending on the line, some design parameters werenarrower, especially cost sensitive lines. One costing issuewas expense of dyestuffs. Design associates made tradeoffdecisions between desired color and cost. If a color was

right for the market, design associates selected expensivedyes; however, they priced the line accordingly. In pricesensitive categories, lower cost dyes were used and coloraesthetics were sacrificed.

Search forAlternativesThe search for alternatives stage was an early evalua-

tive process. Design associates evaluated and edited designpossibilities. Design associates indicated that at this stagethey used their previous experience to identify problemsand create design proposals.

Own experience. Design associates referred to previ-ous sales information for sell-in information about designsthat sold to retail buyers and sell-out information about

designs that sold to consumers. Experience included previ-ous line successes, the line image and recognizable brandfeatures. In relation to how a product line was perceived byconsumers, design associates tracked acceptable and non-

acceptable product features. Important design features in-

cluded sleeve length, solid color versus print length fabricsand waistline styles.

Answers to the identified problem. According to thedesign associates, an example of a problem was predictingcolor potential. For color prediction, design associates usedcolor services, merchandisers opinions, and other associ-ates opinions to predict color projections. If color serviceswere not consistent, color prediction was difficult. Some-times design associates were influenced by others in the

company or they selected by intuition. For variety, designassociates looked for colors that were distinctive and differ-

ent from the other colors.

Customer requirements. Consumer taste level was trackedto determine colors that were right for the market and were

practical. Design associates looked at what colors previ-ously sold well. For example, design associates looked forspecific colors or combination of colors that sold well.A

design associate said, &dquo;You just get your sales out and takea look at something that is similar and tract it to see whereits going. For basic colors, they used previous history.A

good color generated 800 dozen in sales volume.Design proposal. Color, theme, silhouette and fabric

were considered simultaneously by design associates tocreate a design proposal. Design proposal creation wasdefined as an editing process. Prints and colors were re-fined to fit a companys market. Sketches or CAD draw-ings were developed. From original art work, a CAD artistchanged an original design by enlarging or reducing some

details. Colors were changed or refined with CAD. Forexample, a white ground was changed to a yellow ground.Prior fabric printing problems were investigated to preventproblem reoccurrence.

Evaluation and Decisions

Merchandising an apparel line was described as begin-ning with an over-assortment of design ideas. During evalua-tion and decision, options were edited many times. Duringthe editing process, patterns and colors were not thrown out,but rather two patterns were combined to create one concept.Three similar patterns were evaluated and edited to adopt one.

Outcome for each proposal. Design associates tieddesign strategy with previous design history to ensure that

market needs were covered. Design strategies were pre-sented to selected retail accounts during pre-lining to deter-mine retail buyers approval. Concept boards conveyeddesign strategies for fabrics, bodies and themes. After pre-lining, design associates made adjustments. Color predic-tion was based on follow-on seasons. For example, the corecolors for Spring II would support the colors of Spring I.Fabric predictions were based on print types that were

historically successful. New fabric types and weights weresent out to selected consumer groups for review. Designassociates stated that inaccuracies in prediction of outcomes



10/12

44

came from being too close to the line. It was important to

step away from the line for a few days and later review todetermine if the line made sense, had all the garmentsneeded and had a balance of revised and new bodies.

Feasibility and consequences of alternative proposals.Observations of design associates showed that essence of

feasibility and consequences of design proposals occurredinside a

designassociates head.

Manysimultaneous evalua-

tions took place.A core body style was selected. New designideas were created using core body styles and were evalu-ated subjectively for favorites. Some design associates usedthe phrase &dquo;cute meter&dquo; to judge peoples opinions of de-

sign favorites. Time schedules pressed design associates tomove forward to the specification of solution stage. Designassociates identified the color approval process as a causeof delays. Design associates felt pressed to approve coloreven if they were not satisfied. If colors were not approved,the steps of sending out and of fabric ordering was delayed.

Much of the design associates time was devoted to worksessions on print and color development. Range of timevaried as some prints needed little work; whereas, othersneeded much revision and some were

eventuallydiscarded.

Changes to prints were categorized as less regimentation,less busy, incorrect design proportion, or lack of designdetails. Textile design personnel and retail buyers opinionswere used for feasibility of proposals. Retail buyers opin-ions were occasionally solicited; however, for print andtheme concepts, buyers often had a hard time visualizingthe designs without body styles. Follow-up strategies wereto repeat or revise a successful print from a previous year.Previously rejected design ideas generally were not recon-sidered. Alteratively, design associates returned to previ-ous stages for new ideas. They revisited competitor evalu-ations or referred to previous history to analyze past suc-cessful design proposals. Prior sales were evaluated for

comparisonsof color

preferencein

specific body styles.Evaluation of feasible proposals. Design associatesstated that evaluating proposal feasibility was very chal-lenging. Design associates used opinions of other designassociates and retail buyers. Another design associate &dquo;hasfresh eyes&dquo; to review for improved color or styling combi-nations. Sometimes designs evolved from one theme, intoanother theme, and in the process inconsistent details weremissed. A design associate noted that, when a designchanged from an ecology theme to a football theme, a fishmotif was accidentally carried over to the football theme.Design associates missed the mistake until a salesman camein and questioned, &dquo;Why is there a fish in your footballstory?&dquo; Sales force criticism included questions of why

designassociates did not

project higher quantitiesfor fast

selling items and why some late design proposals did not goforward. Sales history was used for predicting outcomes.

Design associates needed to evaluate their sell-in and sell-out information for carry-over style projections. For ex-

ample, a previous style that did not sell-in many dozens toretail buyers had terrific sell-out to consumers.

Specification of SolutionDuring specification of solution, design associates ana-

lyzed alternative proposals, completed line merchandising,and made final revisions.

Analysis of alternative proposals. Analysis and finalselection of pre-line boards of apparel groupings were com-pleted during specification of solution. At this stage, de-

sign associates had seen the designs daily for two monthsand could hate every pattern. They started second guessingoptimal solutions. Line relationship was a key factor, anddesign associates looked for pattern, color, style balanceand fabric

duplicationwithin the line. Pre-line

conceptswere reviewed weekly and were updated. When designassociates finally felt comfortable with the design specifi-cation, the sales force reviewed and often, to the associates

perception, tried to change the line. Next, the line went toretailers.As one design associate commented, &dquo;one retailerwill love a design, while the next retailer thinks its theugliest thing theyve ever seen.&dquo; Design concepts wereedited further by reviewing pre-lining notes from salesmenand retailers.

Selection of the optimal proposal. Optimal proposalselection was described as finalizing the line. When the

design process began, design associates guessed at garmentdetails. After selecting the optimal proposal, design associ-ates

completedthe

designdetails.

Projectionsof actual

quantities were made for each body. For example, fiveprojected embroideries for a line may end up as ten embroi-deries, if it was determined as an important market trend.

Selection of the optimal proposal was dependent on thedesigns needed for the market. Design associates knew thatthey can not please everybody; therefore, they made theirbest guess. If six out of seven retail buyers loved a designconcept, a design associate felt comfortable placing thedesign in the line. If the retail buyers reacted negatively tothe concept, it was deleted from the line. If the responsewas 50/50, the decision was hard. Design associates indi-cated that at the specification of solution stage it was toolate to make changes; however, design associates wereobserved

making improvement changes anytime.Communication of Solution

Verbal design proposal communication. While a de-sign associate kept ideas in his/her head for as long aspossible, at some point the design concepts were communi-cated to the company. Design associates communicatedoptimal proposals at merchandise committee meetings, linefreeze meetings, and sales meetings. At the merchandisecommittee meetings, merchandisers reviewed the line with

product engineers for costing and manufacturing issues.Line freeze meetings relayed to the company the line

direction. Designers presented boards for specification offinal garments and silhouette proposals. One design asso-ciate noted that these

meetingswere for

production per-sonnel to see what is new for next season. Productionengineers asked questions to determine the best way tomanufacture the submitted designs. At sales meetings,design associates discussed current seasons business, linedirection and delivery flow. Design associates gave sales-people information on early selling questions, style ques-tions and key body questions.

Visual design proposal communication. Design asso-ciates presented visual communication through slide pre-sentations on market assessment, photographs taken during

.

travel,and sketches. Sketches varied from simple sketches



11/12

45

to technically correct illustrations with much detail. Designassociates recognized that people have different capabili-ties of visualizing.

Managementlothers approval of a design proposal.After a proposal was specified, design associates presentedthe apparel line to management to get their approval and

support. Key to proposal approval was a balance among theperceptions of the retail buyers, the salesmen, and manage-ment.A design associate stated that one &dquo;has to have athick skin as everyone has their opinions.&dquo; Some designassociates felt that management attitudes were &dquo;if a designsells well, the salesmen did a good job, if something doesnttsell its the design associates fault.&dquo; Although a designassociate felt positive about a product, a lack of salesmanss

approval could create an obstacle. If a salesman did not likea design, he would not take it on the road.

Conclusion

The structure and process of engineering design pro-cess theory is congruous with apparel design process phi-losophies as described by Lamb and Kallal (1992), Orlando

(1979), and Watkins (1988) (see Table 3). The designassociates, who were interviewed, used a systematic build-ing block process to develop an apparel line. This finding isconsistent with Medlands (1992) description of the engi-neering design process. Observations of and interviews.with design associates are consistent with Jones (1992)contention that the primary objective of design is to restruc-ture complicated problems into simple ones through a sys-tematic approach.

Most of the information generated by design associ-ates, was logical and systematic; however, it was also

subjective. The degree of rationale expressed to otherwork associates varied from being open and communica-tive to inherent and non-verbalized. In apparel designtheory, Orlando (1979) makes the comparison between

glass box designing and black box designing. This processis also described by Jones (1992) in engineering designtheory. Decisions made by design associates were numer-ous, simultaneous, and evaluative during the design pro-cess. Reasons for actions and decisions tended to remain

among design associate group members rather than sharedwith other work associates.

Literature on engineering design process states thatdesign is iterative.A loop structure is created by goingback to a previous step to solve another problem in theprocess (Middendorf, 1969). This process is also described

by Gaskill (1992), Lamb and Kallal (1992), and Orlando(1979). The findings of this study support the iterativenature of design. If a design associate did not find answersto identified problems in the search for alternatives stage,he/she returned to the problem definition stage. Designassociates started and completed a series of smaller prob-lems rather than a whole problem. The associates methodwas to work through the first four stages of the designprocess for fabric print designs and repeat the process forbody designs. This process is noted in apparel designtheory (Orlando, 1979; Gaskill, 1992). The design associ-ates continually evaluated and made decisions throughoutall stages.A frequency count of tasks indicated that thedesign associates spent the most time in the information

searching stage. The least amount of time was spent in

problem recognition and specification of solution. Thisresearch exemplifies that depth is added to published ap-parel design models by using the foundation of the designprocess, engineering design process theory.

Recommendations t5

An effective apparel design process is key to the suc-cessful launch of an apparel product. The emphasis ofapparel manufacturers to increase the efficiency and effec-tiveness of the apparel design process requires manage-ment understanding of the process. Using a systematicdesign process, such as the engineering design processtheory, is an effective way of controlling apparel designintentions. Apparel companies are metamorphosing intoteam-based organizations.As inter-departmental commu-nication and teams become increasingly important to ap-parel manufacturers, black box designing becomes inef-

fective. Design associates need to utilize a systematic,visible, and analytical design approach to design problems.

Applications of the design process theory provides quanti-fied and objective measurements. These applications canbe used to teach systematic design process to apparel de-sign students as promoted by Lamb and Kallal (1992) andWatkins (1988).

Design associates use subjective judgments and otherpeoples opinions to make the right decisions. The use of

subjective evaluation and decision making often leads toindecision. Cross (1989) and Middendorf (1969) indicatethat guesswork is avoided by having a clear problem defini-tion and by assigning numeric weights to potential alterna-tive designs. The design process could be improved byproviding written and quantified statements and by usingperformance criteria for problem recognition, problem defi-nition, and specification of solution. Benefits of written

problem statements and written solutions are: (a) a measur-able reference for exploration of the problem and search foralternatives, and (b) improved communication with engi-neers, sales representatives, and retailers who rely on de-

sign associates information.

Design associates can be overwhelmed by the availablepotential solutions. Design associates identified their weak-nesses as being too close to the designs to evaluate objectivelyand questioning optimal solutions. Quantified judgmentcriteria can increase the effectiveness of design evaluationby justifying the optimal solutions and by delineating theinfluences. Suggested quantified techniques include check-lists and percentage ranking of meeting stated objectives.

References

Blaich, R. & Blaich, J. (1993). Product design and corpo-rate strategy: Managing the connection for competi-tive advantage. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.



12/12

46

Carter, D. E., & Stilwell Baker, B. (1992). Concurrent

engineering the product development environment forthe 1990s. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Chapman, W. L., Bahill,A. T., & Wymore,A. W. (1992).Engineering modeling and design. Boca Raton, FL:CRC Press.

Colton, J. S., & Pun, R. C. (1990). Information frame-works for

conceptual engineering design.In P.H. Cohen

& S. B. Joshi (Eds.),Advances in Integrated Product

Design and Manufacturing PED Vol. 47 (pp. 1-15).New York: TheAmerican Society of MechanicalEngineers.

Cohen,A. C. (1991). The practice of marketing manage-ment:Analysis, planning, and implementation (2nded.). New York: Macmillan.

Cross, N. (1989). Engineering design methods. Chichester,UK: Wiley & Sons.

DeJonge, J. O. (1984). The design process. In S. Watkins,Clothing the portable environment (pp. vii-xi).Ames,IA: Iowa State University Press.

Dickerson, K. G. (1991). Textiles and apparel in the inter-national economy. New York: Macmillan.

Dixon, J. R. (1966). Design engineering: Inventiveness,analysis and decision making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Elmaraghy, W. H., Seering, W. P., & Ullman, D. G.(Eds.). (1989). DE-Vol. 17. Design theory and meth-odology-DTM89. Proceedings of the 1989ASMEDesign Technical Conferences-1st International Con-ference on Design Theory and Methodology (pp. iii).New York: TheAmerican Society of Mechanical

Engineers.Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D., &

McCormack-Steinmetz,A. (1991). Doing qualitativeresearch: Circles within circles. New York: The

Falmer Press.

Fiore,A. M. &

DeLong,M. R. (1994). Introduction. InA.

M. Fiore & M. R. DeLong (Eds.).Aesthetics of Textilesand Clothing:Advancing Multi-disciplinary Perspec-tives, No. 7, (pp. 1-6). Monument CO: InternationalTextile andApparelAssociation, Inc.

Gaskill, L. (1992). Toward a model of retail product devel-opment:A case study analysis. Clothing and TextilesResearch Journal, 10(4), 17-24.

Glock, R. E., & Kunz G. I. (1990).Apparel manufacturingsewn product analysis. New York: Macmillan.

Hanks, K., Belliston, L., & Edwards, D. (1977). Designyourself LosAltos, CA; William Kaufman.

Hayes, C. C. Desa, S. & Wright, P. K. (1989). Usingprocess planning knowledge to make design sugges-tions concurrently, In N.-H. Chao and S.C.-Y. Lu(Eds.). Concurrent Product and Process Design DE.21, 87-92.

Jenkins, D. L. & Martin, R. R. (1993). The importance offree-hand sketching in conceptual design: Automaticsketch input. DE- Vol. 53 Design Theory and Method-ology,American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 53,115-127.

Jones, J. C. (1992). Design methods (2nd ed.). New York:Van Nostrand Reinhold

Jones, S. W. (1973). Product design andprocess selection.London: Butterworths.

Kato, S. L. (1994).An investigation of the creative processand application to apparel design model. In M. R.

DeLong & A. M. Fiore (Eds.).Aesthetics of Textilesand Clothing:Advancing Multi-disciplinary Perspec-tives, No. 7, (pp. 48-57). Monument CO: InternationalTextile andApparelAssociation.

Koberg, D. & Badnell, (1973). The universal traveler acompanion for those on problem-solving journeys. LosAltos, CA: William Kaufmann.

Lamb, J. M. & Kallal, M. J. (1992).A conceptual frame-work for apparel design. Clothing and Textile Re-search Journal, 10(2), 42-47.

Leech, D. J. (1972). Management of engineering design.London: Wiley & Sons.

Lewis, W. P., & Samuel,A. E. (1989). Fundamentals ofengineering design. New York: Prentice Hall.

Malhotra, N. K. (1993). Marketing research an appliedorientation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Medland,A. J. (1992). The computer-based design process(2nd ed.). London:

Chapman and Hall.Menon, U. (1992). Concurrent engineering. (Availablefrom Second Edition, California Polytechnic State Uni-versity, San Luis Obispo, CA.)

Middendorf, W. H. (1969). Engineering design. Boston:

Allyn and Bacon.Navinchandra, D. (1991). Exploration and innovation in

design towards a computational model. New York:Springer-Verlag.

Orlando, J. Y. (1979, October). Objectifying appareldesign. Paper presented at theAssociation of CollegeProfessors of Clothing and Textiles, Western RegionMeeting, Denver, CO.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods.

BeverlyHills:

Sage.Research Ware (1993). HyperResearch (version 1.54)[Computer software]. Randolph, MA: Research Ware.

Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research:A guide for researchers in education and social sci-ences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data methods

for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.Spillers, W. R., & Newsome, S. L. (1988). Some attributes

of design theory. Proceedings of the 1988NSF GranteeWorkshop on Design Theory and Methodology, (pp.4.3.1-4.3.8). Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Stephens-Frings, G. (1994). Fashion from concept toconsumer (4th ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research:Analysis

types and

software tools. New York: Falmer Press.Watkins, S. M. (1988). Using the design process to teach

functional apparel design. Clothing and Textiles Re-search Journal,7(1), 10-14.

Wheelwright, S. C., & Clark, K. B. (1992). Revolutionizingproduct development quantum leaps in speed, efficiencyand quality. New York: Free Press.

Wilcox,A. D. (1987). Engineering design project guide-lines. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.


clothing and textiles research journal 1998 regan 36 46

Documents