The business of textile and fashion has always been about currency and choice. To stay ahead of the competition, companies must continually develop new designs and products. Continuous changes in the product portfolio characterise the textile business environment. Brands typically update their product portfolios at least twice a year. Most tend to offer a Spring-Summer (SS) collection and an Autumn-Winter (AW) collection. Some offer several collections per year. Suppliers who produce for these brands compete with each other to secure more business from the brands each season. Typically, the brands design concepts they would like to showcase in a collection, and the manufacturers create samples from these concepts for the brand to choose from. The selected ones are then manufactured and supplied in the quantity ordered by the brand.  In textiles, supply lead time to brands varies from 80 to 200 days. Sampling is merely a sub-process withing the overall supply cycle. There are many types of sampling – Offer, Prototype and Gold Seal or PPS (Pre-Production Sample) in the life cycle of a product and for each type, multiple ‘delivery–submission–approval’ cycles exist. A single sample request can travel back and forth between the factory floor and the customer several times before the sample takes its final shape. Often, the customer’s merchandising team is overwhelmed with continuously delayed submissions, which increases the time they need to respond. So, significant time is required to deliver samples, especially when the customer is offshore. Bulk production lead time takes away 50%–80% of the overall time. In the remaining time, various types of sampling and their multiple iterations must be accommodated even though the touch time of most sampling production processes (such as dyeing) is similar to that of bulk.  Many manufacturers may also employ a team of designers to create their offerings for the market. These designs, when showcased to current or future customers, can improve the manufacturer’s reputation in the market, which, in turn, can enlarge their share of the business. Therefore, the sampling load experienced by the manufacturer’s plant is an aggregation of demand from both these routes – customer-initiated and self-generated. As multiple customers have a similar season structure (SS/AW), the inflow of sample requests and their delivery deadlines tend to coincide. Therefore, the overall demand for the plant goes through peaks and troughs. Nowadays, brands strive to keep their collections fresh, as reflected in the increasing number of new collections introduced each year. This also adds to the load on supplier sampling.  Like any other capacity, sampling capacity is also planned at an average load level; thus, it can easily become overloaded during peak periods. Due to queuing delays in the pending samples, the time taken often easily surpasses the customers’ expected lead time.  Paradoxically, the same capacity is also significantly underutilised during troughs. To avoid this underutilisation, many manufacturers prefer a typical setup for sampling and bulk production. Inevitably, specific chronic issues follow: <ol><li>Conflict between bulk orders and sampling requirements – In a shared capacity, bulk always gets priority as it is for current business; any delay results in an immediate loss (airfreight and penalties).</li><li>Conflict between multiple customers – The team that shouts the most gets priority.</li><li>Conflict between in-house designing and customers’ requirements – Another current v/s future business tussle in which current customer orders always get preference.</li><li>Conflict between sampling for a confirmed order (Gold seal/PP) and a prototype sampling</li><li>Conflict between existing and new customers </li></ol> As a result of these unresolved conflicts, the sampling work packets travel through these work centres in a START-STOP-START-STOP manner. Even when there is a dedicated setup for some ‘important’ activities downstream, these setups suffer from poor supplies from upstream and are constantly in expediting mode. For instance, for a garment supplier, the garments work centre does not get fabric, trims, etc., in time to complete the individual requests. Mistakes and missed elements are often overlooked under these high-pressure conditions.  Due to all these issues, customers often have a sorry experience with the suppliers’ sampling process. They come to view sampling outcomes as unreliable in the following terms: <ol><li>Timeliness: Samples are mostly delayed. Samples from the same collection reach at different points in time.</li><li>Quality: At times, quality deteriorates beyond acceptable levels. This is especially important when samples are used to secure orders from channel partners or customers.</li><li>Adherence to instructions: Not all comments given in earlier submissions are incorporated.</li><li>Bulk replication: Sample and bulk do not match. Samples are of higher precision, whereas in bulk, the finesse is lost. </li></ol> <h5>Core issue</h5>Over the years, pressure to meet deadlines for all parties involved in the system (merchandisers/customers/sales team/ and top management) has escalated. Therefore, they insist that sampling teams begin working on sampling requests as soon as possible with the belief that an early will result in an early or on-time completion. Therefore, at any point in time, the system has multiple collections in various stages of completion, and different stakeholders intervene to expedite work on their samples. As a result, priorities are subject to constant and frequent change. This results in high and variable lead times. And, even if there is a credible output from a few work centres, timely completion collections can still be derailed due to a severe de-sync in the downstream processes.  Soon, a vicious loop sets in. Even if a work packet arrives well in advance, apparently allowing the plant plenty of time to meet the deadline comfortably, it is eventually delayed. This is proven by the fact that, in such environments, the closure rate of sampling requests is always lower than the opening rate of new work packets. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:1600/1246;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//vicious-loop-textile-sampling-environment_1752999889.jpeg" width="1600" height="1246"></figure><h5>Elements of solution</h5>To break free of this vicious loop and deliver samples reliably, manufacturers must shift from a myopic focus on completing an item at a work centre level to completing a customer’s entire collection. The enabling steps needed for this are:  1. Standard execution lead time and WIP controlA standard lead time for the execution of all types of requests needs to be fixed based on the processing time required at different work centres. To prevent capacity stealing (i.e., future orders taking up capacity required for immediate orders), requests with a future delivery date need must remain unreleased until their scheduled release date (Delivery date – execution lead time) unless capacity is idle. Moreover, the number of releases must be limited to ensure that work centres are compelled to complete work on items at hand. With this step, not only will lead times be more reliable, but it will also help improve sync of collections downstream.  For a smooth transition from the old way of working to the new, the expectations of current customers have to be reset in terms of the lead times they experience. They must be assured that, unlike the current scenario where reliability is poor with lead times varying widely between, say, X and 10X, they will now receive their samples with high reliability (OTIF in the high 90s) and within a fixed lead time of say, 3X.  2. Visible and standard priority system The next step to ensuring that work proceeds without interruptions and that the sampling team is not pulled in different directions by the marketing, design, and customer teams is to equip the team with a visible and standard priority system. Implementing a simple delivery date-based priority mechanism <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.vectorconsulting.in/en/research-and-publication/articles/what-is-new-in-simplified-dbr/">(Read more)</a> at all stages will resolve this priority conflict among the sampling requests.  But to resolve bulk versus sampling conflicts faced by shared capacities, an agreement on average daily output (in a horizon shorter than the execution lead time) should be in place to compel shared work centres to handle requests daily.  3. TrackingEven when the above two steps are in place, the iterative nature of sampling can present a significant challenge. Once submitted for approval, a request may proceed to the next step or be placed in the resubmission queue after receiving comments. A systematic tracking system that collates all requests along with the customers’ ‘required by’ dates is essential to reduce ball dropping, prevent mistakes and minimise rework throughout the life cycle of individual requests.  4. Daily management and issue resolutionShort daily meetings are required to discuss and quickly resolve issues that could be delaying the completion of items needed to finish a collection.  5. Continuous improvementWith modified customer expectations regarding lead time, strict release control, a single-priority system, quick issue resolution, and a fixed share of output for all sampling requests, the system reliability is expected to improve significantly. However, it is also important to monitor the queue size and total pending load to be released daily, as well as the WIP, to ensure the system meets customers’ expectations. If the sampling lead time exceeds expectations, order flow will decrease even if the sampling supply is reliable. Hence, ongoing improvement is required to ensure that lead time is kept to a minimum. The opportunities for ongoing improvement in the sampling process, which can be implemented without hampering quality include: <ol><li>Exploring opportunities to offer shorter lead time for a small segment of requests (urgencies/short lead time orders, etc.)</li><li>Eliminating occasions wherein sampling requests arriving from customers are missed out due to systemic lacuna</li><li>Exploring opportunities to cut down the lead time by stocking intermediate products</li><li>Checking if the process can be processed from available yarn/fabric/trims etc before releasing a request</li><li>Cutting down instances of increased lead time due to unavailability of consumables or resources</li><li>Close follow-up to expedite approval of submitted requests. </li></ol> <h5>Conclusion  </h5>Samples demonstrate the future capability of a manufacturer. Thus, an effective sampling process is crucial for manufacturing companies to stay in line with the continuously evolving global trends. So, showcasing superior sampling capabilities can help them establish a Decisive Competitive Edge (DCE) in the market and gain more customers.

Key Takeaways

Innovation and timely delivery of new designs is critical in the textile and fashion industry. However, shared sampling and bulk production facilities lead to conflicts, affecting timeliness and quality. A different approach can help.

Weaving magic in textile sampling

The business of textile and fashion has always been about currency and choice. To stay ahead of the competition, companies must continually develop new designs and products. Continuous changes in the product portfolio characterise the textile business environment. Brands typically update their product portfolios at least twice a year. Most tend to offer a Spring-Summer (SS) collection and an Autumn-Winter (AW) collection. Some offer several collections per year. Suppliers who produce for these brands compete with each other to secure more business from the brands each season. Typically, the brands design concepts they would like to showcase in a collection, and the manufacturers create samples from these concepts for the brand to choose from. The selected ones are then manufactured and supplied in the quantity ordered by the brand.  In textiles, supply lead time to brands varies from 80 to 200 days. Sampling is merely a sub-process withing the overall supply cycle. There are many types of sampling – Offer, Prototype and Gold Seal or PPS (Pre-Production Sample) in the life cycle of a product and for each type, multiple ‘delivery–submission–approval’ cycles exist. A single sample request can travel back and forth between the factory floor and the customer several times before the sample takes its final shape. Often, the customer’s merchandising team is overwhelmed with continuously delayed submissions, which increases the time they need to respond. So, significant time is required to deliver samples, especially when the customer is offshore. Bulk production lead time takes away 50%–80% of the overall time. In the remaining time, various types of sampling and their multiple iterations must be accommodated even though the touch time of most sampling production processes (such as dyeing) is similar to that of bulk.  Many manufacturers may also employ a team of designers to create their offerings for the market. These designs, when showcased to current or future customers, can improve the manufacturer’s reputation in the market, which, in turn, can enlarge their share of the business. Therefore, the sampling load experienced by the manufacturer’s plant is an aggregation of demand from both these routes – customer-initiated and self-generated. As multiple customers have a similar season structure (SS/AW), the inflow of sample requests and their delivery deadlines tend to coincide. Therefore, the overall demand for the plant goes through peaks and troughs. Nowadays, brands strive to keep their collections fresh, as reflected in the increasing number of new collections introduced each year. This also adds to the load on supplier sampling.  Like any other capacity, sampling capacity is also planned at an average load level; thus, it can easily become overloaded during peak periods. Due to queuing delays in the pending samples, the time taken often easily surpasses the customers’ expected lead time.  Paradoxically, the same capacity is also significantly underutilised during troughs. To avoid this underutilisation, many manufacturers prefer a typical setup for sampling and bulk production. Inevitably, specific chronic issues follow: <ol><li>Conflict between bulk orders and sampling requirements – In a shared capacity, bulk always gets priority as it is for current business; any delay results in an immediate loss (airfreight and penalties).</li><li>Conflict between multiple customers – The team that shouts the most gets priority.</li><li>Conflict between in-house designing and customers’ requirements – Another current v/s future business tussle in which current customer orders always get preference.</li><li>Conflict between sampling for a confirmed order (Gold seal/PP) and a prototype sampling</li><li>Conflict between existing and new customers </li></ol> As a result of these unresolved conflicts, the sampling work packets travel through these work centres in a START-STOP-START-STOP manner. Even when there is a dedicated setup for some ‘important’ activities downstream, these setups suffer from poor supplies from upstream and are constantly in expediting mode. For instance, for a garment supplier, the garments work centre does not get fabric, trims, etc., in time to complete the individual requests. Mistakes and missed elements are often overlooked under these high-pressure conditions.  Due to all these issues, customers often have a sorry experience with the suppliers’ sampling process. They come to view sampling outcomes as unreliable in the following terms: <ol><li>Timeliness: Samples are mostly delayed. Samples from the same collection reach at different points in time.</li><li>Quality: At times, quality deteriorates beyond acceptable levels. This is especially important when samples are used to secure orders from channel partners or customers.</li><li>Adherence to instructions: Not all comments given in earlier submissions are incorporated.</li><li>Bulk replication: Sample and bulk do not match. Samples are of higher precision, whereas in bulk, the finesse is lost. </li></ol> <h5>Core issue</h5>Over the years, pressure to meet deadlines for all parties involved in the system (merchandisers/customers/sales team/ and top management) has escalated. Therefore, they insist that sampling teams begin working on sampling requests as soon as possible with the belief that an early will result in an early or on-time completion. Therefore, at any point in time, the system has multiple collections in various stages of completion, and different stakeholders intervene to expedite work on their samples. As a result, priorities are subject to constant and frequent change. This results in high and variable lead times. And, even if there is a credible output from a few work centres, timely completion collections can still be derailed due to a severe de-sync in the downstream processes.  Soon, a vicious loop sets in. Even if a work packet arrives well in advance, apparently allowing the plant plenty of time to meet the deadline comfortably, it is eventually delayed. This is proven by the fact that, in such environments, the closure rate of sampling requests is always lower than the opening rate of new work packets. <figure class="image"><img style="aspect-ratio:1600/1246;" src="https://web-assets.vectorconsulting.in/storage/editor_uploads//vicious-loop_1752999862.jpeg" width="1600" height="1246"></figure><h5>Elements of solution</h5>To break free of this vicious loop and deliver samples reliably, manufacturers must shift from a myopic focus on completing an item at a work centre level to completing a customer’s entire collection. The enabling steps needed for this are:  1. Standard execution lead time and WIP controlA standard lead time for the execution of all types of requests needs to be fixed based on the processing time required at different work centres. To prevent capacity stealing (i.e., future orders taking up capacity required for immediate orders), requests with a future delivery date need must remain unreleased until their scheduled release date (Delivery date – execution lead time) unless capacity is idle. Moreover, the number of releases must be limited to ensure that work centres are compelled to complete work on items at hand. With this step, not only will lead times be more reliable, but it will also help improve sync of collections downstream.  For a smooth transition from the old way of working to the new, the expectations of current customers have to be reset in terms of the lead times they experience. They must be assured that, unlike the current scenario where reliability is poor with lead times varying widely between, say, X and 10X, they will now receive their samples with high reliability (OTIF in the high 90s) and within a fixed lead time of say, 3X.  2. Visible and standard priority system The next step to ensuring that work proceeds without interruptions and that the sampling team is not pulled in different directions by the marketing, design, and customer teams is to equip the team with a visible and standard priority system. Implementing a simple delivery date-based priority mechanism <a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.vectorconsulting.in/en/research-and-publication/articles/what-is-new-in-simplified-dbr/">(Read more)</a> at all stages will resolve this priority conflict among the sampling requests.  But to resolve bulk versus sampling conflicts faced by shared capacities, an agreement on average daily output (in a horizon shorter than the execution lead time) should be in place to compel shared work centres to handle requests daily.  3. TrackingEven when the above two steps are in place, the iterative nature of sampling can present a significant challenge. Once submitted for approval, a request may proceed to the next step or be placed in the resubmission queue after receiving comments. A systematic tracking system that collates all requests along with the customers’ ‘required by’ dates is essential to reduce ball dropping, prevent mistakes and minimise rework throughout the life cycle of individual requests.  4. Daily management and issue resolutionShort daily meetings are required to discuss and quickly resolve issues that could be delaying the completion of items needed to finish a collection.  5. Continuous improvementWith modified customer expectations regarding lead time, strict release control, a single-priority system, quick issue resolution, and a fixed share of output for all sampling requests, the system reliability is expected to improve significantly. However, it is also important to monitor the queue size and total pending load to be released daily, as well as the WIP, to ensure the system meets customers’ expectations. If the sampling lead time exceeds expectations, order flow will decrease even if the sampling supply is reliable. Hence, ongoing improvement is required to ensure that lead time is kept to a minimum. The opportunities for ongoing improvement in the sampling process, which can be implemented without hampering quality include: <ol><li>Exploring opportunities to offer shorter lead time for a small segment of requests (urgencies/short lead time orders, etc.)</li><li>Eliminating occasions wherein sampling requests arriving from customers are missed out due to systemic lacuna</li><li>Exploring opportunities to cut down the lead time by stocking intermediate products</li><li>Checking if the process can be processed from available yarn/fabric/trims etc before releasing a request</li><li>Cutting down instances of increased lead time due to unavailability of consumables or resources</li><li>Close follow-up to expedite approval of submitted requests. </li></ol> <h5>Conclusion  </h5>Samples demonstrate the future capability of a manufacturer. Thus, an effective sampling process is crucial for manufacturing companies to stay in line with the continuously evolving global trends. So, showcasing superior sampling capabilities can help them establish a Decisive Competitive Edge (DCE) in the market and gain more customers.

<h5>Weaving magic in textile sampling with Theory of Constraints</h5>

Download PDF

Vector Consulting Group - Research and Publications: Can WIP control and common priority system help textile companies their sampling process? Know more.

Let's Empower Growth