Push manufacturing; subverting the fit feedback loop

Posted by Kathleen Fasanella on Jul 11, 2005 at 3:02 pm / Fit and Sizing, Lean Manufacturing / Trackback

“Push” manufacturing can be described as producing an entire line of products without pre-selling and taking orders for it. This means making up a bunch of stuff without knowing if anybody wants it beforehand. In my opinion, push manufacturing is very irresponsible. It’s irresponsible in terms of wasted resources if the items don’t sell. Similarly, it’s costly when you calculate the ROI after the season’s close. Push manufacturing is also responsible for a host of social sins beyond exporting jobs abroad (these tend to be large concerns with overseas production facilities). Push manufacturers are brand companies pushing an image; their operating budgets prioritize marketing rather than product quality as the selling point. Lastly, as push manufacturers are product pushers rather than product producers there is minimal investment in customer centered product development and most of their patterns are basic CAD templates. And herein lies the rub, push manufacturing has subverted the customer fit feedback loop. Push manufacturing contributes to the entropy of fitting and growing consumer dissatisfaction.


For example, consider the opposite -pull manufacturers of apparel. Pull is order driven; the order from the customer pulls the item into the production stream. Pull manufacturers produce prototypes, clean those up, some are made into samples which are shown to retail store buyers at market. Once all of the markets close, one tallies up all of their purchase orders for given styles and goes about acquiring the fabrics and organizing the sewing production schedule in order to fill all of the orders by the specified dates. If a style doesn’t sell enough to justify buying the fabrics and sewing it, the style is dropped. Perhaps 10% of prototype styles end up being dropped. Drops may be disappointing but it’s best to know in advance if nobody likes that style. That way you don’t waste your time or money on it. Similarly, buyers will measure or test fit apparel samples before they buy and if an item appears to be poorly fitting at market -according to what buyers know about their customers- the fit is corrected by the manufacturer before those items are cut. A manufacturer develops relationships with buyers and consumer level feedback is a big part of that. It is very common, anticipated and accepted for buyers to tell a manufacturer what consumers do or don’t like about their purchases. If it seems that consumers think the sleeves are a little too short or the waists a little too big, manufacturers change their sizing and fit in time for the next production cycle. That’s the fit feedback loop for pull manufacturers. It’s not ideal, it’s not rapid response but the environment sustains the continual cycle of improvement and the evolution of fit.

The fit feedback loop of push manufacturing is another thing entirely; it degrades and contributes to the entropy of fit. The consumer to manufacturer fit feedback loop is not sustained but rather, subverted. If a company is selling an image rather than product quality, their operational budgets reflect these priorities. Similarly it is necessary to understand the manufacturer-retailer relationship; it’s inappropriate to see only one element in isolation.

For example, the returns policies from retailers have changed drastically, much to the detriment of consumers. Previously, retailers placed purchase orders based on styles they thought they could sell to their customers. As there is always some misinterpretation of demand, it was common that retailers would end up with styles they’d then have to discount in order to move them off the floor. Likewise, some styles would sell better than expected and the retailer usually would not be able to order more before the close of that selling season. Buyers knew they bore the risk of their decision choices which is reflected in mark-ups. However, things have changed with the advent of push manufacturers. Push manufacturers get blanket purchase orders on styles that fill broad requirements, such as a specific number of docker type slacks, blue jeans and tee shirts. Since these items are so similar; discriminating with given style selection was counterproductive because the push manufacturers also extended very generous margins with promises that retailers could return what didn’t sell at the close of the season. Since push manufacturers focus on broad swathes of the market, styling and sizing became homogenized and not specific to anything other than the broadest sweep of the consumer market. Retailing in this environment was much more profitable for stores. Styles would hit the sales floor with 40% off tags and anything that didn’t sell could be returned for credit or refund. The risks associated with retailing were reduced and profit margins increased. The risks associated with anticipating consumer demand were relegated to manufacturers as buyers were covered in the event they made a bad buy. Selling in this environment isn’t any different from consignment.

The fit feedback loop for push manufacturing works like this: Buyers place orders for products that have either already been manufactured or are in the process of being manufactured which is in direct contrast to the pull manufacturers detailed above. The fact that goods are already in process is necessitated owing to the long lead times of shipping products from China and other points off shore. Buyers -in exchange for higher margins- must accept the items as represented in the sample goods because it’s too late to do anything about the fitting because the things are already cut. While buyers may not like the fit or appeal of given items, they are willing to accept them in exchange for higher margins and generous returns allowances. This contrasts to pull manufacturing in that retailers do not have the same latitude in returning products that don’t sell but rather, retailers are expected to assume the customary risks associated with selling to fickle consumers. In exchange for assuming part of the risk, retailers had say-so in how products fit consumers. With push manufacturers assuming all of the risks, retailers have less of a voice in how products are made. As with anything else, you can’t get what you want if you don’t want to pay for it.

Not all push manufacturers can be accused of ignoring consumer complaints about apparel fit and choices but there’s little that can be done about it in the short term if a push manufacturer has no idea there’s a problem with given styles until the returns start piling up on the dock. But by this time, the manufacturer is already mid-cycle into the next season’s production run so the problems can’t be effectively addressed until some time after that which amounts to at least a 2 year lag. Similarly, push manufacturers have comparatively little internal infrastructure to manage consumer complaints within product development. While much is made of the push to lean and CAD is a huge benefit to that, most push manufacturers use templates loaded with their CAD systems for style development. They’re using a CAD program to spit out blank duplicates using computer operators who don’t even know how to make patterns. Contrast that with pull manufacturers who employ staffs of patternmakers to address problems directly and relatively quickly -one selling season or less. Also, while pull manufacturers also use CAD, they use this tool appropriately; to clean up and facilitate large scale manufacturing while push manufacturers use CAD to generate it. CAD is a great tool, provided it is used appropriately.

With the trend in returns -retailers abdicating responsibility of their buying choices- and manufacturers increasingly expected to assume all of the retail cycle profit risks in addition to their own, there is no other anticipated outcome other than the continuing degradation of poorly fitting and styled apparel. If manufacturers must concentrate on the best bets of the market, this can only lead to continual design stagnation and the flattening of innovation and detail. Concentrating on the best bets of the market leads to homogenization and manufacturers will be even less willing to assume the risks associated with innovation.

The solution to these problems can be best served by new entrants into manufacturing. Niche manufacturers are much more focused on sizing, fit and style since that’s usually why they got into the business in the first place. Designer entrepreneurs are using another frame of reference entirely when they get into the business. Consumers stand a better chance of increased apparel choices through the selection of goods from domestic entrepreneurial manufacturers. Accordingly, consumers will have to learn that there are trade offs; they can’t get well designed, well fitted apparel from companies who can sell at Wal-Mart’s price points. You can either have cheap or good but you can’t have both unless your clothing choices are readily satisfied with the selection available at discount retailers.

Amended:
Please refer to the other articles in this series which offer substantive supporting material. Add to the discussion rather than backtracking to topics discussed elsewhere. It is likely that the exceptions you’ve thought of have been dissected in depth. For your convenience, links open in a new window or tab.

The Myth of Vanity Sizing
Fit and Sizing Entropy
Push manufacturing; subverting the fit feedback loop
Sizing evolution
Shrinkage and fit
Alternatives in Women’s sizing
Tyranny of tiny sizes?
The history of women’s sizing pt 1
The history of women’s sizing pt 2
The history of women’s sizing pt 3
Sizing is a variety problem
The birth of size 10?
Vanity sizing shoes
Tyranny of tiny sizes pt.2
Vanity sizing: generational edition
Vanity sizing: generational edition pt.2
Vanity sizing: the consumer spending edition

9 Responses to “Push manufacturing; subverting the fit feedback loop”

Comments RSS feed

Susan McElroy
July 12th, 2005
9:02 AM

YesYesYesYesYes!! Today is an incredibly busy day or I would post all morning on how this is so on target…

I can’t believe you are letting us have access to this blog for free…to hear this from an industry insider is priceless.

Carol
July 12th, 2005
11:46 AM

What’s the origin of “push-pull” as the name for this concept? Is it from the Machine That Changed the World folks? I am paying attention but haven’t had time to get through, much less absorb all the incredible stuff you figure out, talk about and connect to.

Anyway, I’m using “push-pull” in many, many conversations as it explains so much, so clearly.

Stick in a photo of a sewing hammer, please?

I’m having an exhilarating time with the vintage pattern design/implementation.

The myth of vanity sizing
August 1st, 2005
9:58 AM

I’ve been avoiding the topic of fit and sizing -which aren’t the same thing- for a very long time. I haven’t written about it because a truly comprehensive discussion is very controversial and guaranteed to piss off everyone from consumers…

Alternatives in women's sizing
August 11th, 2005
1:10 PM

In my continuing series discussing fit and apparel sizing see #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6; I’ve failed to explain how sizing determinations are made, how standards are drawn followed by industry application. In this post I’ll explain how survey…

claudia
September 28th, 2005
6:44 AM

it’s interesting to read about this push-pull concept. what’s more interesting is that i’m working at a company which seems to be doing a mixture of both concepts- we’re new- so here’s to hoping we can get the right balance!

Karen Wilhelm
September 28th, 2005
1:05 PM

Push – pull. Picture a piece of cooked spaghetti. You want it to go through a factory just like a typical product would.

A traditional production planning system (probably called MRP or something similar) will determine what is to be produced and start pushing the batch through the system. It will tell you what to produce based on a forecast decided many weeks before. Starting with materials and parts and eventually getting to the shipping dock. If you try to push spaghetti, it’s not real easy. If you run short of a part, or if a rush order needs to be expedited, pretty soon there’s a real mess.

Pull production starts with the customer’s actual order. Picture the customer standing at the shipping dock pulling the spaghetti. (OK – imagine it’s really strong spaghetti.) The dock pulls the order from packing, packing pulls the order from assembly, assembly pulls the order from processing (cutting, straightening, subassembly, pressing), processing pulls the order from receiving, receiving pulls parts from the order’s bill of materials from suppliers.

Of course, you don’t get to that ideal without a lot of work at every stage, but you are trying to get the pull on the spaghetting level and smooth.

Does that make any sense? By the way – the origin is Toyota, although the name might have come from Womack and Jones in the “Machine that Changed the World.” They saddled us with the horrible term “lean” which is so confused with layoffs that its scary. Lean just means you don’t have a lot of bloat and waste in your system. True lean is based on incredible respect for people. It’s possible to do it without getting rid of people.

Yet more marketing hype
November 14th, 2005
12:14 PM

I found a book review of Why Customers Do What They Do published in Tuesday’s WWD (subscription required). Purportedly, the book “reveals secrets of consumer buying”. While I haven’t read the book, one would hope that the author considered an…

Sabine
February 16th, 2010
11:12 PM

I guess under the circumstances my business is a push operation. Seeing as I did not produce thousands of pieces, that should be fine. To be honest, I would much rather get the orders and THEN manufacture, but so far it does not seem to work that way for the most part. Occasionally i do get an order for non-stock, from a store who wants specific measurements and I am happy to oblige them.
The main problem with pull manufacturing from my perspective is that one needs a sales person. Reading through here it seems that I am not the only one having a tough time finding an independent sales rep who will actually bring some sales (the last and so far only one got me 1 sale for less product then i sent her samples…) However, with push manufacturing, I can always sell through the internet, or try to at least :)

Kathleen
February 17th, 2010
6:57 PM

The main problem with pull manufacturing from my perspective is that one needs a sales person… However, with push manufacturing, I can always sell through the internet, or try to at least

The rules as we know them are changing all of the time. Fit Couture doesn’t have a sales person and they sell consumer direct on the web -cut to order.

Leave a Reply

Archives

Categories

The Entrepreneur's Guide to Sewn Product Manufacturing

Often described as the garment industry “blue book”, the most highly rated book in the business is guaranteed to get you off to a solid start or your money back. Many service providers require you read this before they’ll work with you. Learn more »

Subscription Options

RSS Feed Google Reader My Yahoo My MSN Technorati

Subscribe by email: