http://ctr.sagepub.

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

DOI: 10.1177/0887302X9801600105
1998 16: 36 Clothing and Textiles Research Journal
Cynthia 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 Journal Additional services and information for

http://ctr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://ctr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

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

What is This?

- Jan 1, 1998 Version of Record >>

at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
36
Applicability
of the
Engineering Design
Process
Theory
in the
Apparel Design
Process
Cynthia
L.
Regan
Doris H. Kincade
Gwen Sheldon
Authors Addresses:
Cynthia
L.
Regan, Apparel Merchandising
and
Management Program,
California State
Polytechnic University,
Pomona, CA 91768;
Doris H.
Kincade, Department
of
Clothing
and
Textiles, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State
University,
Blacksburg,
VA 24061-0410 and Gwen Sheldon, Social Science
Program,
California State
University, Chico, CA 95926.
Abstract
.
An
effective apparel design process
is
key
to the
successful
launch
of
an
apparel product. Application of
engineering design process theory, the foundation of the design process, may
enhance
understanding of the apparel
design process.
Goals
of this
research were to:
(a) interpret
actions and decisions made
during
the
apparel design
process, (b)
determine whether the
specific stages of engineering design process theory
were used
by apparel
designers
and
merchandisers,
and
(c)
determine
applicability of engineering design process theory
to
apparel
design.
The research method was
interpretive qualitative
research
employing triangulated
methods
of long
interview and observation. Interview
questions focused
on actions and decisions made
during
the
apparel design
process.
Inter-rater
reliability
and
respondent
validation were used to increase research
reliability.
Results
showed that there is a
systematic building
block
process
to
designing apparel
lines and a direct
relationship
between
engineering design process theory
and
process steps
used
by apparel design
associates.
Key
Words:
design process, product
development, apparel design.
Regan,
C.
L., Kincade,
D. H. &
Sheldon, G.
(1997). Applicability
of the
engineering design process theory
in the
apparel design process. Clothing
and Textiles Research
Journal, 16(l),
36-46.
A current
apparel manufacturing industry
focus is to
increase the
efficiency
and effectiveness of the
apparel
design process (Senior Engineer, personal communication,
February 1995;
Director
of Merchandise Services, personal
communication, April 1995).
Inefficient
product design
can create bottlenecks for
improved product quality
and
time to market
(Elmaraghy, Seering
&
Ullman, 1989).
Design
is
inherently
unstable and needs to be monitored
and controlled to achieve
optimum performance (Medland,
1992). Importance
of
researching
the
apparel design pro-
cess is in concert with Fiore and
DeLongs (1994)
view that
aesthetics is not
solely
an intuitive
process
but a
step-wise
progression
of
product development.
A
designers
lack of
knowledge regarding
manufactur-
ing processes
and
manufacturing
alternatives can result in
nonsalable
designs.
Products must be
designed
at least two
times:
original design
and
design
revisions
(Hayes,
Desa,
&
Wright, 1989).
A
prevalent apparel industry practice
is
late
product design changes during production (Senior
En-
gineer, personal communication, February 1995;
Director
of
Merchandise
Services, personal communication, April
1995).
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
apparel
design, (b) interpret
actions and decisions made
during
the
apparel design process,
and
(c)
determine whether the
spe-
cific
stages
of
engineering design process theory
were used
by designers
and merchandisers.
Acknowledgments:
This research was
supported by
the United
States
Department
of
Energy Integrated Manufacturing
Pre-Doc-
toral
Fellowship.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
37
Review of Literature
Design
Activities in Product
Development
Product
development cycle
is defined as a set of activi-
ties, tools,
methods and
procedures
that translate customer
needs into
product design (Carter
& Baker, 1992). Apparel
design
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 development
activities, the
sequential apparel design process
includes
activities in the line
plan
and line
plan summary.
Line
plan
involves
gathering
information for fashion
scope,
market
information, past
line sales
(Glock
&
Kunz, 1990)
and
editing
ideas for successful combinations of
fabric, style
and
price (Stephens-Frings, 1994).
The line
plan summary
includes an
analysis
of information that was
gathered
dur-
ing
the line
plan stage (Glock
&
Kunz, 1990).
The focus of
this research is on actions and decisions made in line
plan
and line
plan summary stages (Table 2).
Table 2. Details of Line Plan and Line Plan
Summary 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
taking
place. Design
can be viewed as a
creative, magical,
intui-
tive and elusive
process (DeJonge,
1984; Hanks,
Belliston
and Edwards, 1977)
and as the
performance
of a
very
complicated
act of faith
(Jones, 1992). Design
is
creative;
however,
the
process leading
to successful
designs
is
predictable (Chapman, Bahill,
&
Wymore, 1992). Design
is 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
reality
and 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 change
or
finding
new solutions to old
problems (Blaich
&
Blaich,
1993).
New
designers may mistakenly
think that all
design
parameters
are told
up front,
but
design parameters
can be
illusive and surface
during
detailed
designing
or in manu-
facturing (Medland, 1992; Navinchandra, 1991).
Black
box
designing
sometimes refers to a
magical design process
that takes
place
inside the
designerss
head
(Orlando, 1979;
Jones, 1992).
Another
approach
is
glass
box or
transparent
box
designing (Orlando, 1979).
Glass box
designing
is a
systematic, visible, and
analytical design approach
in which
subfunctions 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.
When
work involves a
team, the
designer
needs to
convey
the
design
intention and the
process (Medland, 1992). Industry
emphasis
on
apparel
teams and
partnerships
creates the
need to
convey design
information to all individuals in-
volved. A controlled
design process
is
advantageous,
be-
cause it facilitates a
quality product
and increases
company
profits (Chapman, Bahill,
&
Wymore, 1992).
Theoretical Framework
Engineering Design
Process
Theory
The
primary objective
of
design
is to restructure com-
plicated problems
into
simple
ones. To
accomplish
this
objective,
an individual needs to use a
systematic design
approach (Jones, 1992).
The foundation of this
approach
is
engineering design process theory. Engineering design
is
the
process
of
identifying
needs and
developing
a
product
to meet identified needs
(Wilcox, 1987). Design
success
can be attributed to a
designers ability
to
identify
and
handle the
boundary
conditions of
design problems
(Medland, 1992; Middendorf, 1969). Engineering design
process theory
includes the
following stages: (a) problem
recognition, (b) problem definition, (c) exploration
of the
problem, (d)
search for
alternatives; (e)
evaluation and
decision
making, (f) specification
of
solution,
and
(g)
com-
munication of solution
(Lewis
&
Samuel, 1989).
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
38
Problem
recognition.
Problem
recognition begins
with
need
recognition
and identification of
objectives (Dixon,
1966). Objectives
of the
problem recognition stage
are to:
(a)
create a written
problem
statement, (b) generate
solu-
tions to meet
needs,
and
(c)
create ideas and sketches
(Colton
&
Pun, 1990; Leech, 1972;
Lewis & Samuel, 1989).
The
designer
must
respond
to
problem
needs that are often
not well defined.
Designers
need a
thorough understanding
of customer needs. Consumer
product design usually
be-
gins
with a
marketing study
to determine a need for a new
product (Chapman, Bahill, &
Wymore,
1992). Early
con-
ceptual stages emphasize establishing
the
physical, practi-
cal and economic constraints that could influence the final
design (Middendorf, 1969).
Communication of the
design
problem
is often
through
a series of sketches
(Jenkins
&
Martin, 1993; Navinchandra, 1991).
Problem
definition.
The
problem
definition statement
objectifies
the
problem
and includes decisions on:
(a)
ob-
jectives
and
performance criteria, (b)
available resources,
(c) design boundaries, and
(d) sub-problems (Lewis
&
Samuel, 1989). Typically, product
details are
vague
at the
problem recognition stage,
and
objectives
are needed to
provide
direction
(Dixon, 1966; Cross, 1989). Objectives
should state customers need, numeric
requirements,
cal-
culation of an
objectives value,
and
possible
tradeoffs.
Without directional
objectives, designers may produce
a
product
that does not
satisfy
customers
(Leech, 1972).
The
goal
of this
stage
is to translate
vague problem
statements
into
specific
tasks and answerable
questions
to meet cus-
tomer
requirements (Chapman, Bahill,
&
Wymore, 1992;
Dixon, 1966).
Exploration of the problem.
Once
design requirements
are detailed,
problem
or
concept exploration begins
(Chapman, Bahill,
&
Wymore, 1992).
Problem
exploration
is the
generation
of a wide
variety
of alternatives
(Navinchandra, 1991).
Reuse of old ideas
may
be the
origin
of a new
design (Dixon, 1966). Often, this
stage
is
accomplished through brainstorming
sessions
(Chapman,
Bahill,
&
Wymore, 1992). Exploration
of the
problem
includes:
(a)
information search or
feasibility study; (b)
assumptions
and estimations from available
information;
(c) design strategy
creation
(Lewis
&
Samuel, 1989); (d)
critical factor determination of
design problems; (e)
re-
quests
for desired resource
inputs; (f)
market
assessment;
(g) competition appraisal (Jones, 1973); (h) quantified
cus-
tomer
objectives; (i)
cost for
manufacture, product life,
and
maintenance;
and
(j)
unavoidable factors in
product opera-
tion
(Leech, 1972). Design
consideration must be
given
to
the resources that are available to the manufacturer
during
production (Leech, 1972, Middendorf, 1969).
Senrch for
alternatives.
During
the search for alterna-
tives
stage,
the
designer (a)
uses his/her own
experience
to
search for
information, (b)
find answers to
problems posed
by design specifications, (c) verify
that customer
require-
ments are
met,
and
(d)
create
design proposal.
A de-
signer may
review technical
literature, libraries,
and
catalogs;
search
through existing design solutions;
and
use
existing knowledge.
This
stage
concentrates on what
needs to be achieved to create
design proposals (Leech,
1972;
Lewis &
Samuel, 1989).
Leech
(1972)
recommends
that
designers
address the
following: design function,
de-
sign application, design origin,
customer
specification,
general standards,
safety, environment, price,
and func-
tional
requirements.
Evaluation and decisions. The evaluation and deci-
sions
stage proposes
an
approach
to a
problem
and involves
a series of iterations. The
goal
of this
stage
is to determine
whether a
design
will be
satisfactory
or
unsatisfactory
(Medland, 1992). Specific objectives
of evaluation and
decisions are to:
(a) predict
outcomes for each
proposal, (b)
determine
feasibility
of alternative
proposals,
and
(c)
evalu-
ate feasible
proposals (Lewis
&
Samuel, 1989). Designers
evaluate
design proposals
for
ideas, objectives,
differences
and value
(Leech, 1972).
A
challenge
is to avoid
guess-
work or intuition. Methods for
avoiding guesswork
are to:
start with a clear
problem definition, assign
a numeric
weight
for each
performance objective,
and conduct a fea-
sibility study
for
production
and cost effectiveness
(Cross,
1989; Middendorf, 1969).
Specification of solution.
A
designer
seeks to
produce
the best
design
that meets
specifications. Many
times
companies require specification
limits.
Specification
limits
imposed
on a
product
can be
categorized
in two
ways:
design specification
and
performance specification.
De-
sign specifications
limit the use of materials and dimen-
sions. Performance
specifications
allow the
designer
to
make choices within the
parameters
of desired
performance
(Middendorf, 1969).
This
stage requires many design
itera-
tions and
analysis
of alternatives before an
optimum
solu-
tion is selected
(Lewis
&
Samuel, 1989).
While
judgment
of the
optimal
solution
may
be based on
prior experience,
prototype specification requires accuracy.
A mistake in
prototype development
can have serious
production reper-
cussions
(Middendorf, 1969).
Communication
of
solution. Verbal and visual com-
munication of the solution
stage
are used to communicate
design
decisions to
engineering,
administrative and manu-
facturing personnel (Middendorf, 1969).
The
capstone
of
the
design process
is
managements design approval (Leech,
1972). Design
reviews are formal
meetings. Experts
from
various functions review the
design proposal.
Visual com-
munication includes
sketches, drawings,
written
specifica-
tions, photographs,
or scaled models
(Lewis
& Samuel,
1989).
The
goal
of the
design
review is to catch and correct
errors. At this
point,
the
design
makes a transition from
idea to
production (Chapman, Bahill,
&
Wymore, 1992).
Conceptual
Framework:
Apparel Design
Models
Published literature on
apparel design
models
gives
some
recognition
to the
design process (Kato, 1994). Ap-
parel design process
models
(Lamb
&
Kallal, 1992;
Or-
lando, 1979; Watkins, 1988)
are
indirectly
based on the
engineering design process.
The
design process
is based on
engineering design process theory
formalized in 1974.
Design theory
was
developed by bringing .together engi-
neers, architects, mathematicians and behavioral scientists.
The
designation
of the
design process theory
as an
engi-
neering
based
discipline
is well
recognized
and
adapted
for
use
by engineering,
architecture and
computer
science fields
(Spillers
& Newsome, 1988).
Lamb and Kallals
(1992)
FEA model and Watkins
(1988) design process
model
recognized
architect
Koberg
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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
and
Badnells
(1973)
seven
design phases
of
accept, analyze,
define, ideate, select, implement
and evaluate to
develop
the
apparel design process.
Orlandos New
Design
Process
Model
(1979)
is based on Jones
(1973) design process
and
method. 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) design
situation
explored, (c) problem
structure
identified, (d)
de-
sign
criteria established, (e) specifications described, (f)
prototype developed
and
(g) design
evaluation
(DeJonge
1984; Orlando, 1979). Basing apparel design process
mod-
els on intermediate sources adds subsistence to
apparel
design;
however, it is
advantageous
to base the
apparel
design process
on its root
source, engineering design pro-
cess
theory. Engineering design process theory
is
recog-
nized
by
other academic
disciplines
as a structured holistic
approach
and
provides improved understanding
of the
pro-
cess
(Elmaraghy, Seering
&
Ullman, 1989).
Methods
Sampling
and Data Collection
The method used was
interpretational analysis qualita-
tive research. This
approach emphasizes meaning
and
problem solving (Tesch, 1990).
To
accomplish interpretive
depth, design
associates from two
large apparel
manufac-
turing companies
in their natural
setting
were interviewed
and observed.
Design
associates were defined as
apparel
designers
and merchandise
managers.
To
synthesize
the
design process,
the researcher concentrated on
design
asso-
ciates to
capture
all actions and decisions in the
design
process. Companies
were selected based on the
following
characteristics:
(a) design
associates were located at com-
pany headquarters, (b) apparel manufacturing segments
were
non-competing,
and
(c) company
was
willing
to
participate
in 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 a
major industry
in this
region (Dickerson, 1991).
The com-
panies represented multiple
merchandise classifications with
an annual
production
volume of over five million units.
Both
companies
sold a
durable, mid-price,
basic
apparel
product
with
high
brand
recognition.
Both
companies
worked
closely
with
textile suppliers
for new coloration
and 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
from
two
years
to thirteen
years.
Nine
design
associates worked
at the individual
company headquarters,
and one
design
associate was an
independent design
consultant. The
goal
of
using
a
purposive sample,
in
qualitative research,
is to
penetrate
into the research
setting (Patton, 1980).
The
research
goals
were to understand
phenomena
about select
cases 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 to
six
apparel
lines each
year.
In one
years time,
an indi-
vidual
design
associate was
responsible
for
approximately
200 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 for
data 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 and
were not structured
by
the researcher.
Design
associates
were 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 three
hours
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
interviews
were conducted that lasted one to two hours
per
individual
and included
specific questions
on
design process theory.
Generic definitions to the
design process stages
were
pro-
vided,
and
design
associates were
queried
on actions and
decisions made at each
stage.
The
primary
researcher
tape
recorded interviews and took field notes for all interviews
and observations. Audio
recording
and field notes were
transcribed
by
the
primary
researcher.
Typed transcripts
were sent to
design
associates for
minority reports.
Data Evaluation
In
qualitative research,
data
analysis
is an
integral
process
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). Engineering
design process theory
was used to create the
categories
to
code the data.
Reliability
and
validity. Qualitative
research
reliability
is increased
through
inter-rater
reliability (Silverman,1993).
Inter-rater
reliability
involves
giving
the same data to other
analysts
to
analyze according
to a set of
agreed categories.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
40
After
coding,
the
reports
are
compared
and
analyzed.
Inter-
rater
reliability
was attained
by
the
primary
researcher and
a second researcher at another
university.
Both researchers
were familiar with the
apparel design process.
The second
researcher was
given typed transcripts
with instructions of
key
terms and
phrases.
The
coding phases
were based on
engineering design process theory.
Each researcher indi-
vidually
read and
manually
coded
transcripts
to decrease
potential
bias.
Decontextualizing
and
recontextualizing. Transcript
data was decontextualized
using
the
procedure
outlined
by
Tesch
(1990). Decontextualizing separates
relevant
por-
tions of data from its context to
identify patterns.
Data were
organized according
to
engineering design process
theo-
retical framework.
HyperResearchTM,
a
computer
software
program by
Research Ware
(1993),
was used to assist in
decontextualizing
data.
Recontextualizing organizes
and
interprets
coded data
(Tesch, 1990).
Recontextualization
was achieved
by using
the
HyperResea.rchTM program
to
sort and combine the two reviewers
transcripts, according
to codes. A
computer
software
program helped
to
keep
consistency among codes; therefore,
no codes were acci-
dently
omitted from
analysis.
Researchers
jointly
reviewed
recontextualized
transcripts
to determine
consistency
in
coding
and to determine the
applicability
of
passages
for
inclusion in each of the
engineering design process catego-
ries. Inter-rater
reliability
was increased
by analyzing only
findings
selected
by
both researchers.
~
~_
z
Results
Findings
were
categorized
within the
engineering
de-
sign process theory.
Information from all
subjects
was used
to describe the
activities, and information was identified in
each
major stage
of
engineering design process theory (Table
3).
Results indicated that the
apparel design process
is a
scientific and a
problematic building
block
process.
Problem
Recognition
The
problem recognition stage
for
design
associates
focused on customer
loyalty,
ease or
difficulty
in devel-
oping design concepts, initiating
idea
meetings,
and cre-
ating
ideas.
Design
associates indicated that their work
overlapped multiple
seasons with
in-process
work at
several
design stages. Design
associates were involved
simultaneously
with
correcting sample garments,
mak-
ing production corrections,
and
developing
ideas for the
next season.
Problem statement. A
design
associate characterized
apparel
as
being
80%
design
and 20%
function; whereas,
other
product designs
are 80% function and 20%
design.
Problem statement
goals
were as follows:
apparel
lines are
not
continually redefined,
subjective
taste level is a
major
driving
force for fabric
pattern,
and
products
are
designed
to create customer
loyalty.
Some
design concepts
were
more difficult to
develop
than others. Some
design
associ-
ates found that
creating
new
concepts
was easier than re-
freshing
basic
designs.
Solution
generation
to meet
pre-determined
needs.
During
the solutions
generated stage, design
associates held
beginning meetings
to create
rough
ideas. These
meetings
were called
merchandising
the line.
They
were held to
formulate the look of the
apparel grouping.
The
goal
of
beginning meetings
was to eliminate
designs
that the
design
associates did not like.
Editing
an
apparel
line dictated that
a
pattern, right
in the
beginning,
was later deleted. Dele-
tions occurred because of new line information. For future
solutions, previous designs
were
re-styled
and
improved.
Design
associates recreated
previous designs
that lacked
design development,
were not
accepted
at
design presenta-
tion,
or did not fit into
companys
mission.
Creation
of
ideas and sketches.
Often, design
associ-
ates
kept
ideas in their heads. While a
designer said,
&dquo;I
know what Im
going
to
do&dquo;,
a merchandise
manager
responded
that
something
needed to be
visually
communi-
cated. Idea creation
ranged
from that of
design
associates
who created
something
new
only
when current
designs
were not
selling
to associates who
consistently
created
new
designs.
Ideas were created from a broad
range
of
sources. An idea was
sparked
from
thinking
about
existing
bodies to be revised or
identifying
new bodies in the mar-
ket to be
adopted.
Some
examples
included a sleeveless
trapeze
dress with a
collar,
a scooter
skirt,
or a biker short.
Traditionally,
the
problem recognition stage generates
overall ideas and
goals
for a
complete design problem
that
are later broken down into smaller
problems; however,
design
associates reversed this
sequence
and
generated
specific
small
problem
ideas first then overall ideas for a
complete design problem.
New solutions for new or
carryover designs
were based on
subjective opinions.
For
example, design
associates examined
purchased
art de-
signs
or
competitor garments purchased
at retail and re-
sponded
that the
pattern represented
was too
busy. Design
associates sketched ideas when
they
went
shopping,
when
ideas were
thought,
or when
changes
were
planned
for an
existing design. Design
sketches varied from
simple
sketches to
technical, detailed sketches. One
design
asso-
ciate sketched A to Z variations to
experiment
with solu-
tion ideas.
Design
associates
thought
that
creating prop-
erly
drawn sketches was an
important
skill.
Problem Definition
Design
associates indicated that
problem
definition was
dependent
on time
pressures. Development
and execution
of a line must be
completed
within a 26 week time frame. A
clear
problem
definition can reduce the time
requirement.
Establishment
of objectives.
For
design associates,
established
objectives
were based on
perceived product
value and
design
direction for new
apparel
lines. Some
apparel
line
objectives
were
designed
to increase
garment
perceived value; however,
other
apparel
lines were de-
signed
with narrower
parameters.
Sales
personnel provided
input
at the
design concept stage
for new
apparel
line ideas.
Concept
boards with alternative directions were used to
determine what sales
personnel
were
thinking
and to deter-
mine if the direction was correct.
Identification of
available resources. A
variety
of
resources were available to establish
problem
definition.
Design
associates enumerated available resources as
print
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
41
Fable 3.
Comparison
of
Engineering Design
Process
Stages
and
Apparel Design
Process
Stages
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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. Textile
resources were used for color
matching
of
yam dye fabrics;
however,
textile resources were sometimes limited
by
ven-
dor certification
agreements.
A small vendor without
prior
vendor certification but with a
novelty print may
snot be
used. When
refining
or
developing
an
apparel
line, design
associates referred to their own silhouette
library,
color
standardization
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 a
specific
hole. For
example,
one
design
associate said,
&dquo;It is
focused,
theres no
wavering
from it. It comes down to I
need a white swatch, so
you
look for a white swatch.&dquo;
Design
limitations were set
by
a
garments
silhouette and
construction.
Design
associates knew before
designing
that
size dimensions
stayed
constant and construction was
spe-
cific. Concern was
expressed
about
design variation,
be-
cause it slowed
production
and increased cost. In
design
allotment,
a
predetermined
color allotment translated into x
dozen
garments.
On the basis of color allotment, design
associates determined fabric allocations for
filling
lot col-
ors.
Design
associates determined how
many patterns
were
put
into the line.
Identification of sub-problems.
In
developing
a new
line, sub-problems
were identified as size and fabric
type.
For
example,
some
design
associates
designed
a new line
for
producing
five
sizes; however,
the retail
target
market
carried six sizes for this
garment category.
Retail
buyers
indicated that
they
would not
buy
the line without the
additional size. This
sub-problem
created a
systems prob-
lem for size
handling.
A fabric market assessment showed
that the
competition predominately
used different fabric
types
from the
past.
This information was a
sub-problem,
because
product engineers
were concerned with
cutting
and
sewing
new fabric
types.
Selected fabrics affected
design
strategy
and resulted in line
adjustment.
Exploration
of the Problem
Design
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 for
prints, textures,
colors and fabrics.
Information
search.
Design
associates identified in-
formation search
goals
as
absorbing information, knowing
specific design needs, seeing
how
industry peoples
ideas
parallel
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 examine
visual
displays, departmental
color
transition,
and
garment
body styles. Designers
used
many
of their own resources
including:
sketches, old
patterns, previous paintings,
tear
sheets, photographs
of
people
on the
street,
clothes from
their own or
familys closet,
and observations at social
events. One
design
associate described
previous designs
for new
inspiration
as
&dquo;setting up your history
to know
where
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 weeks
and 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 fifth
hand information.&dquo;
Assumptions
and estimations.
Design
ideas were evalu-
ated based on
perceived
value and
subjective opinions.
Design
details that increased
perceived garment
value were
fabric
features, trims, fancy buttons,
and
packages. Design
associates 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
and
were assumed to
capture
reasons
why
consumers
buy
cloth-
ing
items. Cute was a
typical subjective
evaluation.
Design strategy. Important design strategies
were iden-
tified as
cohesiveness, purchase desire,
coordinate
groups,
re-orderable
designs,
and fashion items. A cohesive
design
strategy
made sure that
strategic
business units had cohe-
sive rather than different color and
style
direction.
Design
strategy
included
creating designs
as core items, coordinate
driven
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 the
core 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 market
as a consumer. He
said,
&dquo;Its like
going
to a bookstore
where 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
biography
department
is the service end of the business.&dquo;
Apparel
markets were considered a social indicator of world influ-
ences from
film, music, social, political
or other directions.
Design
associates assessed fabric
lines,
retail
stores, print
houses, and art firms for market direction. Fashion services
used
by design
associates
provided
information on
specific
color, trend,
and theme direction.
They noted
that their
competitors
used the same color and fashion services. Re-
tail
buyers
shared information with
key apparel design
associates. 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 fashion
trends.
Design
associates traveled to the West Coast to
shop
the California stores, examine what
people
wore and
watch their activities. California
competitor clothing
was
bought
with the awareness that &dquo;I know this is
strictly
Los
Angeles,
but the
concept
is cute so
maybe
we can tone it
down a little bit.&dquo;
Design
associates searched
Europe
for
aesthetic influences
including
forward
fashions, unisex
looks,
color variation, garment
details and
garment
con-
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 clothes
than the U.S. consumer.
European
information was
relayed
to all
design
associates
through concept
boards of current
European
trends.
Comparisons
were
important during
market assess-
ment.
Design
associates looked at
competitors garments
for
overall
concept
and
design
details. Focus
groups provided
information for
comparison
of
body styles,
for
example,
form
fitting
shirts versus oversized shirts.
Design
associ-
ates
compared
and
analyzed
color information from focus
groups
with information from color and fashion services.
Customer
objectives.
A difficult
design objective
is to
be
design specific:
to be consumer
recognizable
and not to
be all
things
to all
people.
Market and social influences
made it difficult for
design
associates to
stay specific.
De-
signing
to meet a
targeted
customer affected the selection
of
design
attributes
including garment components, gar-
ment fasteners, design authenticity, garment
size, color,
and
patterns. Matching design interpretation
with
target
markets was identified as an
important objective. Design
associates
shopped
retail markets to determine
targeted
consumer
preferences
and
competitive price ranges. They
designed apparel
lines
by
how the
perceived
consumer
shops
for
apparel
items.
Design
associates used focus
groups
and sales
personnel
to solicit information on con-
sumer
objectives
or to determine
potential target
markets. If
a
targeted
consumer
preferred
outfits
already put together,
design
associates
designed
mix and match coordinates.
Conversely,
if the
targeted
consumer
preferred buying
one
item, garments
were
designed
to sell in isolation.
Cost
for manufacture. Design
associates
continually
thought
about
costing
issues
during
the
design process.
Design
constraints were
price points, price
increase re-
strictions and
margin goals. Design
associates determined
first costs on
garments
with technical service
personnel
or
product engineers.
Garments were evaluated at
margin
review
meetings
for contribution to
profit margin.
Past
practice
was to
change
trim details of the
garment
to make
margin; however, the
practice
of
removing garment
de-
tails can create an unsalable
garment.
Value-added
design
was an
important selling point
to
management
for a low
margin garment.
Depending
on the
line,
some
design parameters
were
narrower, especially
cost sensitive lines. One
costing
issue
was
expense
of
dyestuffs. Design
associates made tradeoff
decisions between desired color and cost. If a color was
right
for the
market, design
associates selected
expensive
dyes; however,
they priced
the line
accordingly.
In
price
sensitive
categories,
lower cost
dyes
were used and color
aesthetics were sacrificed.
Search for Alternatives
The search for alternatives
stage
was an
early
evalua-
tive
process. Design
associates evaluated and edited
design
possibilities. Design
associates indicated that at this
stage
they
used their
previous experience
to
identify problems
and create
design proposals.
Own
experience. Design
associates referred to
previ-
ous sales information for sell-in information about
designs
that 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
brand
features. In relation to how a
product
line was
perceived by
consumers, design
associates tracked
acceptable
and non-
acceptable product
features.
Important design
features in-
cluded sleeve
length,
solid color versus
print length
fabrics
and waistline
styles.
Answers to the
identified problem. According
to the
design associates,
an
example
of a
problem
was
predicting
color
potential.
For color
prediction, design
associates used
color services,
merchandisers
opinions,
and other associ-
ates
opinions
to
predict
color
projections.
If color services
were not
consistent,
color
prediction
was difficult. Some-
times
design
associates were influenced
by
others in the
company
or
they
selected
by
intuition. For
variety, design
associates looked for colors that were distinctive and differ-
ent from the other colors.
Customer
requirements.
Consumer taste level was tracked
to 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 for
specific
colors or combination of colors that sold well. A
design
associate
said,
&dquo;You
just get your
sales out and take
a look at
something
that is similar and tract it to see where
its
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 to
create a
design proposal. Design proposal
creation was
defined 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 artist
changed
an
original design by enlarging
or
reducing
some
details. Colors were
changed
or refined with CAD. For
example,
a white
ground
was
changed
to a
yellow ground.
Prior fabric
printing problems
were
investigated
to
prevent
problem
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.
During
the
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 tied
design 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
conveyed
design 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 core
colors 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
were
sent out to selected consumer
groups
for review.
Design
associates stated that inaccuracies in
prediction
of outcomes
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
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 to
determine if the line made sense,
had all the
garments
needed 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
occurred
inside a
design
associates head.
Many
simultaneous evalua-
tions took
place.
A core
body style
was selected. New
design
ideas were created
using
core
body styles
and were evalu-
ated
subjectively
for favorites. Some
design
associates used
the
phrase
&dquo;cute meter&dquo; to
judge peoples opinions
of de-
sign
favorites. Time schedules
pressed design
associates to
move forward to the
specification
of solution
stage. Design
associates identified the color
approval process
as a cause
of
delays. Design
associates felt
pressed
to
approve
color
even 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 work
sessions on
print
and color
development. Range
of time
varied as some
prints
needed little
work; whereas, others
needed much revision and some were
eventually
discarded.
Changes
to
prints
were
categorized
as less
regimentation,
less
busy,
incorrect
design proportion,
or lack of
design
details. Textile
design personnel
and retail
buyers opinions
were used for
feasibility
of
proposals.
Retail
buyers opin-
ions were
occasionally
solicited; however,
for
print
and
theme
concepts, buyers
often had a hard time
visualizing
the
designs
without
body styles. Follow-up strategies
were
to
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
comparisons
of color
preference
in
specific body styles.
Evaluation
of feasible proposals. Design
associates
stated that
evaluating proposal feasibility
was
very
chal-
lenging. Design
associates used
opinions
of other
design
associates and retail
buyers.
Another
design
associate &dquo;has
fresh
eyes&dquo;
to review for
improved
color or
styling
combi-
nations. Sometimes
designs
evolved from one theme, into
another
theme,
and in the
process
inconsistent details were
missed. A
design
associate noted
that,
when a
design
changed
from an
ecology
theme to a football
theme,
a fish
motif was
accidentally
carried over to the football theme.
Design
associates missed the mistake until a salesman came
in and
questioned, &dquo;Why
is there a fish in
your
football
story?&dquo;
Sales force criticism included
questions
of
why
design
associates did not
project higher quantities
for fast
selling
items and
why
some late
design proposals
did not
go
forward. 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 to
retail
buyers
had terrific sell-out to consumers.
Specification
of Solution
During specification
of
solution, design
associates ana-
lyzed
alternative
proposals, completed
line
merchandising,
and made final revisions.
Analysis of
alternative
proposals. Analysis
and final
selection
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 months
and could hate
every pattern. They
started second
guessing
optimal
solutions. Line
relationship
was a
key factor,
and
design
associates looked for
pattern,
color, style
balance
and fabric
duplication
within the line. Pre-line
concepts
were reviewed
weekly
and were
updated.
When
design
associates
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 to
retailers. As one
design
associate
commented,
&dquo;one retailer
will love a
design,
while the next retailer thinks its the
ugliest thing theyve
ever seen.&dquo;
Design concepts
were
edited further
by reviewing pre-lining
notes from salesmen
and retailers.
Selection
of
the
optimal proposal. Optimal proposal
selection was described as
finalizing
the line. When the
design process began, design
associates
guessed
at
garment
details. After
selecting
the
optimal proposal, design
associ-
ates
completed
the
design
details.
Projections
of actual
quantities
were made for each
body.
For
example,
five
projected
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 the
designs
needed for the market.
Design
associates knew that
they
can not
please everybody; therefore, they
made their
best
guess.
If six out of seven retail
buyers
loved a
design
concept,
a
design
associate felt comfortable
placing
the
design
in the line. If the retail
buyers
reacted
negatively
to
the
concept,
it was deleted from the line. If the
response
was
50/50,
the decision was hard.
Design
associates indi-
cated that at the
specification
of solution
stage
it was too
late to make
changes; however, design
associates were
observed
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
as
possible,
at some
point
the
design concepts
were communi-
cated to the
company. Design
associates communicated
optimal proposals
at merchandise committee
meetings,
line
freeze
meetings,
and sales
meetings.
At the merchandise
committee
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
of
final
garments
and silhouette
proposals.
One
design
asso-
ciate noted that these
meetings
were for
production per-
sonnel to see what is new for next season. Production
engineers
asked
questions
to determine the best
way
to
manufacture the submitted
designs.
At sales
meetings,
design
associates discussed current seasons
business, line
direction 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
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
45
to
technically
correct illustrations with much detail.
Design
associates
recognized
that
people
have different
capabili-
ties of
visualizing.
Managementlothers approval of
a
design proposal.
After a
proposal
was
specified, design
associates
presented
the
apparel
line to
management
to
get
their
approval
and
support. Key
to
proposal approval
was a balance
among
the
perceptions
of the retail
buyers,
the
salesmen,
and
manage-
ment. A
design
associate stated that one &dquo;has to have a
thick skin as
everyone
has their
opinions.&dquo;
Some
design
associates felt that
management
attitudes were &dquo;if a
design
sells well,
the salesmen did a
good job,
if
something
doesnt t
sell its the
design
associates fault.&dquo;
Although
a
design
associate felt
positive
about a
product,
a lack of salesmans s
approval
could create an obstacle. If a salesman did not like
a
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
design
associates,
who were
interviewed,
used a
systematic
build-
ing
block
process
to
develop
an
apparel
line. This
finding
is
consistent 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 other
work associates varied from
being open
and communica-
tive to inherent and non-verbalized. In
apparel design
theory,
Orlando
(1979)
makes the
comparison
between
glass
box
designing
and black box
designing.
This
process
is also described
by
Jones
(1992)
in
engineering design
theory.
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 shared
with other work associates.
Literature on
engineering design process
states that
design
is iterative. A
loop
structure is created
by going
back to a
previous step
to solve another
problem
in the
process (Middendorf, 1969).
This
process
is also described
by
Gaskill
(1992),
Lamb and Kallal
(1992),
and Orlando
(1979).
The
findings
of this
study support
the iterative
nature of
design.
If a
design
associate did not find answers
to identified
problems
in the search for alternatives
stage,
he/she returned to the
problem
definition
stage. Design
associates started and
completed
a series of smaller
prob-
lems rather than a whole
problem.
The associates method
was to work
through
the first four
stages
of the
design
process
for fabric
print designs
and
repeat
the
process
for
body designs.
This
process
is noted in
apparel design
theory (Orlando, 1979; Gaskill, 1992).
The
design
associ-
ates
continually
evaluated and made decisions
throughout
all
stages.
A
frequency
count of tasks indicated that the
design
associates
spent
the most time in the information
searching stage.
The least amount of time was
spent
in
problem recognition
and
specification
of solution. This
research
exemplifies
that
depth
is added to
published ap-
parel design
models
by using
the foundation of the
design
process, engineering design process theory.
Recommendations
t5
An effective
apparel design process
is
key
to the suc-
cessful launch of an
apparel product.
The
emphasis
of
apparel
manufacturers to increase the
efficiency
and effec-
tiveness of the
apparel design process requires manage-
ment
understanding
of the
process. Using
a
systematic
design process,
such as the
engineering design process
theory,
is an effective
way
of
controlling apparel design
intentions.
Apparel companies
are
metamorphosing
into
team-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
can
be used to teach
systematic design process
to
apparel
de-
sign
students as
promoted by
Lamb and Kallal
(1992)
and
Watkins
(1988).
Design
associates use
subjective judgments
and other
peoples opinions
to make the
right
decisions. The use of
subjective
evaluation and decision
making
often leads to
indecision. Cross
(1989)
and Middendorf
(1969)
indicate
that
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 by
providing
written and
quantified
statements and
by using
performance
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 for
alternatives, 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 available
potential
solutions.
Design
associates identified their weak-
nesses as
being
too close to the
designs
to evaluate
objectively
and
questioning optimal
solutions.
Quantified judgment
criteria can increase the effectiveness of
design
evaluation
by justifying
the
optimal
solutions and
by delineating
the
influences.
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.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from
46
Carter,
D.
E.,
& Stilwell
Baker,
B.
(1992).
Concurrent
engineering
the
product development environment for
the 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: The American
Society
of Mechanical
Engineers.
Cohen,
A. C.
(1991).
The
practice of marketing manage-
ment:
Analysis, planning,
and
implementation (2nd
ed.).
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-DTM
89.
Proceedings of
the 1989 ASME
Design
Technical
Conferences-1st
International Con-
ference
on
Design Theory
and
Methodology (pp. iii).
New York: The American
Society
of Mechanical
Engineers.
Ely, M., Anzul, M., Friedman, T., Garner, D.,
&
McCormack-Steinmetz,
A.
(1991). Doing qualitative
research: Circles within circles. New York: The
Falmer Press.
Fiore,
A. M. &
DeLong,
M. R.
(1994).
Introduction. In A.
M. Fiore & M. R.
DeLong (Eds.).
Aesthetics
of Textiles
and
Clothing: Advancing Multi-disciplinary Perspec-
tives, No. 7, (pp. 1-6).
Monument CO: International
Textile and
Apparel Association,
Inc.
Gaskill,
L.
(1992).
Toward a model of retail
product
devel-
opment:
A case
study analysis. Clothing
and Textiles
Research
Journal, 10 (4),
17-24.
Glock, R.
E.,
& Kunz G. I.
(1990). Apparel manufacturing
sewn
product analysis.
New York: Macmillan.
Hanks, K., Belliston, L., & Edwards, D.
(1977). Design
yourself
Los
Altos, CA;
William Kaufman.
Hayes,
C. C.
Desa,
S. &
Wright,
P. K.
(1989). Using
process 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
of
free-hand
sketching
in
conceptual design:
Automatic
sketch
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
and
process
selection.
London: Butterworths.
Kato, S. L.
(1994).
An
investigation
of the creative
process
and
application
to
apparel design
model. In M. R.
DeLong
& A. M. Fiore
(Eds.).
Aesthetics
of
Textiles
and
Clothing: Advancing Multi-disciplinary Perspec-
tives, No. 7, (pp. 48-57).
Monument CO: International
Textile and
Apparel
Association.
Koberg,
D. & Badnell, (1973).
The universal traveler a
companion for
those on
problem-solving journeys.
Los
Altos, 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
of
engineering design.
New York: Prentice Hall.
Malhotra,
N. K.
(1993). Marketing
research an
applied
orientation.
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. (Available
from 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 apparel
design. Paper presented
at the Association of
College
Professors of
Clothing
and
Textiles,
Western
Region
Meeting, Denver, CO.
Patton, M.
Q. (1980). Qualitative
evaluation methods.
Beverly
Hills:
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
1988 NSF Grantee
Workshop
on
Design Theory
and
Methodology, (pp.
4.3.1-4.3.8). Troy,
NY: Rensselaer
Polytechnic
Institute.
Stephens-Frings,
G.
(1994).
Fashion
from concept
to
consumer
(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). Revolutionizing
product development quantum leaps
in
speed, efficiency
and
quality.
New York: Free Press.
Wilcox,
A. D.
(1987). Engineering design project guide-
lines.
Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
at Serials Records, University of Minnesota Libraries on February 11, 2014 ctr.sagepub.com Downloaded from