We’ve mentioned how some apparel manufacturers are leveraging lean to stay globally competitive from U.S.-based factories. Allen-Edmonds shoes, New Balance, Joseph Abboud, and American Apparel to name just a few. Now our lean blog buddy Kathleen at Fashion Incubator tells us of another company, Fit Couture.
The basic concept of the system is that you want a continuous product flow of garments in the system. For each operator in the cell, you want to have one garment in process.
The garments get started on one side of the line (the right side in the pictures) and then move through their production stages via machines to their left. At the end of the line, pieces are packaged, scanned, and dropped into the finish goods bucket.
When a garment is finished, the worker who completed it moves back towards the start of the line until she reaches the other worker. She then takes the work-in-progress from that worker and handles all steps required to complete. The newly "bumped" worker then goes to the beginning of the line and starts a new piece. The process repeats itself every time a piece is completed.
Fit Couture is a small company, but obviously a smart one. Smart enough to find Kathleen and ask her to help them set up a lean cell. It’s really not that hard… and far easier than managing a shop across a few thousand miles of ocean.
david foster says
Am I understanding the process right? It sounds like there are two workers, each doing multiple production stages with a handoff midway through the flow.
If this is correct, I wonder what is the reason for not simply having two lines and letting each worker take the garment all the way through. Machine utilization, maybe?
Eric Wade says
My first thought when I read this was that it seems clever but it also seems contrary to the lesson Henry Ford learned when he stopped having workers move with the vehicle through production.
Or did I mess something?
Joshua Newman says
The method is called commonly called a “Bucket Brigade” and is simple method of organizing a work-cell where the separate operations are distinct but require a similar skill set. In this case, different operations on different types of sewing machines. It was partially developed at Toyota to improve the sewing operations that supported the fabrication of car seat covers. It has also been studied by a couple of professors at Georgia Tech and University of Chicago. I read extensively about Bucket Brigades during an internship at a small clothing manufacturer in Seattle. It also appears to work well in warehouse picking applications. You can find out more about it here: http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~jjb/bucket-brigades.html
Kathleen Fasanella says
David is correct in saying
“It sounds like there are two workers, each doing multiple production stages with a handoff midway through the flow.”
About this, I’m not really sure…
“I wonder what is the reason for not simply having two lines and letting each worker take the garment all the way through. Machine utilization, maybe?”
Machine utilization could be part of it owing in part to product complexity *and* that Fit Couture needs their (one) cell to fill *all* of their product demands (over 1,000 skus). The company who installed this system (America’s 21st) installed a module at another company (motionwear) that I saw demo’ed and their cell was smaller with fewer machines. Since motionwear is larger with about 50 stitchers (company size is traditionally measured by the number of operators), their cells (they have a total of eight but I only saw the one) are most likely specialized along product demands. I don’t know how many skus they have.
Then Eric said:
“My first thought when I read this was that it seems clever but it also seems contrary to the lesson Henry Ford learned when he stopped having workers move with the vehicle through production. Or did I mess something?”
To which I respond that Lean can’t be the same in all industries. You can’t pull coats and corn like cars. My response to this dichotomy appears in this previous entry on evolving excellence:
http://www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2005/12/perqs_of_superf.html
Len Egan says
We engineered and set up the lines at Fit Couture (a great little company with dynamic management)and trained the staff. Our system called TSS is excellent for labor-intensive and other operations by optimizing labor through a unique system of single-piece flow. In response to some of the questions, the system has a number of advantages over what was suggested (one person per line, fixing the operator to a set station with a fixed amount of work): by keeping a team member in a so-called zone (which of course varies by style and number of team members on the line) plus parts of those zones ahead and behind to cover for absence and given process-cycle variations (replacing bobins, re-threading machines, needle change, stc.), the space and equipment is better utilized (especially specialty machinery), the member’s equipment can be adjusted better for his/her working posture, training in operations is reduced versus full product competence, and there is a steadier pacing less dependent upon the individual’s own pace at the moment. Most importantly there is always total balance (based on how we engineer the lines), and it’s self-balancing with minimal W-I-P (one per person), and leadtime equals process time with no need for finished goods if capacity can meet the daily requirement. We stand folks up to attain the balance and continuous flow but also attain ergonomic benefits as well through less repetitive motion, no sedentary work, no lifting bundles, etc. It does require some more equipment and cross-training but absolutely minimizes labor which is the most costly element in labor-intensive processes such as sewing.
We have designed lines as well where the product moves but the team members also still move to work until the product is taken over by the next person up the line, and they then drop back to take over the prior product coming, etc. Again this balances flow and better utilizes labor.
Hope this helps.
Len Egan
Americas 21st, Inc.
Len Egan says
Further to my earlier posting, I note Kathleen’s comments on our demonstration of our client Motionwear at the SPESA show in Miami last May. She is absolutely correct. The Motionwear cluster which we demonstrated was designed to produce that company’s basic leotard line and therefore had a higher machine utilization level than the Fit Couture equipment. Motionwear has some eight different clusters (some duplicates of others) producing various style lines, as their individual product volumes permitted us to specialize by style to save equipment and also focus team members’ product knowledge and skills. Fit Couture, as Kathleen noted, needs to produce all their styles (tops, jackets, shorts, pants, and product customization) with nearly 1,000 SKUs (there are more at Motionwear with 150 styles, 300 fabrics, 60 colors and sizes from child to adult) on one line. We also had to be able to accommodate multiple colors on the same items without machine conflict by the operators and no thread changes internal to a product’s flow, as when they have color blocks making up panels. This all multiplied the equipment, although only moderately more than they had previously, but we still run single piece flow and utilize our unique balancing system to optimize labor. For small operations, as Fit Couture, we have an alternate engineered system which achieves the benefits of continuous flow but allows much broader style variety. We have even used it at larger companies for niche products. But if the variety gets very broad, you often encounter the need for machines that are then used only on selected products in the mix, as is the case at Fit Couture. As Fit Couture grows, as Motionwear did from a home business, they likley will attain sufficient volumes and steady demand within each product group and then begin to specialize lines with dedicated teams, such as making bottoms only, tops only, and jackets only. Then utilization would grow and machines/operator ratios diminish.
And as Eric noted, the Georgia Tech prof studied our system at a trade show as well and noted its efficiency. I do have some different views than he on the engineering of such lines for manufacturing, however, as it does require careful organization and engineering lest you introduce waste, lack or have too much equipment, have conflict on machinery, set reasonablly accurate standards for output to measure cost and plan production and reward operators and achieve the optimum productivity, etc. Warehouse picking is easier than assembly, particularly sewing and there (warehouses) it can be almost automatic (but we look at warehouse set-up organization in those cases first to optimize the system later. The two sew clients he cited use our system. We too have used it as well in distribution picking, in administration, and in a variety of areas.
Hope this helps.
Len Egan
Americas 21st