See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/243973261

Manufacturing strategy auditing for garment making companies

Article  in  Benchmarking An International Journal · June 2007

DOI: 10.1108/14635770710753176

CITATIONS READS
13 1,900

1 author:

Dinesh Kumar Hurreeram

University of Mauritius
22 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Productivity Assessment View project

Engineerig View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dinesh Kumar Hurreeram on 23 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MANUFACTURING STRATEGY AUDITING FOR GARMENT MAKING
COMPANIES

Hurreeram Dinesh Kumar

dk.hurreeram@uom.ac.mu

Abstract
The process of manufacturing strategy formulation and analysis though well documented in the
literature remains a myth for many manufacturing companies, which aim at having a simple tool for
assessing the effectiveness of their operations. A non-exhaustive mechanism is equally required to
help manufacturing organisations identify and meet the benchmarks in the sector for achieving
enhanced product competitiveness. This paper illustrates the development and use of an audit tool for
garment making companies, using the systems modelling approach, for both assessing the current
manufacturing strategy and for selecting appropriate alternative strategies with a view to implement
best practice standards. Use of the tool has shown promising results in a number of garment making
companies in Mauritius and is seen as a vital instrument for garment making companies around the
world, willing to achieve enhanced product competitiveness in a world of free apparel trade.

Keywords: Apparel Manufacture and Benchmarks, Manufacturing Strategy Auditing

Introduction

International apparel trade policies over the past fifty years have largely been dominated by stands
taken by the major importers namely, the European Union (EU) and the United States of America
(US) to limit invasion of their local market with apparel products from the developing countries. The
use of the Multi Fibre Agreement (MFA) up till the end of 1994 (GATT, 1994), the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing (ATC) effective till 2005 (WTO, 1994) and Multilateral Agreements between
the developed and developing countries have inadvertently encouraged the evolution of two
categories of developing economies namely the protected and restricted economies. The former have
been granted preferential access to the EU (e.g. Mauritius) and US (e.g. Mexico) markets under
multilateral agreements involving liberal quotas, duty concessions and lenient tariffs for market entry
while the restricted economies (e.g. China and India) have had tight restrictions on their exports to the
markets in terms of quotas, duty and tariffs previously under the MFA and now under the ATC. Most
of the restricted economies have a relatively strong apparel base, a pool of cheap labour and
economies of scale and are considered as a major threat to local manufacturers in the EU and US and
manufacturers from the preferential economies in the context of liberalised world apparel trade.

The ATC signed in December 1995 is equivalent to setting a level field for all countries to compete
for a share of the market. Page and Davenport (1994) forecast that this would lead towards an
invasion of the EU and US market by the presently restricted economies forcing most of the protected
economies out of the market. This may be a severe blow to a number of the protected economies
having heavy reliance on apparel exports, in the event that manufacturing companies in these
countries fail to build up the required competitive advantage for sustained market share
The focus of this paper is on the Mauritian apparel industry, which is considered to be one of the
potential losers of world apparel trade liberalisation (Majmudar, 1996) with severe consequences on
the national economy. The paper illustrates the development and use of a manufacturing strategy audit
tool to assess the current in-house practices vis-à-vis benchmarks in the sector. Use of the audit tool
has allowed a number of garment making companies identify and implement appropriate
manufacturing strategies in order to achieve the much-needed competitive advantage for gaining and
retaining a share of the world market.

Manufacturing Strategy Literature

Various researchers have stressed upon the importance of the manufacturing function for developing a
competitive advantage for manufactured products over the last three decades, following the arguments
raised by Skinner (1969) in his famous Harvard Business Review article entitled “Manufacturing -
Missing Link in Corporate Strategy”. The definitions for manufacturing strategy since then has been
numerous namely from Wheelwright and Hayes (1985), Fine and Hax (1985), Hill (1987), Swamidass
and Newell (1987) all of which converging towards that offered by Chandler (1962) as being the
determination of the basic long term goals and objectives of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses
of action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals. The orientation of the
manufacturing strategy research has mainly been over two fronts (Dangayach, 2001): The content and
process of manufacturing strategy.

The content of MS illustrates the importance of the manufacturing function for enhancing product
competitiveness. This approach has allowed the development of a number of frameworks for setting
and achieving long term goals namely in terms of reducing cost, improving quality, achieving
manufacturing flexibility and delivery reliability, implementing best practices and facilitating
innovation among others. The vast majority of research work published on the subject of
manufacturing strategy is in fact devoted to the content aspect, which provides strong evidence
supporting the argument that business successes are largely dependent upon the manufacturing
strategies being adopted.

The process of manufacturing strategy, on the other hand addresses the procedure to be adopted for
the development and implementation of manufacturing strategies. Among the few research
publications in the area, the most widely cited work are from Fine and Hax (1985), Swamidass
(1986), Platts and Gregory (1990), Anderson et al. (1991), Slack (1994), Mills et al. (1995) and Kim
and Arnold (1996).

Though the publications do provide a generic approach for the development of manufacturing
strategy, there is little illustration of the mechanism to be used by manufacturing organisations for
deciding upon appropriate strategies and for analysing their current manufacturing systems. Also,
none of the publications specifically refer to the garment-making sector, which makes the process of
manufacturing strategy even more of a myth to many companies within this sector, which are
interested on the use of a simple procedure for deciding upon and assessing the effectiveness of
specific strategies.

Page 1 of 16
Research Methodology
Based on the definition of manufacturing strategy from Chandler, the framework developed by
Skinner and on the process of manufacturing strategy literature, an auditing tool was developed for
garment making companies which provided the mechanism for the manufacturing companies to both
making an assessment of the current manufacturing practices and for deciding upon the appropriate
alternate strategies to be used for achieving enhanced product competitiveness. The tool presented
here was developed for medium to large size garment making companies with more than 100
employees; the methodology however, is a generic one and can be applied in other manufacturing
sectors to further enlighten the process of manufacturing strategy.

The research methodology involved four stages, namely, data collection, apparel manufacturing
system modelling, model analysis and development of an audit tool based on compiled information.

1. Data collection
The purpose of data collection was to enable the development of a manufacturing system model in
order to illustrate at a sufficient level of detail each of the activities that formed part of the garment
making business. The data was obtained through short-term attachments to five different companies in
Mauritius. The companies were selected on the basis of their success over the years in operation
(based on last five years annual turnover data). Also, the selection ensured that different sizes of
companies and different products were considered. The structure of the selected companies is shown
in Table I.

Company Number of employees Products

Manufactured
A 230 Shirt
B 1800 Shirt
C 2700 Trousers/Shorts
D 1200 T-Shirts
E 400 Blouses/ladies
garments

Table I Collaborating companies

A structured questionnaire was used to collect the following data from each of the above companies:
the functions involved within the company, the control systems in operation for each function, the
input to and output from each function, the materials, auxiliaries, tools and equipment being utilised
to accomplish a particular function, the human resources involved for each function and the
interrelationship between all the above.

2. Modelling
Various tools were surveyed for producing the apparel manufacturing system model including
Structured Analysis and Design Technique (Gane, 1979), Input/Output Analysis (Pandya, 1995), and
Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing Definition (IDEF0) (US Air Force, 1981). IDEF0 was

Page 2 of 16
found to be most appropriate as it provided a graphical means for representing most of the
information collected in a structured format. The IDEF0 models were produced for each of the
companies under investigation. The models were then mapped together to produce a ‘reference’
IDEF0 garment manufacturing system model, which safely represented all possible activities taking
place in a typical garment making company irrespective of the product being manufactured. The
reference model was validated though presentation sessions within the selected companies.

The node tree diagram and the top-level decomposition of the ‘reference’ model are shown in Figure
1 and 2, respectively. The IDEF0 model was developed to the second and third level of detail (see
node tree diagram) depending on the strategic importance of the activity under consideration.

Apparel Manufacturing System

A0

Plan and Policies

Marketn/Mechndsig A3
Operations Budgeting/
A2 Investment
A1
Recruitment A36

A11 A31 Wages &

Salaries
Sales & Planning &
Marketing Control Cut, Make Legal A35
A13 A22 & Trim Issues
A21 (CMT) & A34
A32
Customer Delivery A33
A12 Support ProdctDesgn Performance
& Devt. A23 Employee Appraisal
Merchandising Welfare

A211
A215
Prepare A214
Production Control A231
A212 A213 A232 A233 A234
Schedules Operations
Purchase
Plan Material Materials Control Shop Floor Manage Cut & Finish &
Prepare Cut Inventory Assemble Pack
Requirements Activities
Order Plan Parts

Figure 1 Node tree diagram of Apparel Manufacturing System Model

Page 3 of 16
 C1 Plans C2 C4
Availability Customer Approval Production Capacity Data & policies
of resources Market environment

C3

Potential Quality Specifications

Customer Customer
I1 Buyers
Communication Communication
Orders Marketing/ O1
I2
Enquiries Customers Customers
I3 Mechandising O2
I4
1 Production Capacity Data
Customer
information
A1
Plans and policies
Production Orders

Order
Status
Garments as
ordered
Fabrics and Trims O5
I5 Sample Garments
Operations O4
Scraps and rejects
Supplier Information O6
I6
O3
2
A2 Supplier communication

Plans and policies

Reports

Plans & Policy

Technology information
Development New technology
I7
3
A3
Human
Resources
M1

Tools/Equipment
M2

NODE: A0 TITLE: Garment Manufacturing System Model No.: 1

Figure 2 Top-level diagram of Apparel Manufacturing System model

3. Model Analysis
The third stage involved conducting a critical analysis of the IDEF0 apparel manufacturing system
model for listing all the requirements associated to the different strategies garment-making companies
can embark upon, for each of the functional areas. The requirements were in terms of the input,
output, control systems, human resources, technology, time, decision-making, standards, investment,
and communication systems among others as illustrated in table II. In order to ensure that all
possibilities in terms of manufacturing practice including benchmarks were considered, data from key
resource persons, by virtue of their experience and knowledge of the world garment making industry,
were collected.

All the information was compiled into a database management system as a series of statements for
each of the functional areas. The statements treated all the possibilities in terms manufacturing
practice within garment making company. Also, each statement was linked to either one or a
combination of low cost, quick response and high value added strategies; these being the main
differentiation strategic options available to garment making companies for achieving competitive
advantage (see table II).

Page 4 of 16
 Manufacturing Manufacturing
Functional Statements in terms of Function (no. Functional Strategies Strategy
of statements)
Marketing/ In-house marketing department
Input Merchandising Marketing agency
Who (117) Customer marketing
Output In-house design (including mother
Average Product Design Co.) Cost
Control Systems Practice and Use of Design Agent Leadership
Development Manufacturer/Customer
When
Human Resources (100) collaborative design
Customer design
Technology Production
Long term planning
Planning & Manufacturing
Medium term planning
Time Control (108) Flexibility for
How Short term planning
achieving
Decision making Operations Long run production Quick
(118) Batch manufacturing Response
Standards Supplier/Customer partnership
Purchasing &
Single sourcing without strategic
Investment Inventory
partnership
What (105)
Multiple sourcing
Communication Human Maintain and develop effective
& Information Resource workforce
System Better Management Take advantage of cheap labour
Practice (74) Labour exploitation High Value
Promote new investment and Added
Finance &
Why expansion
Accounting
Promote company reputation
(105)
Limit expenses

Table II Salient Features of the Audit Tool

4. Audit Tool Development

The audit tool was developed as a user-friendly software, the objective of which was to provide
garment making companies with a simple mechanism to make a self-assessment of the current
practice and to benchmark areas of poor or average practice with the better practices from within in
the industry. The data compiled from the previous stages were used for the development of the
software through Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access and Visual Basic. The audit tool flowchart is
illustrated in figure 3. Use of the software for functional strategy assessment simply involved
selecting the function to be audited and selecting statements that most closely fit the company’s
current practice and running the application. The software generates reports with regards to the
functional area selected indicating the company’s current strategy and areas of poor, average and
better practices.

Page 5 of 16
 Start

Input Company
Details

Conduct
View "Best" View IDEF0
Functional No No
Practices Model
Audit

Yes Yes Yes

Select Function Select Function Select Function

No

Function IDEF0
View IDEF0
Fill in Audit Form Yes Model
Model

No

View
Best Practices/
Finish Audit Yes Reference
Reference Data
Data

Yes

Generate Audit
Yes View Report
Report
No

Yes
Yes
Functional Audit
No Report
Best Practices/
Benchmarking
Report Garment Sector
Statistical
Summary
Benchmark
Function

Yes
View Sector
No
Wise Statistics
End

No

Figure 3 Architecture of Manufacturing Strategy Audit Tool

Manufacturing Strategy Auditing

The tool has so far been used by the five collaborating garment making companies and has shown
promising results with regards to making a preliminary assessment of the current practice, for

Page 6 of 16
identifying areas of shortcomings and for benchmarking purposes. The most encouraging features of
the auditing tool were as follows:

There is no need for an external consultant to carry out the auditing exercise

The tool is user friendly and it takes less than a week to conduct an auditing exercise
irrespective of the size of the company

The tool is designed for self assessment purposes and hence all data remain the property
of the company

Reports are clear and concise with regards to poor, average and better practices

The reports treat each of the functional areas separately and hence improvement
programmes can be tailored accordingly and implemented in phases

The tool provides clear indications of what can be done to move from poor or average
practice to better practices

The tool can be used for viewing best practices with regards to each of the functional
areas and also details of all the activities forming part of the garment manufacturing
system model
The effective use of the audit tool however requires the commitment of the chief executive (or policy
makers) of the company as it clearly sets the scene for putting in place continuous improvement
programmes in order to achieve best practice.

Results, Analysis and Discussions

Following the development of the manufacturing strategy audit tool, it was vital to test the
effectiveness of using the tool in the manufacturing organisations. Two methods were considered for
the purpose; the survey method and the case study method (Yin, 1994). Though both methods
seemed appropriate for the auditing exercise, it was found that in this case, the survey method had
many limitations because of the subjectivity in the interpretation of information by the respondents
(Heads of units/sections/departments) and difficulties associated with confirming the accuracy of the
responses. Also, the survey method provides few possibilities for investigating the HOW and the
WHY of current manufacturing practice. The use of case studies was invaluable in giving the depth of
knowledge necessary to complete the research. The methodology adopted in line with the case study
method is illustrated in figure 4.

Page 7 of 16
 Start

Select participants to
the Audit Exercise

Present Objectives
and Demonstrate
Audit Software
(Working Session 1)

Participants conduct
Yes
Functional Audits

Participants present
Audit Results
(Working Session 2) Assess
Effectivenss of
Change

Analysis of Results
Presentation,
Benchmarking and
Alterntive Strategy
Selection
(Working Session 3)

Implement
Implement
Yes Alternative
Change
Practice/Strategy

No
No

End

Figure 4 Methodology for conducting functional audits

In spite of being successful over the years, it was found to the surprise of the chief executives that
none of the five companies selected for this research, excelled in all the functional areas audited; the
areas requiring urgent policy decisions were in fact, clearly identified through the auditing exercise.

Only one of the case studies will be discussed here, as an exemplar, to illustrate the usefulness of the
tool for manufacturing strategy-auditing purposes. The case study concerns a company manufacturing
ladies denim wear for the EU market, employing 800 people, and which claimed to have in place the
low cost manufacturing strategy as opposed to quick response and the high value added strategies.
The discussions presented are based on the functional audit reports that are generated by the
manufacturing strategy audit software. A summary of the achievements of the company vis-à-vis
selected performance indicators and benchmarks from the industry are given in Table III.

Page 8 of 16
 Results for Case Benchmark*
Performance Indicator
Study Company

Average product development cycle time (days) 90 25

Sell through (% of products sold at regular price) N/A 100
Design acceptance (ratio of manufactured to designed products,
50 90
%)
Average Order fulfilment cycle, (days) 90 8
% Of on time shipment 85 98
Cost conformance 1.2 0.8
Engineered Styles (%) N/A 75
Cycle time (days) 7 3
Work in progress (number of weeks of production) 10 2
Conformance to Quality 98 100
% Conformance to plan 86 100
Shipping cycle time (days) 30 3
% Of replenishment shipments Nil 30
% Of shipment direct to store Nil 100
Productivity Measures
Labour productivity (£/employee) N/A N/A
Capital productivity (ratio) N/A N/A
% Of products that are UPC (Universal Product Code) bar coded Nil 100
% Of shipping cartons bar coded according to UCC (Universal
Nil 100
Container Code) shipping container marking guidelines
Depth of implementation of EDI for the following activities (%)
o Issue purchase orders Nil 100
o Issue invoices Nil 100
o Issue advance shipment notices Nil 100
o Share product activity data Nil 100
o Confirm purchase order Nil 100
o Share planning schedules Nil 100
o Issue remittance advices Nil 100
% Of incoming raw materials and manufacturing supplies bar
Nil 100
coded

Table III Benchmarks and Results for Case Study Company

* Adapted from American Apparel Manufacturing Association (1993) QR Model

Page 9 of 16
1. Average/Good Practice
The main strength of the company is its ability to achieve and maintain a low cost manufacturing
strategy with minimum investment in both human and capital resources. Most of the decisions within
the company are centred on the managing director and the production manager, which allows swift
decision-making. The company achieves high labour productivity by laying heavy emphasis on the
piece rate wage system and optimises the use of equipment by overtime work. There is little
production automation and currently the factory operates on an 8-hour shift system. A summary of the
strengths of the company based on the reports from the audit software is as follows:

1. The company largely satisfies the customer requirements in terms of quantity, quality and
delivery reliability (based on rejects/return data).
2. The cost of labour is cheap and specialised. Most of the machine operators have at least
10 years of working experience on the same/similar operations and achieve high
productivity. On average labour productivity was 88%.
3. The reject rate is less that 5% (usually reworked) and scrap is less than 2% of the order
size.
4. Orders are secured at least three months in advance, which allows the company to
smoothly plan and schedule its operations and achieve its production targets. The master
production schedule for instance covers at least 4 weeks of production.
5. The company purchases its fabrics and trims from a limited number of suppliers. These
suppliers provide quality assurance data for the goods supplied.
6. The performance and productivity of employees is closely monitored through the use of
the bar code system. Any productivity problem identified within a production line is
sorted out as soon as possible by the production manager with the support of the
supervisors, to ensure that targets are met.
7. The attendance and production bonus is a useful means to keep the pressure on employees
for achieving enhanced performance.
8. Production orders are shipped as soon as they are completed (packed).
9. The profit margin of the company is 30% to 40% and is viewed as satisfactory by the
director.
10. The company has no difficulty in securing orders and as at January 2003, the company
already had confirmed orders until June 2003.
11. The company has plans to expand its facilities by investing on state of the art equipment
to improve productivity further.

2. Poor Practice
The wide availability of production orders has been the main reason why the company has not
reviewed its current manufacturing strategy so far. However, following the auditing exercise, while
the weaknesses were being discussed, it was evident that even while maintaining the present strategy,
the company had considerable room from improvement and could achieve better results in the
medium to long run by taking appropriate decisions to overcome the shortcomings. A summary of the
main shortcomings of the company is as follows:
1. By selling the products to sales agents the company loses at least 5% of the selling price
per product. For instance, for a product selling at £2, free on board wholesale price, the
lost is about £600 per day. On average, a marketing executive would cost the company
£500 per month.

Page 10 of 16
2. Given that the managing director is directly involved in marketing the products and is
also responsible for the day-to-day operations (e.g. finance decisions), there are only a
limited number of international trade shows in which he can participate. This limits the
effectiveness of the marketing exercise. Also, marketing when undertaken can take up to
six months (from start) before a confirmed order is received. There is no marketing
research undertaken and there is little feedback from the customers on the sales rate or on
customer preferences. Equally data was not available for the amount of products sold at
mark down prices such that the company is not fully aware of the performance of its
products on the market.
3. None of the products were being sold directly to retailers or delivered to the retail stores.
The supply chain involves sales agents, wholesalers and distribution centres, which
largely decrease the profit margin of the company.
4. The company is not equipped with the latest information and communication
technologies like Internet (only two personal computers are connected to the Internet),
local area networks and Electronic Data Interchange (EDI). This prevents the company
from embarking upon quick response strategies.
5. The design activities are limited to adding differentiation features to existing designs and
working on those proposed by customers. The collection plan is more of a collection of
items that have been produced by the company in the past. Also, the design office is not
equipped with the appropriate human resources (fashion designer, qualified design
engineer) and there is no research conducted on fabrics or on novel designs. In spite of
the limited design activities, it can take up to four weeks to agree upon a design with the
customer. The minimum product development cycle time on the other hand is 90 days
(includes time for marketing of the product until it is released for production).
6. Over the last two years, the company has been experiencing pressures from the market in
terms of quality, lead-time and price reduction. This clearly demonstrates the trend in the
market for higher value added products and smaller batch sizes. Failure to meet these
requirements in the future may imply losing considerable market shares.
7. Most of the activities within the company are conducted manually. These include
production planning and scheduling, line balancing, setting time and methods standards,
materials requirement planning, inventory management, maintenance planning and
scheduling, and design and costing. All of which can be supported by a wide range of IT
packages currently available on the market. The computerisation of these functions can
considerably reduce the effort and time devoted to these activities and brings in step
improvements in productivity.
8. The company can hardly accommodate repeat orders or changes in order size because of
lack of flexibility in the planning and scheduling of activities.
9. The company has large amount of inventory and hence capital tied up in inventory for
large periods of time. On average there was about 10 weeks of inventory at any one point
in time in the factory.
10. Quality requirements are achieved through inspection of the products on the production
line and through the use of 100% inspection of the garments following manufacture
before packing is carried out. There is no statistical quality control system in place and it
is very difficult to track common problems for taking corrective measures.
11. The company employs a minimum of overheads to keep costs down. This places
considerable pressures on the supervisors and the production manager to meet targets.

Page 11 of 16
 12. Housekeeping is generally poor in the company in spite of the existence of the overhead
rail material handling system. This is mainly attributed to the existence of large amount of
work in progress and inventory. Also, the dyeing and the finishing departments are
largely short of space to accommodate the finished products from the shop floor. It is
quite common to have a bottleneck at these departments before the products are shipped.
13. Most of the hardware in the cutting room (e.g. pattern making, fabric spreading and
cutting, fusing, imparting transfer marks, sorting) involve manual operations and hence
require skilful operators. Automation of these systems can considerably improve
productivity.
14. In spite of the fact that the company sources its fabrics and trims from a limited number
of suppliers there is no strategic partnership relationship between the company and the
suppliers. The company thus maintains the procedure for comparing quotations before
purchasing though the decision is most of the time in favour of past suppliers with a
proven tract record.
15. It is common for the factory to hold large amounts of stock and at times to be out of stock
as there is no scientific means for deciding upon inventories.
16. There are no training programmes for employees and personnel at management level.
17. The daily absenteeism rate is about 8% and the annual direct labour turnover is about
12%. These are mainly attributed to the absence of motivation programmes for retaining
labour.
18. On average less than 5% of the annual turnover is invested on plant and equipment and on
new technology.

The above clearly demonstrates the company’s current strategy for maintaining the cost
competitiveness of the products by emphasising labour productivity and minimal investment to
maximise output. The company is far from achieving the performance indicators of the benchmarks in
the sector. However, the present strategy has largely been successful, as the company has no
difficulty in securing orders in the market place and net profit has been stable over the past two years.
Based on the outcome of the auditing exercise and bearing in mind that the company wished to
maintain the low cost manufacturing strategy, a series of recommendations were made with a view to
bring in step improvements in the activities undertaken in the factory and to create the environment
for allowing the company to shift from the low cost strategy to other strategies, if it chose to do so.
The company agreed to conduct feasibility studies to determine the cost and other implications before
any decision for implementing the recommendations is taken. The recommendations were as follows:

A. To Improve Productivity, Quality and Manufacturing Flexibility

1. To implement a total productive maintenance system and as far as possible replace
obsolete equipment with new ones.
2. To work out an annual training plan for the personnel at management level (including
foremen, supervisors and managers) and for machine operators.
3. To work out a motivation programme for all employees. It is not necessary for the
programme to be financially remunerative (e.g. promoting team work, increasing the
scope for promotion, competition for good housekeeping, organisation of outdoor sport
activities and competitions, prize giving ceremonies, coverage for medical insurance,
etc…).
4. To invest on software packages for the following activities: materials requirement
planning, inventory management, product design and costing.

Page 12 of 16
 5. To invest on a CAD/CAM system to automate the cutting activities.
6. To implement an overhead material handling system in replacement to the PBU.
7. To implement a total quality management system.

B. To Embark on Quick Response Strategy

1. To set up a marketing department with appropriate personnel for conducting market
research and identifying new customers and their requirements.
2. To set up a product design department equipped with the appropriate hardware and
software for developing new product lines in line with the customer requirements.
3. To recruit qualified personnel for the department.
4. To invest on Universal Product Code (UPC) and Universal Container Code (UCC) bar
coding systems.
5. To embark on a partnership relationship with the suppliers of fabrics and trims with a
good track record.
6. To embark on a partnership relationship with the customers with possibilities for access
to Point of Sale (PoS) data.
7. To invest on an EDI system to enable sharing of data with customers and suppliers and
conducting transactions on line, in real time.

Conclusion
A sine qua none condition for a manufacturing organisation to stay in business is to achieve the
benchmarks in any one or a combination of the functional areas such as Sales and Marketing,
Purchasing and Inventory, Production, Planning, Scheduling and Control, Quality Management,
Human Resource Management, and Finance/Accounting: Excellence in all being equivalent to world-
class manufacturing.

The Mauritian garment making companies, which have been the focus of this research, were found to
be far from world-class companies. The use of the audit tool in the selected ‘successful’ companies
clearly showed that the companies excelled mainly in the Production function with heavy emphasis on
quality standards and labour productivity. This is probably true for most of the developing countries
presently having preferential access to the markets. The entry of the restricted economies as a level
player in the world apparel market will require that garment making companies involve in a complete
review of manufacturing strategies in order to develop competitive advantages for maintaining their
share of the market. The use of the manufacturing system model together with the strategy audit tool
has proved to be a vital instrument for guiding companies in their quest for continuous improvement
and meeting benchmarks in the sector.

Page 13 of 16
References
1. Anderson, J. C., Schroeder, G. R., and Cleveland, G., (1991), “The process of manufacturing
strategy: Some empirical observations and conclusions”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1991, pp 86-110.
2. Chandler, A. D., (1962), Strategy and structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
3. Cheng, T. C. E. and Musaphir, H., (1996), “Theory and practice of manufacturing strategy”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp 1243-1259.
4. Dangayach, G. S. and Deshmukh, S. G., (2001), “Manufacturing strategy literature review
and some issues” International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 21
No. 7, pp 884-932.
5. Fine, C. H. and Hax, A. C., (1985), “Manufacturing strategy: a methodology and an
illustration”, Interfaces, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp 28-32.
6. Gane, C. and Sarson, T., (1979), Structured Systems Analysis – Tools and Techniques,
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
7. GATT, (1994), The results of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, market
access for goods and services: An overview of results, GATT, Geneva.
8. Hill, T. J., (1987), “Teaching manufacturing strategy”, International Journal of Operations
and Production Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 10-20.
9. Kim, J. S. and Arnold, P., (1996), “Operationalising manufacturing strategy: an exploratory
study of constructs and linkage”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 16 No. 12, pp 45-73.
10. Majmudar, M., (1996), “Trade liberalisation in clothing: The MFA phase out and developing
countries”, Development Policy Review, No. 14, pp 5-36.
11. Mills, J., Platts, K., and Gregory, M., (1995), “A framework for the design of manufacturing
strategy processes, A contingency approach”, International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp 17-49.
12. Page, S., and Davenport, M., (1994), World trade reform, Do developing countries gain or
lose? ODI Special Report, London.
13. Pandya, K. V., (1995), “Review of Modelling Techniques and Tools for Decision Making in
Manufacturing Management”, IEE Proceedings, Science Measurement and Technology, Vol.
142, No. 5.
14. Platts, K. W., and Gregory, M. J., (1990), “Manufacturing audit in the process of strategy
formulation”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 10, No.
9, pp 5-26.
15. Skinner, W., (1969), “Manufacturing - Missing link in corporate strategy”, Harvard Business
Review, May/June, pp 113-121.
16. Slack, N., (1994), “The importance-performance matrix as a determinant of improvement
priority”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp
59-75.
17. Swamidass, P. M. and Newell, W. T., (1987), “Manufacturing strategy, environmental
uncertainty and performance: A path analytic model”, Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp 509-524.
18. Swamidass, P. M., (1986), “Manufacturing Strategy: its assessment and practice”, Journal of
Operation Management, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp 471-484.

Page 14 of 16
 19. US Air Force, (1981), Integrated Computer Aided Manufacturing ICAM function modelling
manual IDEF0, Materials Laboratory, Air Force Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, AFSC,
Wright Paterson AFB, OH.
20. Wheelwright, S., C., and Hayes, R., H., (1985), “Competing through manufacturing”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp 99-108.
21. WTO, (1994), Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, World Trade Organisation Agreements,
Geneva.
22. Yin, R. K., (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications Inc.,
London

Page 15 of 16

View publication stats