Original article

Textile Research Journal

0(00) 1–25

An exploratory study of fit and size ! The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
issues with mass customized men’s jackets DOI: 10.1177/0040517520904927
journals.sagepub.com/home/trj
using 3D body scan and virtual try-on
technology

Jae-Min Sohn*, Sojung Lee* and Dong-Eun Kim

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the potential for mass customization with fit and size issues using 3D
technology in men’s jacket development. The study tested a fit mass customization process that employed 3D body
scanning and 3D virtual simulation technology and the results are summarized as follows. First, the fit evaluation for the
final virtual jacket was improved from the first virtual jacket. Second, during the virtual jacket evaluation process, the
participants made various requests to change the fit of their virtual jacket. The large-size group made more requests for
alterations to their virtual jackets than the medium- and small-size groups. Third, the study underlines certain improve-
ments needed before the technology can be used for apparel mass customization. The chest circumference, back width,
and sleeve length of the real jacket each tended to be slightly tighter or shorter than that of the virtual jacket. Fourth, the
study suggests that the jacket made from the mass customization process was satisfactory to potential male consumers,
as the actual jacket from the mass customization scenario in this study was evaluated as being better than a ready-to-
wear jacket. 3D technology is identified as an innovative tool for future tailors and the menswear industry, particularly
aimed at young male consumers. The current study shows the potential for the use of this technology for menswear
development.

Keywords
sizing of apparel, body scanning, product design, production, product and systems engineering, virtual clothing, mass
customization

In today’s market, customer needs are greatly diversi-
fied, and a great number of products are available to
meet these needs.1 As it is crucial for apparel companies
to understand customer needs and build customer-
driven businesses, mass customization has come to be
recognized as a competitive business strategy.2 Mass
customization produces products that meet an indivi-
dual customer’s specific needs based on their direct
involvement during the product development process.
The resulting product is produced with costs similar to
those of mass production.2,3,4 The benefits of mass cus-
tomization include increased customer satisfaction, as it
produces unique designs to meet individual customers’
needs, which results in lower return rates and more
efficient production steps.2
Mass customization will only be successful once suf-
ficiently advanced technology for manufacturing, such
as computer-aided design and computer-aided
manufacturing, has become available.5 Three-dimen-
sional (3D) technologies are effective for improving
mass customization in the apparel industry.1,6,7 Body
scanning technology captures 3D images of customers
and provides precise body measurement information
crucial for apparel production.6,8 Such measurement
information and 3D models of the customers can be
used to create patterns and garments for successful
mass customization. Furthermore, 3D virtual
Department of Fashion Industry, Ewha Womans University, South Korea
*These authors contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding author:
Dong-Eun Kim, Department of Fashion Industry, Ewha Womans
University, 52, Ewhayeodae-gil, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03760 South Korea.
Email: dekim@ewha.ac.kr
2 Textile Research Journal 0(00)
simulation is an effective way to help customers visua-
lize themselves wearing their co-designed garment
before the garment is made.
The incorporation of 3D technologies into mass cus-
tomization to improve apparel fit remains at an early
stage, although the potential for technology in mass
customization has been previously recognized.3,6 The
implementation of technology in improving apparel fit
needs to be examined in a variety of aspects, with body
size, pattern, and apparel fit relations all considered.
Many studies have discussed the importance of using
technology in the mass customization process, and sev-
eral have implemented technologies for making custo-
mized apparel. One study tested a consumer co-design
scenario for apparel mass customization using CAD
technology with consumer involvement.9 Others tested
consumer satisfaction level and online design involve-
ment with a mass customization procedure using a wed-
ding gown website10 and a t-shirt website developed
specifically for these studies.11 However, further studies
are needed to test apparel mass customization with a fit
customization scenario using advanced 3D technology.
Continuous testing of the technology that can be
applied to the apparel mass customization process is
needed.
The studies on apparel size and fit that been con-
ducted have generally targeted female customers,12
and this trend has also held true with scholarly research
using 3D technologies. However, 3D technology is
identified as an innovative tool for future tailors and
menswear manufacturers, particularly aimed at young
male consumers.13 The menswear market is growing
faster than womenswear, and more retailers are focus-
ing on this market.14 In particular, men aged 25 to 35
years old belong to a key consumer age group in the
menswear market.15 Additionally, the man’s tailored
suit is a type of apparel that demands a precise
fit.16,17 Reflecting this market trend and need, more
research studies that focus on male consumers and
men’s tailored garments are needed to examine their
specific needs and preferences regarding apparel fit.
Literature review
Points of customization and apparel mass
customization models
Different types of mass customization are applicable in
the apparel industry. Senanayake and Little18 presented
five points at which mass customization of apparel can
occur: post-production, fabrication, fit, feature, and
design. The post-production customization point
includes customizing packaging, such as labels and
hangtags. The fabrication customization point includes
consumers selecting their preferred fabric colors and
types from options given by the vendor. The feature
customization point involves customizing features
such as emblems/logos/prints or adding special
washes or finishes to clothes. In the design customiza-
tion point, many companies offer consumers certain
options to design their products instead of offering a
complete design option. The fit customization point
allows consumers to buy products with fitting custo-
mized to their body sizes and shapes. One way to
achieve customized fit is to provide the customer with
certain fit options to select from, which is considered to
be a low-end method. Another way to achieve this is to
use 3D technologies, such as body scanning, to collect
the customer’s individual measurements in order to
customize the apparel fit, which is considered to be a
high-end method. Among the five points of mass cus-
tomization presented by Senanayake and Little,18 the
current study tested the fifth, fit customization, using
3D technologies. The importance of mass customizing
apparel fit has been discussed by other scholars as well.
Yang et al.2 identified fit and design as the two most
important types of mass customization. Ashdown and
Loker16 asserted the need for a paradigm shift for
womenswear companies, to focus on a well-defined
target market to produce well-fitting clothes rather
than the traditional method of solely targeting hour-
glass-shaped models.
Anderson-Connell et al.,3 Satam et al.,1 and
Ashdown and Loker16 presented models to facilitate
the process of apparel fit mass customization.
Anderson-Connell et al.3 developed a consumer-
driven mass customization model for the apparel busi-
ness, presenting 3D body scanning as one of the first
line approaches for mass customization. The next line
involved using a smart card to store an individual con-
sumer’s measurement data for customizing fit and
design preferences such as color, fabric, and style,
which aid the creation of a successful garment.
Through this process, the authors presented four pos-
sible customizable options: clothes clones,
totally custom, co-design, and design options with stan-
dard sizes.
Satam et al.1 developed a mass customization model
based on a 3D intelligent design system employing 3D
body scanning and 3D garment simulation technologies.
The model starts with the customer’s individual requests
for apparel style and size. The process of body scanning
the customer for accurate body modeling is incorporated
into the product development process. The next step
involves checking the realism of the co-designed apparel
using a garment simulation module. Customers can
either accept the garment or request alterations accord-
ing to their personal preferences. They can repeat this
evaluation procedure until they are satisfied with the fin-
ished product. The product ultimately approved by the
Sohn et al.
customer is then produced as a real garment using 2D
pattern and other CAD systems.
Ashdown and Loker16 developed a conceptual
model for sizing for the mass-customization target
market. The model presents the effectiveness of body
scanning in acquiring the body measurements and body
scanned images of a company’s target market. The
model also presents a virtual avatar and virtual try-on
system meant to solve fit issues by doing fit analysis
using the system.
The mass customization models developed by
Anderson-Connell et al.,3 Satam et al.,1 and Ashdown
and Loker16 were modified and used as frameworks to
structure the current research process.
Apparel mass customization and 3D technology
Many companies in various product categories use
mass customization strategies.19 Sumissura is an e-com-
merce company in Switzerland for women’s tailored
apparel.20 Using the company’s website, consumers
can customize apparel products such as jackets, shirts,
pants, and skirts by selecting fit, style, fabric, and more,
and can also order a product to be remade if they are
not satisfied. They can also customize design details
such as collar, cuff, and pocket style. Hockerty works
in a similar way to Sumissura, but for men’s tailored
suits.21 Bivolino is another company that sells made-to-
measure shirts and blouses online.22 Levi’s provides
mass customization options that let consumers change
their favorite jeans by adding embroidery, patches, and
studs; making length changes; and adding destruc-
tions.23 In 2012, Levi’s launched their Made to Order
Jean project, which gives customers a chance to design
their own jeans from the beginning, from selecting
fabric down to detailing designs.24 The Converse foot-
wear website offers customizable sneakers with options
to change 14 parts, such as the stripe, lining, eyelets,
lace, and more.25
Attempts have been made to use 3D technologies for
the mass customization of fashion-related products in
the industry and in scholarly research. Baytar and
Ashdown26 used 3D body scanning and 3D virtual
try-on technologies for students to co-design and
make their own garments. Participants generally
enjoyed using technologies to co-design their own gar-
ments. One study has suggested a new method to
develop a customized pant pattern using a 3D body
scanner.27 Another study has tested mass customized
processing by making a customized princess shift
dress and integrating participants’ body measurements
acquired through 3D body scanner.28 Virtual and aug-
mented reality technologies have also been used for a
research study to design footwear for children.29
Beyond research, some companies have adopted 3D
3
technologies for mass customization. Embodee Corp.,
a company providing 3D visualization technology to
the apparel industry which has been reported to work
with mytheresa.com, a luxury fashion brand retailer,
provides 3D models of Gucci footwear for consumers
to be able to customize their products.30 Some sports-
wear manufacturers use a 3D body scanner to produce
mass customized clothes and running shoes by collect-
ing data on consumer body image and size.31 ELSE
Corp., based in Milan, created a visual platform using
virtual technology to allow fashion retailers and
designers to provide an innovative mass customization
process.32 The company platform provides a virtual
fitting solution for fashion customers to engage in pro-
duct personalization and co-design. The platform also
provides a virtual shopping experience, in which custo-
mers can experience walking in the virtual shopping
environment and personalize their products. Nettelo
created a mobile 3D body scanning and analysis appli-
cation, with which consumers can scan their body using
their personal mobile phone or tablet.33 Users can then
obtain their body measurements and track body
changes through multiple measurements. Nettelo also
aims to allow for the virtual fitting of clothes with the
convenience of using one’s own mobile device.
Acustom Apparel, a New York-based menswear com-
pany, uses a 3D body scanner to acquire customers’
measurements in order to develop men’s tailored suits
and shirts.34
Objectives
The purpose of this study was to explore the potential
for mass customization with fit and size issues using 3D
technology in men’s jacket development. In particular,
this study examined the potential for using a virtual try-
on system during apparel mass customization.
Additionally, to investigate fit and size issues in a vari-
ety of aspects during the mass customization process,
this study examined the mass customization of jackets
for a range of sizes (from small to large). For this pur-
pose, this study has the following four research
questions:
Research question 1: How does the final approved vir-
tual jacket fit compared with the initial virtual
jacket?
Research question 2: What are male consumers’ evalua-
tions of fit and requests for fit alteration during
customization?
Research question 3: How does the mass customized
(real) jacket fit compared with the virtual jacket?
Research question 4: How does the mass customized
(real) jacket fit compared with a ready-to-wear
jacket?
4 Textile Research Journal 0(00)
Method
Participant and data collection procedure
The data collection procedure was structured as the
research model shown in Figure 1, which was developed
based on the models by Satam et al.,1 Anderson-
Connell et al.,3 and Ashdown and Loker.16
Thirty-five Korean males aged between 20 and 39
were recruited for this research. First, the participants
underwent the body scanning step, in which their 3D
body scanned images and body measurements were
collected using the Styku MyBodee 3D body scanner.
Each participant was scanned wearing bike shorts
and with his upper body bare. For scanning, they
stood still for approximately 30 seconds with their
feet about 34 cm apart, head facing forward, and
upper arms slightly bent and away from the body,
according to the ISO 20685-1 standard.35
Participants were told to breathe naturally.
Although the scanning pose with separated feet and
bent arms looked somewhat artificial, this posture
was necessary to obtain the participants’ body
Figure 1. Research model of mass customization of fit using 3D body scanning and a virtual try-on system.
measurements for the purpose of simulating the
jacket in the virtual software.
Upon completion of the scanning procedure, the
participants completed a questionnaire regarding their
satisfaction level with the ready-to-wear jackets they
would normally buy from stores. They evaluated the
general fit of ready-to-wear jackets on a five-point
scale (1 ¼ extremely poor fit, 2 ¼ poor fit, 3 ¼ average
fit, 4 ¼ good fit, 5 ¼ excellent fit) regarding 16 critical
jacket dimensions: overall fit, jacket length, shoulder
width, shoulder angle, neck circumference, chest cir-
cumference, waist circumference, back width, hem
width, sleeve width, sleeve length, upper arm circumfer-
ence, collar length, collar width, front arm hole, and
back arm hole. These critical fit evaluation locations
were chosen based on previous studies of fit evaluation
on apparel.36
Previous studies on apparel mass customization with
evaluation of fit and design of actual resulting products
had from five to 21 participants.28,37–40 Based on these
numbers of participants from previous studies, the
body measurements of the 35 participants in this
Sohn et al. 5

study were scrutinized. The Korean sizing system for
menswear presents chest girth as a key measurement for
men’s jackets. It covers the chest girth from 79 cm to
118 cm with 3 cm intervals.41 In the present study the
size system was divided into three groups. Since chest
girth of 96 cm was the average in our sample, sizes 91,
94, 97, and 100 cm were labeled as M (medium) size
group. Sizes 79, 82, 85, and 88 cm were labeled as S
(small) size group, and sizes 103, 106, 109, and 112
were labeled as L (large) size group. With these as stan-
dard sizes for this study, 12 of the participants who
ranged widely in height and chest measurements were
selected for the next part of the study. Men with various
body sizes and shapes were purposely selected to
explore the feasibility of mass customization fit for
male customers, as the intended benefit of mass custo-
mization is to meet the needs of such diverse popula-
tions.16 The 12 participants selected for the mass
customization process were grouped across the S-,
M-, and L-size groups based on their chest circumfer-
ence measurements. The participants with chest mea-
surements ranging from 78 cm to less than 90 cm were
grouped as the S-size group, those with measurements
ranging from 90 cm to less than 102 cm were grouped as
the M-size group, and those with measurements ran-
ging from 102 cm to less than 114 cm were grouped as
the L-size group. Four participants were selected for
each size group. Table 1 shows age and body measure-
ment information for each participant.
The 3D body scan image data of the 12 participants
acquired from the first stage of the study was saved in
the .obj file format. No further processing on .obj files
was done. The 12 .obj files were imported into a gar-
ment simulation system, then used as a 3D virtual
model for each participant. The men’s tailored jacket
pattern was drafted for M-size using chest circumfer-
ence 96 cm and height 173 cm, which are the average
measurements of Korean men aged from 20 to 39 based
on the Sixth Korea National Anthropometric data.42
The pattern was drafted using classic fit jacket drafting
method using a menswear patternmaking book.43 The
pattern was graded to size S and size L patterns in
reference to the previous study;44 three sets of digital
jacket patterns in S, M, and L sizes were ultimately
developed. The digital patterns were simulated on the
3D virtual models of the 12 participants using CLO 3D,

Table 1. Age and body measurement information of participants

Chest Waist Hip

Size Participant Height Weight circumference circumference circumference
group ID no. Age (cm) (kg) BMI (cm) (cm) (cm)

S ID1 22 174 57 18.83 82.38 63.51 87.52

(normal)
ID2 30 178 70 22.09 87.24 73.07 94.42
(normal)
ID3 26 171 54 18.47 80.58 63.37 85.45
(mild thinness)
ID4 31 184 63 18.61 79.56 70.23 90.68
(normal)
M ID5 23 178 74 23.36 97.70 81.13 96.64
(normal)
ID6 25 176 80 25.83 95.40 82.87 99.88
(overweight)
ID7 32 188 91 25.75 100.41 0.11 104.60
(overweight)
ID8 30 172 64 21.63 91.05 71.20 90.63
(normal)
L ID9 20 177 109 34.79 106.39 103.96 115.80
(obese)
ID10 30 180 91 28.09 105.20 89.92 104.97
(overweight)
ID11 31 168 83 29.41 104.62 90.26 98.21
(overweight)
ID12 30 175 90 29.39 108.70 91.22 102.69
(overweight)
6 Textile Research Journal 0(00)
an apparel virtual try-on system. Properties of real
wool fabric from the database of the 3D virtual try-
on system were selected to ensure a realistic fabric
drape. Trimmings such as shoulder pads were not
included in virtual or real jackets. On average, it took
about one hour to simulate the virtual jacket on an
individual body.
The S-size jacket pattern was simulated on the four
participants in the S-size group, the M-size pattern for
the M-size group, and the L-size pattern for the L-size
group. Front, side, and back images of the jacket simu-
lation on each of the 12 virtual models were saved.
These images were included in the fit evaluation
questionnaire.
Garment fit can be evaluated by experts and/or by
wearers.45 The great benefit of mass customization is
customer involvement which can result in greater cus-
tomer satisfaction. Therefore, participants, not expert
judges, evaluated the jacket fit.46 Each of the partici-
pants evaluated the fit of the virtual jacket on their
virtual models through email communication using a
questionnaire. Participants evaluated the fit of the vir-
tual jacket at 16 critical jacket locations using a five-
point scale (1 ¼ extremely poor fit, 2 ¼ poor fit,
3 ¼ average fit, 4 ¼ good fit, 5 ¼ excellent fit) and
wrote comments about the areas with bad fit. They
additionally requested alteration on the locations
where they were not satisfied with the fit. The patterns
of the virtual jacket were altered according to their
requests by the researchers. Front, side, and back
images of their revised virtual jacket were emailed to
the participants with the evaluation questionnaire.
Participants evaluated the revised virtual jacket fit
and made another request for alteration if they
remained unsatisfied. Participants were able to request
jacket alterations until they were completely satisfied
with the virtual jacket fit. This procedure was designed
to save time and effort for companies, which otherwise
would have to make multiple physical samples, and for
customers having to try on these samples.
The patterns of the 12 final virtual jackets were
plotted out, then used to produce real jackets. Real
jackets were made for the 12 participants using
100% wool fabric at a professional menswear jacket
factory; these jackets were not lined and did not have
pockets.
Each participant came to the laboratory for evalua-
tion of the real jacket. Participants wore a white t-shirt
and the jacket as customized to their fit request. Each
participant evaluated the fit of his customized jacket
and compared the real and virtual jackets.
Participants again evaluated the jacket fits at 16 critical
jacket locations using a five-point scale (1 ¼ extremely
poor fit, 2 ¼ poor fit, 3 ¼ average fit, 4 ¼ good fit,
5 ¼ excellent fit) and their satisfaction levels using a
five-point scale (1 ¼ strongly dissatisfied,
2 ¼ dissatisfied, 3 ¼ neutral, 4 ¼ satisfied, 5 ¼ strongly
satisfied). The comparison between the real and virtual
jackets was also rated using a five-point scale
(1 ¼ different, 2 ¼ somewhat different, 3 ¼ neutral,
4 ¼ somewhat similar, 5 ¼ similar). The participants
were then interviewed regarding the reasons for their
evaluations. These interviews were then transcribed.
Data analysis procedure
The first virtual jacket fit and the final virtual jacket fit
were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test in
order to analyze whether improvements were made on
virtual jacket fit according to the participants’ requests.
Fit evaluations by group were analyzed using descrip-
tive statistics. Fit evaluations on the final virtual jacket
and the real jacket score were compared using a
Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Participants’ comparisons
between virtual jacket fit and real jacket fit scores
were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Each partici-
pant’s evaluation of the fit of a ready-to-wear jacket he
would normally find from shopping was compared with
his evaluation of fit of the real customized jacket using
a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Short answer data col-
lected during the mass customization step and interview
data while trying on the real customized jacket were
analyzed by content analysis.
Results and discussion
Comparison between first virtual jacket fit and final
virtual jacket fit
The means of first virtual jacket fit and the final virtual
jacket fit were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank
test in order to analyze whether improvements were
made on virtual jacket fit according to the participants’
requests. In 13 items, the mean of final virtual jacket
fit was significantly higher than the mean of first
virtual jacket fit (Table 2). The means of final virtual
jacket fit were 4.00 or higher in all items, except for
the back width, which was 3.92. As for the three
items that did not show significant differences,
namely shoulder width, shoulder angle, and waist cir-
cumference, the means of final virtual jacket fit were
still higher than the means of first virtual jacket fit,
with the means of final virtual jacket fit being 4.00
or higher.
The results indicate that the participants’ requests
for alterations were well applied to the virtual jacket,
such that the fit evaluation for the final virtual jacket
was improved from that for the first virtual jacket. This
was an expected result since participants could request
changes to virtual fit until they were satisfied.
Sohn et al. 7

Table 2. Participants’ evaluation of fit of first virtual jacket and Table 3. Number of requests for alteration of virtual jacket fit
final virtual jacket
Number of Size
First virtual Final virtual alteration Total
jacket jacket requests S n (%) M n (%) L n (%) n (%)
Fit category mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) Wilcoxon Z
One 2 (33.3) 3 (50.0) 1 (16.7) 6 (50.0)
Overall jacket 3.08 (1.17) 4.00 (0.43) 2.156* Two 2 (33.3) 1 (16.7) 3 (50.0) 6 (50.0)
Jacket length 3.50 (0.80) 4.08 (0.67) 2.121* Total 4 (33.3) 4 (33.3) 4 (33.3) 12 (100.0)
Shoulder width 3.33 (1.37) 4.17 (0.72) 1.89
Shoulder angle 3.67 (0.78) 4.08 (0.79) 1.518
Neck circumference 3.50 (1.00) 4.25 (0.62) 2.041* S-size group. In the S-size group, two participants (par-
Chest circumference 3.17 (0.94) 4.25 (0.62) 2.392* ticipants nos. 1 and 2) made requests once while two
Waist circumference 3.33 (0.99) 4.08 (0.67) 1.913 participants (nos. 3 and 4) made requests twice
Back width 3.17 (1.03) 3.92 (0.67) 1.983*
(Table 4). For the S-size group, there were several
requests related to sleeve fit. Participant no.1
Hem width 3.33 (0.89) 4.08 (0.79) 2.310*
requested to have the sleeve length shorter by 1 to
Sleeve width 3.08 (0.10) 4.08 (0.79) 2.414*
2 cm. He was satisfied with the other aspects of the
Sleeve length 2.83 (1.19) 4.17 (0.72) 2.263* first virtual jacket. Participant no. 2 found the
Upper arm 3.25 (1.14) 4.08 (0.79) 2.041* neck circumference of the first virtual jacket to be
circumference somewhat wide.
Collar length 3.17 (0.72) 4.00 (0.85) 2.428* One of the participants (no. 3) who made requests
Collar width 3.33 (0.78) 4.08 (0.79) 2.165* twice was the shortest in height (171 cm) and lightest in
Front armhole 3.33 (0.78) 4.25 (0.87) 2.209* weight (54 kg) among the four in the S-size group, and
Back armhole 3.25 (0.87) 4.17 (0.94) 2.050* the other participant (participant no. 4) who made
requests twice was the tallest (184 cm). The shortest
Notes: Rating: 1 ¼ extremely poor fit, 2 ¼ poor fit, 3 ¼ average fit,
4 ¼ good fit, 5 ¼ excellent fit participant had the most requests for changes to the
*p<0.05 virtual jacket fit. This participant found the overall
jacket fit to be larger than his preference. He requested
the shoulder width, neck circumference, chest circum-
ference, and back width all to be smaller. He also
Alteration requests by group requested the sleeve length to be shorter and the
In all three groups, several comments were made about sleeve width to be narrower. In the second request, he
alterations related to sleeve length (eight comments), asked for the jacket length to be slightly shorter and the
sleeve width (six comments), chest circumference (six sleeve width to be still narrower. The tallest participant
comments), and waist circumference (six comments). had the next-most requests for changes. He wanted the
This suggests that those were the areas which needed jacket length to be slightly shorter, the shoulder width
fit improvements in the virtual jackets, and that many to be slightly narrower, and the shoulder to be less
male consumers pay special attention to these fit areas. angled. He also requested the lapel length to be shorter
The specific requests for fit alterations were examined and the lapel and collar widths to be narrower. In gen-
by group. eral, participants in the S group made requests to make
the virtual jacket smaller and shorter in the various fit
Number of requests. Participants were allowed to evaluation areas.
make as many requests as possible to change the
virtual jacket fit until they were completely satisfied. M-size group. In the M-size group, three participants
A minimum of one request and a maximum of (nos. 6, 7, and 8) made requests once and one partici-
two requests were made. More specifically, two partici- pant made requests twice (participant no. 5). All four
pants in the S group, three in the M group, and one in participants in the M-size group requested the sleeve
the L group each made one request, and two partici- width to be narrower (Table 5). Two participants
pants in the S group, one in the M group, and three (nos. 5 and 7) requested the waist circumference to be
in the L group each made two requests (Table 3). larger. Participant no. 5, who was 178 cm in height,
Hence the results show that during the virtual jacket made the most fit alteration requests. First, he wanted
evaluation process, the L-size group made more jacket the chest circumference to be narrower while he wanted
alteration requests than the other size groups. Jacket fit the waist circumference to be larger. As for the sleeve,
requests were examined in detail by size group, as he wanted the sleeve width to be smaller and the length
follows. to be longer. When the second virtual jacket was
8 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 4. Comments on virtual jacket and mass customized (real) jacket: S group

Front Side Back

Participant 1
1st virtual jacket

Request: Shorten the sleeve length slightly.

Pattern adjustment: Sleeve length (–2 cm).
2nd virtual jacket –
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Chest circumference is slightly small. Other areas fit well.
Comparison Almost everything looks similar. Chest circumference slightly smaller than the virtual jacket.

Participant 2
1st virtual jacket

Request: Make the neck circumference smaller.

Pattern adjustment: Neck circumference (–2 cm).
(continued)
Sohn et al. 9

Table 4. Continued

Front Side Back

2nd virtual jacket –

Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Overall the real jacket is slightly small. Chest circumference needs more ease amount. Back width is very
tight and sleeve length is short.
Comparison Jacket length, sleeve circumference, and hem width look the same.
Shoulder width, chest circumference, waist circumference, and back width tighter than the virtual jacket.
Sleeve length shorter than the virtual jacket.

Participant 3
1st virtual jacket

Request: Make the shoulder width narrower, back width narrower, neck circumference smaller, chest
circumference smaller, sleeve length shorter, sleeve width narrower, and upper arm circumference
narrower.
Pattern adjustment: Shoulder width (–1 cm), neck circumference (–2 cm), chest circumference (–3 cm),
sleeve length (–4 cm), sleeve width (–4 cm).
2nd virtual jacket

Request: Slightly shorten the overall jacket length. Make the sleeve width smaller.
Pattern adjustment: Jacket length (–2 cm), sleeve width (–1 cm)
(continued)
10 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 4. Continued

Front Side Back

Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Shoulder is slightly tighter than what I expected from virtual jacket, and I like the tighter fit better.
Back width is slightly tight and sleeve length is short.
Comparison Shoulder width and waist circumference feels slightly tighter than what is shown on virtual jacket. Sleeve
length shorter than the virtual jacket. Other areas look the same.

Participant 4
1st virtual jacket

Request: Make the jacket length shorter, shoulder width narrower, collar lapel length shorter and collar
width narrower.
Pattern adjustment: Shoulder width (–1 cm), jacket length (–1 cm), lapel width (–1.5 cm), collar width
(–1.5 cm).
2nd virtual jacket

Request: Make the back armhole close to the body.

Pattern adjustment: Under armhole point raised by 1 cm
(continued)
Sohn et al. 11

Table 4. Continued

Front Side Back

Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Chest circumference and back width are tighter than what I expected. Sleeve length is short.
Comparison Overall looks similar. Shoulder width feels tight when moving compared with what was shown from the
virtual jacket. Chest circumference of the real jacket feels tight when buttoned.
Sleeve length of the virtual jacket is slightly shorter than the real jacket.
I like the collar width of the real jacket, but it looks narrower than the virtual jacket.

produced, he requested the sleeve length to be shorter
and the collar and lapel widths to be slightly wider.
Participant no. 6, at 176 cm in height, requested the
sleeve width to be slightly narrower and the collar and
lapel widths to be narrower. He was satisfied with the
other aspects of the virtual jacket fit. Participant no. 8,
who was the shortest among the M group at 172 cm
height, requested the jacket length to be shorter and
the bottom hem width to be narrower. As for the
sleeve, he wanted the sleeve width to be narrower and
the length to be shorter. Participant no. 7, who was the
tallest among the M group at 188 cm height, found the
waist to be too tight and requested the waist circumfer-
ence to be larger. He also wanted the sleeve width to be
narrower.
Participants made various requests regarding differ-
ent fit evaluation areas. There was no consistency in the
requests made by the four participants in the M group,
as some wanted certain areas to be shorter or narrower
while others wanted the same areas to be longer or
wider.
L-size group. In the L-size group, one participant (no.
12) made requests once and three participants made
requests twice (nos. 9, 10, and 11). Their specific
needs for alteration varied between them (Table 6).
The shortest and lightest participant in the L-size
group, who was 168 cm in height and 83 kg in weight
(participant no. 11), was most dissatisfied with the vir-
tual jacket fit, making many alteration requests com-
pared with the other participants. With the first virtual
jacket, he evaluated the overall fit, shoulder width, and
sleeve length to be of extremely poor fit. He evaluated
the neck circumference, chest circumference, waist cir-
cumference, back width, hem width, upper arm circum-
ference, and front and back sleeve armhole to be
poor fit. He requested these jacket areas to be smaller
and for the armhole to have less wrinkles. He found all
areas except for jacket length, collar width, and collar
length to be larger than his preference. With the second
virtual jacket, he wanted the waist area to be slightly
more defined and the extra fabric at the back width
area to be shifted to the front of the jacket. He also
wanted the sleeve length to be additionally shorter.
As the weight and height of the participant were the
smallest within the L-size group, the L-size virtual
jacket may have been too large for him from the begin-
ning as compared with other participants in the
same group.
Participant no. 12, who was 175 cm in height, made
alteration requests just once. With the first virtual
jacket, he requested the overall jacket length and
sleeve length to be shorter at the wrist. He wanted the
shoulder width and back width to be narrower. He
requested the chest circumference to be smaller while
he wanted the waist circumference to be larger. He was
12 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 5. Comments on virtual jacket and mass customized (real) jacket: M group

Front Side Back

Participant 5
1st virtual jacket

Make chest circumference smaller, waist circumference larger, sleeve length longer, and sleeve width smaller.
Pattern adjustment: Chest circumference (–2 cm), waist circumference (+2.5 cm), sleeve length (+2 cm),
sleeve width (–2 cm)
2nd virtual jacket

Make the sleeve length shorter and lapel width wider.

Pattern adjustment: Sleeve length (–3 cm), lapel width (+1 cm)
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Sleeve length is slightly short. Lapel length is slightly long
Comparison Collar width slightly narrow in real jacket and I could not tell the distance between the jacket and neck with
the virtual jacket. With virtual jacket, left and right shoulder angles looked different, but with real jacket
they look fine. Sleeve length is slightly shorter. Other areas look similar.

Participant 6
1st virtual jacket

(continued)
Sohn et al. 13

Table 5. Continued

Front Side Back

Make sleeve width narrower and collar width narrower.

Pattern adjustment: Lapel width (–1.5 cm), collar width (–1.5 cm)
2nd virtual jacket –
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Shoulder width and chest circumference are too tight. Back width is slightly tight. Sleeve length is slightly
short.
Comparison Overall, real jacket is slightly tighter than the virtual jacket. Shoulder width is too close to the body so it is
uncomfortable. Chest circumference is tight when moving. Back width and waist circumference is slightly
tighter and neck circumference is slightly narrow. Sleeve length is slightly shorter. Jacket length, hem
width and sleeve width is perfect.

Participant 7
1st virtual jacket

Make the waist circumference larger and sleeve width narrower.

Pattern adjustment: Waist circumference (+6 cm), hem circumference (+6 cm)
2nd virtual jacket –
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

(continued)
14 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 5. Continued

Front Side Back

Real jacket evaluation Sleeve length is too short. Shoulder width and chest circumference are too tight. Back width is slightly tight.
Comparison Chest circumference and back width is tighter than the virtual jacket. Sleeve length is quite shorter. Other
areas look the same.

Participant 8
1st virtual jacket

Make the jacket length shorter, sleeve length shorter, sleeve width narrower, and hem width narrower.
Pattern Adjustment: Sleeve length (–5 cm), sleeve width (–2 cm), hem circumference (–5 cm), jacket length
(–2 cm)
2nd virtual jacket –
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Neck circumference is slightly wide. Back width is slightly tight.
Comparison Overall, look the same. Real jacket neck circumference was slightly wider. Waist circumference and back
width was tighter than the virtual jacket. Other areas look the same.

satisfied with the second virtual jacket and made no
further requests.
Participant no. 9 was 177 cm in height and weighed
109 kg and was the only participant with body-mass
index (BMI) in the obese range. The build of the
human body involves bone, muscle, and fat.
However, BMI is a measure based only on weight
and height.47 Therefore, his body measurement was
also checked. He had the second largest chest circum-
ference and the largest waist circumference. As he had
large waist and abdomen areas, he required the jacket
size to be larger around the waist and hem areas. He
evaluated the fit of the waist circumference, back width,
hem width, and collar length as poor fit. He made
requests specifically regarding the waist circumference
to be larger and the collar (lapel) length to be longer.
The overall jacket pattern around the waist and hem
was altered to become larger and the lapel length was
revised to become longer. With the second virtual
jacket, he made an additional request on the collar,
which he felt needed to be longer.
The tallest participant in the L-size group was
180 cm in height (participant no. 10). He evaluated
that there was extra fullness at the side close to the
waist and armhole, and that the chest area needed
size adjustments. He also wanted the sleeve length
Sohn et al. 15

Table 6. Comments on virtual jacket and mass customized (real) jacket: L group

Front Side Back

Participant 9
1st virtual jacket

Make the waist circumference larger and collar lapel length longer.
Pattern adjustment: Shoulder width (–1 cm), waist circumference (+13 cm), hem circumference (+18 cm)
2nd virtual jacket

Make the collar lapel length longer.

Pattern adjustment: Lapel length (+2 cm)
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Chest width and back width is uncomfortable because it is tight. I prefer the collar lapel to be longer.
Comparison Overall, look the same. Shoulder width and back area in real jacket is tighter than the virtual jacket. Collar
lapel length in real jacket is shorter than the virtual jacket. Other areas look the same.

Participant 10
1st virtual jacket

(continued)
16 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 6. Continued

Front Side Back

Make the sleeve length shorter. The chest area needs size adjustments as it looks wrinkly.
Pattern Adjustment: Chest circumference (–8 cm), Sleeve length (–2 cm)
2nd virtual jacket

Make the side seam of chest and waist area to have less wrinkles. Make the front and back armhole to have
less wrinkles.
Pattern adjustment: Lowered the armhole point by 1 cm
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Shoulder width, back width, chest circumference, and waist circumference are slightly tight. Sleeve length is
slightly short.
Comparison Jacket length and sleeve length in real jacket are a little bit shorter. Chest circumference, back width and
waist circumference in real jacket are tighter. Waist width, bottom hem width, and upper arm circum-
ference look the same.

Participant 11
1st virtual jacket

Make the shoulder width narrower, neck circumference smaller, chest circumference smaller, waist cir-
cumference smaller, back width smaller, hem width narrower, sleeve length shorter, upper arm circum-
ference smaller and sleeve width smaller. Make the front and back armhole to be less wrinkly.
Pattern adjustment: Shoulder width (–2.5 cm), neck circumference (–2 cm), chest circumference (–6 cm),
waist circumference (–7 cm), sleeve length (–6 cm)
(continued)
Sohn et al. 17

Table 6. Continued

Front Side Back

2nd virtual jacket

Make the waist area to be a little more defined. Shorten the sleeve length slightly. Make the back width to be
slightly smaller.
Pattern adjustment: Waist circumference (–2 cm), hem circumference (–2 cm)
Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation As the arm position of scanning is unusual position, the real jacket shoulder angle seems not well fitting.
Chest circumference and back width are slightly small. Sleeve length is too short.
Comparison Overall, look the same. There were slight differences between the real and 3D due to the posture difference
such as jacket length, waist circumference and shoulder angle. Shoulder width look the same. Chest
circumference and back width in real jacket were slightly tighter. Bottom hem width and sleeve width
look the same. Sleeve length in real jacket is shorter.

Participant 12
1st virtual jacket

Make jacket length shorter to the mid-hip, shoulder width narrower, chest circumference smaller, waist
circumference larger, back width smaller, and sleeve length shorter to the wrist.
Pattern Adjustment: Shoulder width (–1.5 cm), chest circumference (–4 cm), waist circumference (+3 cm),
hem circumference (+3 cm), jacket length (–5 cm), sleeve length (–4 cm)
(continued)
18 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 6. Continued

Front Side Back

2nd virtual jacket –

Final virtual jacket

Real jacket

Real jacket evaluation Chest circumference and back width are slightly small. Sleeve length is too short. Upper arm circumference
is slightly small.
Comparison Overall, the real jacket is smaller than the virtual jacket. Especially shoulder width, sleeve width, and upper
arm circumference in the real jacket is smaller. Sleeve length in the real jacket is shorter. Jacket length,
neck circumference, chest circumference, waist circumference, back width, collar width and collar length
look the same.

to be shorter. With the second virtual jacket, he
wanted the side seam of the chest and waist area
and the armhole area to have fewer wrinkles and
be less bumpy.
Fit evaluation on real jacket by group
The means of the scores for fit of the real jackets were
more than 3.00 (average fit) in all areas except for the
back width (mean ¼ 2.92) and sleeve length
(mean ¼ 2.83). The items with means more than 4.00
(good fit) were collar width (4.50), front arm hole
(4.42), back arm hole (4.25), collar length (4.25),
sleeve width (4.25), jacket length (4.25), and neck cir-
cumference (4.00). Upper arm circumference (3.92),
shoulder angle (3.92), and waist circumference (3.75)
also received evaluations close to good fit. Fit evalua-
tions of the real jacket were compared by the three
groups in order to investigate if any differences existed
between the groups (Table 7). Overall, most fit evalua-
tions were rated as 3.00 or higher, which indicates that
the fit of the jackets was better than average fit.
For the S-size group, back width (2.50) and sleeve
length (2.50) were rated as less than 3.00. The S-size
group had eight items rated higher than 4.00, which
were: jacket length, neck circumference, hem width,
sleeve width, collar length, collar width, front armhole,
and back armhole. The M-size group rated all of the fit
evaluation items at 3.00 or higher. In particular, the M-
size group had 12 out of 16 items rated higher than
4.00: overall jacket, jacket length, shoulder angle, neck
circumference, waist circumference, hem width, sleeve
width, upper arm circumference, collar length, collar
width, front armhole, and back armhole. For the L-
size group, only chest circumference (2.50), back width
(2.75), and overall jacket (2.75) were rated as less than
3.00. The L-size group had seven items rated higher than
4.00: jacket length, neck circumference, hem width,
sleeve width, collar width, front armhole, and back arm-
hole. The results suggest that it is more difficult to create
mass customized jackets for large and small size groups
than for medium sized customers.
Overall results demonstrate that male consumers
who wear larger sizes have more issues with fit and
are in need of better fitting jackets. The study by
Ashdown and Dunne37 also found that participants
with hard-to-fit bodies were keener on customized
apparel after experiencing the making of customized
outerwear jacket for them using 3D body scanning
and automated patternmaking software. Prior studies
Sohn et al. 19

Table 7. Participants’ evaluations of mass customized (real) jacket by group

Small Medium Large Total

Fit category mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.)

Overall jacket 3.50 (1.00) 4.00 (0.82) 2.75 (1.26) 3.42 (1.08)
Jacket length 4.25 (0.50) 4.25 (0.50) 4.25 (0.50) 4.25 (0.45)
Shoulder width 3.50 (0.58) 3.75 (0.96) 3.50 (1.00) 3.58 (0.79)
Shoulder angle 3.75 (0.50) 4.50 (0.58) 3.50 (1.00) 3.92 (0.79)
Neck circumference 4.00 (0.00) 4.00 (0.82) 4.00 (0.82) 4.00 (0.60)
Chest circumference 3.00 (1.41) 3.50 (1.29) 2.50 (1.00) 3.00 (1.21)
Waist circumference 3.50 (1.29) 4.50 (0.58) 3.25 (0.96) 3.75 (1.06)
Back width 2.50 (1.29) 3.50 (0.58) 2.75 (0.50) 2.92 (0.90)
Hem width 4.00 (0.82) 4.50 (0.58) 4.00 (0.82) 4.17 (0.72)
Sleeve width 4.25 (0.50) 4.25 (0.50) 4.25 (0.50) 4.25 (0.45)
Sleeve length 2.50 (1.00) 3.00 (1.83) 3.00 (0.82) 2.83 (1.19)
Upper arm circumference 3.75 (0.50) 4.50 (0.58) 3.50 (1.73) 3.92 (1.08)
Collar length 4.50 (1.00) 4.50 (1.00) 3.75 (1.89) 4.25 (1.29)
Collar width 4.25 (0.96) 4.75 (0.50) 4.50 (0.58) 4.50 (0.67)
Front armhole 4.75 (0.50) 4.50 (0.58) 4.00 (0.82) 4.42 (0.67)
Back armhole 4.75 (0.50) 4.50 (0.58) 4.00 (0.82) 4.42 (0.67)
Note: Rating: 1 ¼ extremely poor fit, 2 ¼ poor fit, 3 ¼ average fit, 4 ¼ good fit, 5 ¼ excellent fit.

have indicated that consumers who are not in average
height and weight categories are more dissatisfied with
ready-to-wear apparel.
The fit evaluation comments on the real jackets indi-
cated that, in general, sleeve length was slightly short
and back width and chest circumference were slightly
tight (Tables 4, 5, and 6); 10 participants made such
comments on back width, nine participants on chest
circumference, and eight participants on sleeve length.
For example, participant no. 4 in the S group said,
‘‘Chest circumference and back width are tighter than
what I expected. Sleeve length is short.’’, and partici-
pant no. 6 in the M group said, ‘‘Shoulder width and
chest circumference are too tight. Back width is slightly
tight. Sleeve length is slightly short.’’ Participant no. 12
in the L-size group said, ‘‘Chest circumference and back
width are slightly small.’’ Aside from those areas, par-
ticipants were generally satisfied with the fit of other
areas of the real jacket.
Comparison between virtual jacket fit and real
jacket fit
The fits of the final virtual jackets and the fits of the real
jackets were compared in order to examine the effec-
tiveness of the 3D technology for mass customization.
The mean of final virtual jacket fit evaluation and the
mean of real jacket fit evaluation were compared using
a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Significant differences
were found in chest circumference (real: 3.00 vs. virtual:
4.25), back width (real: 2.92 vs. virtual: 3.92), and sleeve
length (real: 2.83 vs. virtual: 4.17), with all of the means
being higher for the virtual jacket (Table 8). The results
indicate that the fit of the real jacket was not as good as
participants expected from the virtual jacket fit in
those areas.
Participants examined the real jackets on their
bodies together with the final virtual jackets on their
3D models, and compared the fit of each. Descriptive
statistics show that the means of all 16 fit items of 12
participants were 4.06, indicating that the fit compari-
son was ‘‘somewhat same’’ between the final virtual
jacket and the real jacket. All of the fit items except
for the sleeve length received a mean of more than
3.00 (neutral); sleeve length had the lowest mean with
2.92 (Table 9). The means of overall jacket (3.58), chest
circumference (3.58), and back width (3.50) were close
to 3.50. These results coincide with those from the
Wilcoxon signed-rank test in Table 8 indicating that
the sleeve length, chest circumference, and back width
area of the virtual jacket were not as accurately
reflected by the fit of the real, mass customized jacket.
The means of shoulder width (3.92), neck circumfer-
ence (4.00), and waist circumference (3.83) were all
close to 4.00 (somewhat similar). The other fit items
including jacket length (4.42), shoulder angle (4.42),
hem width (4.33), sleeve width (4.50), upper arm cir-
cumference (4.33), collar length (4.25), collar width
20 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 8. Participants’ evaluation of fit of final virtual jacket and Table 9. Participants’ comparison between virtual jacket fit and
mass customized (real) jacket mass customized (real) jacket fit

Last virtual Fit category Mean (S.D.)

jacket Real jacket
Fit category mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) Wilcoxon Z Overall jacket 3.58 (1.24)
Jacket length 4.42 (0.79)
Overall jacket 4.00 (0.43) 3.42 (1.08) 1.611 Shoulder width 3.92 (1.00)
Jacket length 4.08 (0.67) 4.25 (0.45) 1.000 Shoulder angle 4.42 (0.90)
Shoulder width 4.17 (0.72) 3.58 (0.79) 1.461 Neck circumference 4.00 (1.04)
Shoulder angle 4.08 (0.79) 3.92 (0.79) 0.351 Chest circumference 3.58 (1.24)
Neck circumference 4.25 (0.62) 4.00 (0.60) 1.732 Waist circumference 3.83 (0.94)
Chest circumference 4.25 (0.62) 3.00 (1.21) 2.435* Back width 3.50 (1.09)
Waist circumference 4.08 (0.67) 3.75 (1.06) 0.863 Hem width 4.33 (0.79)
Back width 3.92 (0.67) 2.92 (0.90) 2.209* Sleeve width 4.50 (0.67)
Hem width 4.08 (0.79) 4.17 (0.72) 0.351 Sleeve length 2.92 (1.38)
Sleeve width 4.08 (0.79) 4.25 (0.45) 0.707 Upper arm circumference 4.33 (0.99)
Sleeve length 4.17 (0.72) 2.83 (1.19) 2.434* Collar length 4.25 (0.87)
Upper arm 4.08 (0.79) 3.92 (1.08) 0.108 Collar width 4.25 (1.06)
circumference
Front armhole 4.58 (0.67)
Collar length 4.00 (0.85) 4.25 (1.29) 0.712
Back armhole 4.50 (0.67)
Collar width 4.08 (0.79) 4.50 (0.67) 1.890
Front armhole 4.25 (0.87) 4.42 (0.67) 0.587 Notes: Rating: 1 ¼ different, 2 ¼ somewhat different, 3 ¼ neutral,
4 ¼ somewhat same, 5 ¼ same.
Back armhole 4.17 (0.94) 4.42 (0.67) 0.812
Notes: Rating: 1 ¼ extremely poor fit, 2 ¼ poor fit, 3 ¼ average fit,
4 ¼ good fit, 5 ¼ excellent fit. jacket is tighter than the virtual jacket. Collar lapel
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. length in real jacket is shorter than the virtual jacket.
Other areas look the same.’’ (Table 6).
Differences between the virtual garment and the
(4.25), front armhole (4.58), and back armhole (4.50) actual garment have been observed and discussed in
were evaluated with means of more than 4.00. other studies. Baytar and Ashdown26 discussed differ-
Participants’ comments from the interview on the ences between actual and virtual dresses around the
comparison between the real jacket and virtual waist area. Kim and LaBat48 discussed differences
jacket supported the results of the statistical analysis. between actual pants and virtual pants in terms of
Table 10 shows the results of content analysis of these size and wrinkles. Students in Baytar’s49 study also
interviews. Nine out of 12 participants commented that found that folds and wrinkles of the virtual garment
the sleeve length of the real jacket was shorter than that needed improvements to look more realistic.
of the virtual jacket. Eight participants found the back
width and chest circumference of the real jacket to be Comparison between ready-to-wear jacket fit and
tighter than those of the virtual jacket. The shoulder
width and waist circumference of the real jacket were
mass customized jacket fit
evaluated to be tighter than the virtual jacket by five Participants’ evaluation of the fit of ready-to-wear
participants and four participants, respectively. In sum- (RTW) jackets they would normally find from shop-
mary, the areas that were remarked on as different by ping were compared with their evaluations of the real
many participants were the sleeve length, back width, jackets produced in the current study in order to find
and chest circumference, which coincides with the sta- whether the mass customization process can help con-
tistical results shown in Tables 8 and 9. For example, sumers find a better fitting jacket.
participant no. 4 in the S group said, ‘‘Almost every- As compared with the fit of the RTW jackets they
thing looks similar. Chest circumference slightly smaller typically purchase, the participants’ evaluation of the fit
than the virtual jacket.’’ (Table 4). Participant no. 7 in of jackets from the current study was better for all 16 fit
the M group said, ‘‘Chest circumference and back items (Table 11). There were significant differences in
width is tighter than the virtual jacket. Sleeve length nine items between the mean of RTW jacket fit and
is quite shorter. Other areas look the same.’’ (Table mean of the mass customized jacket fit. The mass cus-
5). Participant no. 9 in the L group said, ‘‘Overall, tomized jacket fit was significantly better in jacket
look the same. Shoulder width and back area in real length, shoulder angle, neck circumference, hem
 Sohn et al.

Table 10. Participants’ comments on the comparison between the real jacket and virtual jacket

S group M group L group

Size group
Participant ID no. ID1 ID2 ID3 ID4 ID5 ID6 ID7 ID8 ID9 ID10 ID11 ID12

Overall jacket Real j.

tighter
Jacket length Real j.
shorter
Shoulder width Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j.
tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter
Shoulder angle Real j. Real j. not
look better fitting well
Neck circumference Real j. Real j.
narrower wider
Chest circumference Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j.
tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter
Waist circumference Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j.
tighter tighter tighter tighter
Back width Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j.
tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter tighter
Hem width
Sleeve width
Sleeve length Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j. Real j.
shorter shorter shorter shorter shorter shorter shorter shorter shorter
Upper arm circumference Real j.
tighter
Collar length Real j.
shorter
Collar width Real j. Real j.
narrower narrower
Front armhole
Back armhole
Note: Real j. ¼ real jacket.
21
22 Textile Research Journal 0(00)

Table 11. Participants’ evaluation of fit of ready-to-wear customizing apparel fit. However, few studies have
(RTW) jacket and mass customized jacket tested apparel mass customization with a fit customiza-
tion scenario using advanced 3D technology with the
Mass
customized interactive involvement of potential male consumers.
RTW jacket jacket The purpose of this study was to explore the potential
Fit category mean (S.D.) mean (S.D.) Wilcoxon Z for applying mass customization with fit and size issues
using 3D technology in men’s jacket development.
Overall jacket 3.08 (0.90) 3.42 (1.08) 1.027 Using four research questions, the study examined
Jacket length 3.00 (0.74) 4.25 (0.45) 2.762** whether the fit of the final virtual jacket had been
Shoulder width 2.92 (0.79) 3.58 (0.79) 1.903 improved compared with the first virtual jacket accord-
Shoulder angle 3.08 (1.00) 3.92 (0.79) 2.640** ing to the participants’ requests for alterations, exam-
Neck circumference 3.17 (1.19) 4.00 (0.60) 2.157* ined their fit mass customization requests when
Chest circumference 2.83 (1.40) 3.00 (1.21) 0.426 evaluating the virtual jackets, compared the final vir-
Waist circumference 2.75 (0.87) 3.75 (1.06) 1.964 tual jacket fit with the mass customized (real) jacket fit,
Back width 2.58 (0.79) 2.92 (0.90) 1.265 and compared the mass customized (real) jacket fit with
Hem width 3.25 (0.87) 4.17 (0.72) 2.271*
RTW jacket fit.
First, the fit evaluation for the final virtual jacket
Sleeve width 3.33 (0.99) 4.25 (0.45) 2.157*
was improved from the first virtual jacket, with
Sleeve length 2.67 (1.23) 2.83 (1.19) 0.513
almost all fit items of the virtual jacket being rated as
Upper arm 2.92 (1.08) 3.92 (1.08) 2.080* good; the results suggest that the participants’
circumference
requests for alterations to customize the jackets after
Collar length 3.50 (0.67) 4.25 (1.29) 1.560 viewing 3D virtual images were well applied to the
Collar width 3.50 (0.91) 4.50 (0.67) 2.101* virtual jackets.
Front armhole 3.25 (0.87) 4.42 (0.67) 2.565* Second, during the virtual jacket evaluation process,
Back armhole 3.25 (0.87) 4.42 (0.67) 2.565* the participants made various requests to change the fit
Notes: Rating: 1 ¼ extremely poor fit, 2 ¼ poor fit, 3 ¼ average fit,
of their virtual jacket. Regardless of the group, several
4 ¼ good fit, 5 ¼ excellent fit. fit alteration comments were found to be related to
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01. sleeve length, sleeve width, chest circumference, and
waist circumference based on their virtual jacket fit.
width, sleeve width, upper arm circumference, collar When comparing between the groups, the L-size
width, front arm hole, and back arm hole, which indi- group had more alteration requests for their virtual
cates that the mass customized jacket fit was particu- jackets than the M-size and S-size groups.
larly better in these fit areas than the RTW jacket fit. Third, the study shows the improvements needed
Overall, the results show that the jackets mass custo- before the technology can be used for apparel mass
mized to the wearers’ requirements fit better on the customization. When the final virtual jacket fit and
participants’ bodies than the RTW jackets that they the mass customized jacket fit were compared, the
typically purchase when shopping. chest circumference, back width, and sleeve length of
the virtual jacket tended to be slightly tighter or shorter
than those of the real jacket.
Conclusion Fourth, the study suggests that the outcome of
The current study explored the potential for apparel making a jacket from the mass customization process
mass customization with fit and size issues using 3D was satisfactory to potential male consumers, as the
body scanning and 3D virtual simulation technology. participants’ evaluation of the jacket produced from
Among the five points of apparel mass customization the mass customization scenario was better than that
developed by Senanayake and Little,18 the fit customi- of a RTW jacket which would they normally purchase.
zation point was tested in this study. The steps of fit When participants’ evaluations on the fit of RTW jack-
mass customization were mapped out based on the ets and the jackets from this study were compared, they
models dealing with fit and size issues developed by showed the highest fit satisfaction for the latter. These
Anderson-Connell et al.,3 Satam et al.,1 and Ashdown results coincide with a previous study by Ashdown and
and Loker.16 By applying these models, this study Dunne37 showing that the majority of participants pre-
developed a systematic approach for testing apparel ferred the fit of the study jacket – customized to them
fit mass customization. using apparel technology – to the fit of RTW jackets.
Many research studies have been conducted on the These findings show that mass customization using 3D
topic of apparel mass customization and have discussed body scanning and a 3D virtual try-on system will be a
the importance of using 3D technology for mass viable approach to make well-fitting clothes efficiently,
Sohn et al.
particularly for men’s tailored suits, which has hardly
ever been tested with actual consumers’ involvement,
and men’s jackets made according to their needs. The
current study adds to the understanding of mass custo-
mization with fit and size issues, particularly on what
male consumers are especially concerned about when
evaluating a 3D virtual jacket and improvements
needed in order to use 3D technologies for mass custo-
mization of jackets.
3D technology is an innovative tool for future tailors
and menswear, particularly in the market for young
male consumers.13 The current study shows the poten-
tial for the use of the technology for menswear devel-
opment especially for the men’s tailored suits.
However, further studies are needed to determine
whether similar results could be obtained for other
types of garment. Several previous studies have tested
virtual pants for size evaluation and commented on
difficulty in fitting crotch areas.48,50 Few studies have
tested more complex designs such as active sportwear
and undergarments that need to consider fabric elasti-
city and body shaping, which will be challenging during
a virtual try-on process.
This study had another limitation in that no infor-
mation was collected from the participants about their
subjective fit preferences as end users. Further study is
needed to collect consumers’ subjective sense of com-
fort and related information for their evaluation of gar-
ment fit. Additionally, since the participants were not
experts on garment fitting, they were unable to commu-
nicate their alteration requests on the virtual jacket
with specific amounts of increase or decrease.
Therefore, there were some limitations in transferring
their fit requests into pattern adjustment, although the
researchers were experts in fit. Future study is needed to
determine the best method to transfer subjective fit
comments to more objective pattern changes for com-
panies to use the mass customization system
successfully.
This study demonstrated that larger-size male con-
sumers have more fit issues and are in need of better
fitting jackets, and may be potential consumer group
for mass customization, which coincides with a pre-
vious study.37 Jones and Giddings51 suggest mass cus-
tomization as a solution for such consumers. The
current study was limited in testing the production of
mass customized jackets for plus-size men; the
majority of the participants were in the normal and
overweight BMI ranges, and only one participant was
in the obese BMI range with large chest and waist cir-
cumferences. For the successful implementation of 3D
technology for apparel mass customization for a target
market with greater fit issues and needs, further studies
are needed to test mass customization for plus-size
consumers.
23
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported by the Ministry of
Education of the Republic of Korea and the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A5A8016829).
ORCID iD
Dong-Eun Kim https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1431-9736
References
1. Satam D, Liu Y and Lee HJ. Intelligent design systems
for apparel mass customization. J Text Inst 2011; 102:
353–365.
2. Yang JH, Kincade DH and Chen-Yu JH. Types of appa-
rel mass customization and levels of modularity and var-
iety: Application of the theory of inventive problem
solving. Cloth Text Res J 2015; 33: 199–212.
3. Anderson-Connell LJ, Ulrich PV and Brannon EL. A
consumer-driven model for mass customization in the
apparel market. J Fash Mark Manage: Int J 2002; 6:
240–258.
4. Tiihonen J and Felfernig A. An introduction to person-
alization and mass customization. J Intell Inf Syst 2017;
49: 1–7.
5. Da Silveira G, Borenstein D and Fogliatto FS. Mass cus-
tomization: Literature review and research directions. Int
J Prod Econ 2001; 72: 1–13.
6. Nayak R, Padhye R, Wang L, et al. The role of mass
customisation in the apparel industry. Int J Fash Des
Tech Educ 2015; 8: 162–172.
7. Wang J, Lu G, Chen L, et al. Customer participating 3D
garment design for mass personalization. Text Res J
2011; 81: 187–204.
8. Hong Y, Zeng X, Bruniaux P, et al. Interactive virtual
try-on based three-dimensional garment block design for
disabled people of scoliosis type. Text Res J 2017; 87:
1261–1274.
9. Ulrich PV, Anderson-Connell LJ and Wu W. Consumer
co-design of apparel for mass customization. J Fash
Mark Manage: Int J 2003; 7: 398–412.
10. Choy R and Loker S. Mass customization of wedding
gowns: design involvement on the internet. Cloth Text
Res J 2004; 22: 79–87.
11. Kamali N and Loker S. Mass customization: On-line
consumer involvement in product design. J Comput-
Mediat Comm 2002; 7: JCMC741.
12. Chattaraman V, Simmons KP and Ulrich PV. Age, body
size, body image, and fit preferences of male consumers.
Cloth Text Res J 2013; 31: 291–305.
13. Ross F. A study of how small and medium-sized enter-
prise tailors utilize e-commerce, social media, and new 3D
technological practices. Fash Pract 2012; 4: 197–219.
24
14. Geoghegan J. Menswear growth to outstrip womenswear
by 2020. Drapers: for all the fashion business. January 9,
2017: www.drapersonline.com/news/menswear-growth-
to-outstrip-womenswear-by-2020/7017443.article
(accessed January 10, 2018).
15. TechNavio. Global Menswear Market 2016–2020. Report,
Research and Markets, Global, UK, August, 2016.
Available at: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/
research/9p5t6n/global_menswear (accessed 10 January
2018).
16. Ashdown S and Loker S. Mass-customized target market
sizing: Extending the sizing paradigm for improved appa-
rel fit. Fash Pract 2010; 2: 147–173.
17. Sindicich D and Black C. An assessment of fit and sizing
of men’s business clothing. J Fash Mark Manage: Int J
2011; 15: 446–463.
18. Senanayake MM and Little TJ. Mass customization:
points and extent of apparel customization. J Fash
Mark Manage: Int J 2010; 14: 282–299.
19. Mass customization: Directory and reviews of customiz-
able products. Design your own products online, https://
www.mass-customization.com/ n.d. (accessed January 10,
2018).
20. Sumissura. https://www.sumissura.com/en-us/ n.d.
(accessed January 10, 2018).
21. Hockerty. http://www.hockerty.com/en-us/ n.d. (accessed
January 10, 2018).
22. Bivolino. Bivolino.com: customized shirts on the
web, https://www.bivolino.com/en/ n.d. (accessed
January 15, 2019).
23. Levi’s. Customize, personalize, repair, www.levi.com/
GB/en_GB/features/tailorshop n.d. ( accessed January
10, 2018).
24. Berlinger M. Now you can get your Levi’s custom-made,
Esquire, September 28, 2012. https://www.esquire.com/
style/a31160/levis-made-to-order-custom-09282012/
(accessed July 15, 2017).
25. Mass customization: Directory and reviews of customiz-
able products. Converse, www.mass-customization.com/
custom-shoes/converse/ n.d. (accessed January 10, 2018).
26. Baytar F and Ashdown S. An exploratory study of inter-
action patterns around the use of virtual apparel design
and try-on technology. Fash Pract 2015; 7: 31–52.
27. Su J, Ke Y, Kuang C, et al. Converting lower-body fea-
tures from three-dimensional body images into rules for
individualized pant patterns. Text Res J 2019; 89:
2199–2208.
28. Guo S and Istook C. Mass customization: perceptions of
related technologies and resulting product. ITAA: Annual
Conference proceedings, Florida, USA, 14–18 November
2017, p.154.
29. Luh YP, Wang JB, Chang JW, et al. Augmented reality-
based design customization of footwear for children.
J Intell Manuf 2013; 24: 905–917.
30. Bales M. Embodee Corp. Delivering virtual product
experiences for women’s luxury fashion retailer.
CISION PRWeb, October 26, 2017. www.prweb.com/
Textile Research Journal 0(00)
releases/2017/10/prweb14840262.htm (accessed January
10, 2018).
31. SICK Sensor Intelligence. Scanning instead of trying-on:
custom-made clothes with 3D laser scanning, SICK
Insight. June 6, 2014. www.sickinsight-online.com/scan-
ning-instead-of-trying-on-custom-made-clothes-with-3d-
laser-scanning/ (accessed July 15, 2017).
32. ELSE Corp: A virtual retail company. http://www.vir-
tual-couture.org (accessed June 1, 2018).
33. Nettelo. Democratizing 3D body scanning & analysis,
http://nettelo.com/ n.d. (accessed June 1, 2018).
34. Acustom Apparel. https://acustom.com/ n.d. (accessed
June 1, 2018).
35. ISO 20685-1:2018(E). 3-D scanning methodologies for
internationally compatible anthropometric databases:
Part 1. Evaluation protocol for body dimensions
extracted from 3-D body scans.
36. Song HK and Ashdown SP. An exploratory study of the
validity of visual fit assessment from three-dimensional
scans. Cloth Tex Res J 2010; 28: 263–278.
37. Ashdown SP and Dunne L. A study of automated custom
fit: Readiness of the technology for the apparel industry.
Cloth Text Res J 2006; 24: 121–136.
38. Gu B, Liu G and Xu B. Individualizing women’s suit
patterns using body measurements from two-dimensional
images. Tex Res J 2017; 87: 669–681.
39. Apeagyei PR and Otieno R. Usability of pattern custo-
mizing technology in the achievement and testing of fit
for mass customization. J Fash Mark Manage: Int J 2007;
11(3): 349–365.
40. McKinney E, Gill S, Dorie A, et al. Body-to-pattern rela-
tionships in women’s trouser drafting methods:
Implications for apparel mass customization. Cloth Tex
Res J 2017; 35: 16–32.
41. Korean Industrial Standards. Sizing systems for male
adult’s garments. KS K 0050: 2009.
42. Size Korea. The 6th Size Korea 3D anthropometric study.
Report, Korean Agency for Technology and Standards,
Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy, Korea,
December 15, 2010.
43. Kwak T and Seo W. Men’s wear pattern technique. Seoul:
Kyungchunsa, 2008, pp. 48–56.
44. Park KJ, Yoo KJ and Lee JR. A study on the pattern
grading for men’s formal wear. J Korean Soc Cloth Text
2002; 26: 843–582.
45. Branson DH and Nam J. Materials and sizing. In:
Ashdown SP (ed) Sizing in clothing: Developing effective
sizing systems for ready-to-wear clothing. Cambridge:
Woodhead Publishing, 2007, pp. 264–276.
46. Loker S. Mass customization and sizing. In: Ashdown SP
(ed) Sizing in clothing: Developing effective sizing systems
for ready-to-wear clothing. Cambridge: Woodhead
Publishing, 2007, pp. 246–263.
47. Aenta, https://news.aetna.com/2016/05/muscle-fat-bone-
bmi/ n.d. (accessed June 5, 2016).
48. Kim DE and LaBat K. An exploratory study of users’
evaluations of the accuracy and fidelity of a three-
Sohn et al.
dimensional garment simulation. Text Res J 2013; 83:
171–184.
49. Baytar F. Apparel CAD patternmaking with 3D simula-
tions: impact of recurrent use of virtual prototypes on
students’ skill development. Int J Fash Des Tech Educ
2017; 1–9.
25
50. Song HK and Ashdown SP. Investigation of the validity
of 3-D virtual fitting for pants. Cloth Tex Res J 2015; 33:
314–330.
51. Jones MR and Giddings VL. Tall women’s satisfaction
with the fit and style of tall women’s clothing. J Fash
Mark Manage: Int J 2010; 14: 58–71.