Priscila Lena Farias / Anna Calvera Marcos da Costa ... - Blucher

SMITH, Marcia Tavares
ample, if it was finished product or a parts to be assemble such
as a toolkit. The location of the organisation, range of prices and
delivery times were also noted. Next, we used graphics to visually
compare and cluster cases. The following aspects were analysed
for each case:
Digital innovations
The types of digital innovations used. The information for this
analysis was determined from the technologies uncovered
through the literature review of this research.
Level of co-design
How far was the consumer allowed to co-design. This ranged
from designing and making new forms for products to editing
existing options to selecting from existing modules, colours and
materials.
Skills for co-design
Looking at skills the consumer needed to interact with the product/service.
Points of customisation
Senanayake & Little’s (2010) identified five points where customisation
can occur in apparel customisation: post-production,
fabrication, fit, features and design. To those categories one extra
was added ‘after sales’ for items that were purchased to be
finished or customized by the consumer after the product was
purchased.
Interactions
Based on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Matrix
(Johansen, 1988) analyzing if interactions occur at the same
place and time.
The image below (fig. 2) is an example of the visual analysis used.
Figure 2. Example of case study analysis
4. Initial Findings
After analysing the 20 mini case studies four clusters emerged
(most cases fall in just one of the categories, but some cases
present characteristics of more than one group).
Digital innovations in the making process
Organisations where the designer is usually the one leading the
process and experimenting with new technologies such as 3D
printing, laser cutting and digital print of textiles. This is closer
to a traditional approach where the consumer buys ready-made
products. In some cases they were produced on demand, but in
most cases they were not customisable even though they were
being produced individually. Cases: 1,2,7, 10 and 19.
Mass customisation
In these cases, the use of digital innovations was limited to Ecommerce
and ‘Design-Your-Own’ (DYO) interfaces that allow
the consumer to participate in the configuration of products and
place order on-line. Products created this way included t-shirts,
shirts, suits, dresses, shoes and denim, some targeting specifically
women, men or children and others, a general audience. In
most cases consumers could choose from a small range of base
products and then customise the appearance of each part of the
product. They are still produced using the same processes as
mass-production but some on an individual scale. Cases: 1,4, 5,
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17.
Support amateur maker
In this cluster are organisations that supported consumers
in designing and making garment. This support was offered
through toolkits, software, workshops and instructions on how
to make their own garments. Also, through services to access
materials and patterns that enable consumers to create their
own garments. Cases: 3,6,11, 14, 18 and 20.
Network of makers
Here there are organisations that support amateurs through the
creation of social networks for sharing information, showcasing
ideas and designs. They offered customers their own online
stores selling products they created within their sites. Cases:
1,14 and 20.
5. Conclusion
These first cases show examples of new structures and systems
being implemented in the clothing industry. These do not yet replace
the main ways in which people acquire their garments, but
point to possible ways in which the clothing industry might develop.
The increasing number of ‘design-your-own’ sites for pieces
of garments shows that it is possible to produce personalised
garments at affordable prices. However mass customisation
systems still rely on traditional methods in garments production
that limit co-design to configuration of predetermined features.
Those that have started applying digital technologies in production
(for example, the company that used digital printing to produce
consumer created textiles for their trainers) have allowed
more consumer input in the co-design activity. The same could
be said for those organisations that are allowing consumers to
curate products through voting and setting up stores for customer
created articles.
Design Frontiers: Territiories, Concepts, Technologies 438