The software technology suppliers in the apparel industry are undoubtedly doing a great job to assist factories in their endeavors of embracing digitalisation as there is a sense of realisation now that the conventional methods won’t take them anywhere in changing business landscape. However, more often than not, it is seenthat companies’‘desperation’ of bringing something new (in terms of features) in the industry to compete with other tech providers in the market miserably backfires as they slightly divert from the main objective which is built on the understanding of –Why a process should be digitised? The companies will be able to develop a relevant solution only when they find the answer to this question. However,that’s seemingly not the case with newly emerging software developers and the industry sometimes finds it difficult to choose relevant technology from too many options!
This may hit hard to some companies but that’s the truth. But, in order to make the industry more efficient and productive, this problem needs to be addressed. Just to give an example of redundancy of software features, let’s study a case. Some fashion ERP and MES players, in order to compete in the market, are now integrating a discipline-based incentive system – the scoring of which is done by HR team but attitude and discipline of operators is evaluated by ERP itself!
Now if the analysis of the underlined words is done, one can clearly and safely jump to the conclusion to say that giving the command of evaluation of human behaviour/emotions into the hands of software/technology doesn’t make any sense. This feature, in the first place, is being added in all ERPs because there is already a market that’s flooded with fashion ERP and MES players and, to gain the attention of factories and brands, the newcomers are trying to incorporate out-of-the-box features that are actually proving to be out of context!
Instead of giving the baton of human behaviour calculation/evaluation in the hands of technology – that’s anyway the core job of Human Resource department – what must be done is the automation of production incentive schemes, if at all the software companies want to see operators getting what they deserve and motivate them to increase productivity…There are companies that have hit the right chords and are acting in this direction.
One of the emerging MES companies is actually working on developing a system in its existing software where it can automate the incentive of sewing operators on a daily basis, based on the productivity they have achieved, the alert of which will come through messages on workers’ phones so that they need not manually track their incentives and calculation. This will also stop profiteering which is one of the biggest issues that workforce is facing for years.
Commenting on the ‘too many features ruin the software’ issue, Akash Shah, Managing Director, Coats Digital, said, “I think all software companies are guilty of this to some degree. Software companies often fall into the trap of bespoke development to try and fill a gap in the market or to try and cater to one customer’s requirements, but it’s never usually enough and often leads to more development being required. This requires additional resources (people, time, funds), and can ultimately lead to an unsatisfied customer, who has to simply invest in another solution to overcome potential technology shortfalls.”
On similar lines, Gunish Jain, CEO, BlueKaktus, commented, “Software companies are in a dilemma! They want to cater to as many companies as they can and hence as they add customers, they keep adding features based on feedback. As a result they have too many features, some of which are not very useful.”
Gunish further shared a solution to this issue and mentioned, “The way to handle this is to track usage metrics of each feature and then see which ones are being used more and which are not and then determine whether to keep it or not.”
Let’s talk about another case…Software for production monitoring usually gives options to the operators to raise alert (manually) in case of any mishap. This alerting system SHOULD be AUTOMATED where the operator doesn’t have to raise alerts but software itself identifies the issue on a production line or on a machine and communicates it back to the supervisor. For example – machine idle time. Rather than the operator telling the supervisor about idle time, software should itself identify that a particular machine in a line is being idle and an action needs to be taken. So, raising manual alert, giving control in the operators’ hands and relying on their integrity are actually doing more harm than good to the factory.
“Yes! This automatic alerting system should happen and this actually happens in strong manufacturing execution systems, such as Res.Q, or production planning applications, such as FastReactPlan. Automatic warnings are given to users so they can make decisions in advance, which allows them to be proactive rather than reactive. Those decisions can be taken by different people/teams, which are visible for all to see and reflected throughout the business,” informed Akash and added a very important point, “Warnings can be given, but it’s how those warnings are interpreted, and the decisions made after the warnings that make these alerts valuable.”
In the above scenario, imagine the supervisor, to whom the alert was raised, is busy in a meeting on the shopfloor or in conference rooms with other departments of the factory! In such a case, we don’t generally see software companies have options of letting the supervisor pass it on to another identified and responsible person so that issues get resolved on time without being stuck…
Gunish mentioned, “Software needs to have an escalation matrix where, based on severity and timelines, things can be handled. And, that’s what BlueKaktus is able to do.”
While, on the other hand, Akash averred that the complex manufacturing scenarios usually have too many rules to be defined to make decisions, all of which can be ‘stretched’ depending on situations. “We would usually encourage reoccurring, periodic meetings to be held using software that helps make those decisions.This ensures users see the software as mandatory, which promotes better system usage through better quality updates and promotes one version of the truth and reduces manual intervention.”
Management issues too lead factories to tamper with data and software solutions need to stop that manipulation…
A lot of garment factories have found ways to do manipulations in monthly/weekly numbers despite using digital tools that claim to give transparency in the process. In a recent visit of Team Apparel Resources to one of the leading garment exporters in Noida (India), we received the following response from the Factory’s GM of Quality – “It’s true we use MES system but we still know how to manipulate data when delivery pressure comes. We export data from software to excel sheets and make changes in these sheets before presenting the monthly numbers in meetings or to buyers.” Now that’s what is called a serious breach of trust!
“This is a management issue and not a software issue. Once managers allow reports to be exported, they are allowing users to manipulate the data, which would often be made to look better than what it is. Management should encourage all reports to be given to them directly from the system. In addition, as mentioned above, data and insights from the software solutions should be used during reoccurring meetings to understand status and make business management decisions. Those changes can then be made in the system with the information then being reflected in a real time basis for all to see,” commented Akash.
Apart from this, some software give options to factories that bundle numbers can be filled manually. If such is the case, how can they be able to stop data manipulation? In some factories, the numbers of WIP bundles that come for checking and finishing are manipulated even in the software.
Gunish suggested that one can put in ‘data hygiene’ programs and algorithms which can verify data integrity and see if fudging is happening. “Also back dating of data should never be allowed. Real time data needs to be there. The more real time the data is, the less manipulation is possible. THAT IS CRITICAL to avoid people gaming the system,” Gunish shared.
Akash had his say on this WIP bundles issues. He envisaged that this situation would only occur in a few ad hoc scenarios. However, any software solution is only as good as the people and processes applied. If there is a culture of allowing manipulation, and this has not been handled by the management team, then the solution will become redundant to a certain extent. “What we can see as an industry trend, is that brands want to partner with manufacturers who offer the highest levels of transparency, service and adherence to ESG requirements – as well as the highest possible OTDP. Manipulating the WIP/output figures outside of the system may sound like a low-level offence, but it indicates a general lack of adherence to process that needs to be nipped in the bud quickly,” stated Akash.
Akash further commented that, the whole purpose of solutions, such as FastReactPlan, is that they allow early warnings to be generated, so that corrective actions can be taken in a timely manner. This is where the solution provides significant value. Manipulating data outside of the system is counter-productive and simply defeats the whole purpose of utilising a fit-for-purpose solution in the first place.
What’s the way forward for the industry in terms of creating a better and transparent culture?
There is a real emphasis on speed these days. This includes speed to market and speed at providing accurate information. A lot of factories have most of the information they need but it’s in many different manual and legacy systems. These systems are not usually integrated, so trying to establish one version of the truth, to make quick and accurate business management decisions, is often a challenge and can often be a time consuming, costly and frustrating exercise. Businesses that can cope with the speed demands are far more likely to be successful.
“Visibility, transparency, communication and collaboration is the combination that the industry should look for. Companies rely on good quality data for many different reasons. Being able to have all of that data, from different systems, integrated across the system architecture, means it reduces the need for manual intervention and empowers better decision-making based on accurate, visible data. This is ultimately the key to a successful business. Those which can achieve that, will reap the rewards, and will most certainly gain increased market share than those that can’t or don’t,” concluded Akash.
Gunish concluded with his belief that the biggest challenge is the mindset and the alignment of the SOPs with technology. Very often companies put in technology and use old processes – which lead to sub-optimal outcome. “In order for software technologies to be successful, this alignment between process improvisation and technology has to happen,” said Gunish.
