clothing supply network

1

MacCarthy & Jayarathne (2010), Supply Network Design and Management for Global Quick Response (GQR) in the Clothing Industry,

15th Cambridge International Manufacturing Symposium, 23 – 24, September 2010.

Supply Network Design and Management for Global Quick Response (GQR) in the

Clothing Industry

Bart MacCarthy & P G S A Jayarathne

Nottingham University Business School

Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road,

Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The clothing industry is truly global both in terms of the dispersal of clothing supply networks across the

world and in terms of the markets supplied. Clothing supply networks have continued to develop and

change as trade barriers have disappeared and the pace of globalisation has quickened. Supply networks in

the clothing industry need to develop responsive strategies in an international supply context. MacCarthy

and Jayarathne (2010) have defined Global Quick Response (GQR) as a strategy that seeks to ‘ achieve

accurate, rapid, and cost-effective response to specific markets dynamically by leveraging the potential of dispersed global

supply and production resources through lead time compression, effective real time information management, flexible pipeline

management, and optimal logistics and distribution systems.’ Much of the focus of Quick Response (QR)

initiatives in the clothing sector has been at the plant level. Here we discuss the implications of GQR for

network design and management in the global context. Examples of different network configurations

supplying different markets are described. Control, power and governance issues are noted. Open

pipeline strategies and staged postponement are discussed for the planning and management of

responsive clothing supply networks. The challenges in assessing responsiveness at the network level are

discussed. The relevance of GQR practices and strategies in other sectors is noted.

Keywords: Clothing industry, Global Quick Response, Network design and management, Open pipeline.

2



1. Introduction

The clothing industry is truly global, both in terms of the dispersal of clothing supply networks across the

world and in terms of the markets supplied. Vollrath et al. (2004) describe how global trade in textiles and

clothing almost doubled in a decade to $334 billion, driven by market liberalisation and the removal of

trade barriers, the development of consumer economies and reductions in apparel and textile prices. The

sector is also highly mobile. Vollrath et al. (2004) also show the very significant changes that took place in

the geographical dispersal of global trade networks in textiles and apparel over a ten year period.

Three decades ago the majority of demand in the US and EU markets was supplied from domestic

production. With trade liberalisation and particularly the abolition of the Multi Fibre Agreement, the

changes in the nature of supply networks have been very significant. Garments worth $63 billion were

domestically supplied in the US in 1995 while garments worth $35 billion were imported. By 2005, the

respective figures were $45 billion and $65 billion (Abernathy et al., 2006). In the EU the number of

apparel manufacturing companies reduced by almost 6% in the period 2005 to 2006 (EMCC 2008).

China, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Pakistan were the major clothing producing nations in 2005

(Audet, 2007).

In addition to changes in the clothing supply base, trends and dynamics in demand have also

changed significantly in the last two decades. Today’s apparel demand may be described as being highly

fragmented with a fashion influence now apparent in almost all product categories (Hunter et al., 2002).

Product variety and new product introduction have been accelerating in basic and in fashion garments

(Sen, 2008). The traditional ‘two seasons per year’ have given way to frequent refreshes within a season.

Importantly, as well as the trends of compressing new product introduction time, multiple refreshes per

season and very quick response from suppliers, there is continual pressure on costs (Tokatli, 2007;

MacCarthy and Jayarathne, 2010a). The rise of supermarket clothing suppliers and the so-called ‘Fast

Fashion’ retailers have further emphasised cost issues (MacCarthy and Jayarathne, 2010a).

Clothing supply networks contain different entities - designers, merchandisers, yarn producers, fabric

producers, trims producers, garment manufacturers, distributors, logistics and warehouse companies,

retailers, brand owners and the ultimate consumer (Wadhwa et al., 2008). Retailers and brand owners are

the most powerful entities in clothing supply networks (Gereffi, 1999; Tyler, 2006) and have a strong

influence on their configuration, organisation and management (MacCarthy and Jayarathne, 2010b). Here

we analyse how retailers and brand owners design and manage clothing supply networks for Global

Quick Response (GQR). Examples are provided of different types of clothing supply network that

operate in different ways. The principal dimensions on which clothing supply networks differ are

outlined. Responsiveness in clothing supply networks is then discussed and Global Quick Response

concepts are introduced. Open pipeline and staged postponement processes are described and their value

in dynamically managing clothing supply networks highlighted. The challenges in assessing the

3



responsiveness of different types of global supply networks are discussed and the relevance of GQR to

other sectors is noted.

2. Differences in clothing supply networks

Retailers and brand owners exert significant influence on supply networks, resulting in differences in their

structure, the nature of the relationships within them and in their operating policies. We illustrate this by

considering the case of a major producer in Sri Lanka and the supply networks in which it participates

with a major retailer and a major supermarket.

Company SLA (note: company identities have been anonymised) is a very large Sri Lankan apparel

manufacturing company that supplies many well known retailers, brand owners and supermarkets. It has

competencies in apparel manufacturing, embroidery and garment embellishment skills. Figures 1 and 2

illustrate how Company SLA operates for two different types of retailers.

Figure 1 depicts the supply network typically producing complicated garments for a leading retailer.

Based on styles designed by the retailer, SLA develops samples and gets them approved either by the

retailer or by the retailer’s agent in Sri Lanka (note: the steps necessary in sample development are not

discussed in this paper). After approval of samples by the retailer, the retailer’s agent places orders with

agreed volumes, colours, sizes and delivery dates. These orders are then placed with an appropriate

production plant according to the request of the retailer or its agent after consideration of the

competencies of different production plants. It is important to note that fabric and accessory sourcing

decisions, including material specification and supplier selection are done mostly based on the

recommendation of the retailer or its buying office. Typically, the retailer has already approved the fabrics

at the product development stage. Sometimes the retailer may place only part of the order in Sri Lanka,

placing the rest in another country to minimize risk. In that case, all the suppliers, including those in Sri

Lanka, need to source from the same fabric supplier to maintain quality and consistency.

The agent of the retailer closely monitors the entire process to ensure garments are produced

according to their required standards and specifications and are delivered on time. Then, a final quality

audit is carried out mostly by the buyer appointed quality auditors at the buyer’s warehouse in Sri Lanka.

Then the final quality-approved garments are exported to the retail stores via a forwarding company

recommended by the retailer.

4



Figure 1: Supply Network for a Leading Retailer

Figure 2 depicts the supply network of a major supermarket in which SLA participates. Unlike the

network in Figure 1, here the company typically designs the garments and presents them to the retailer.

The buying team at the supermarket selects certain designs. SLA then proceeds with sample development.

In this case, the company may use the service of garment designers. After sample approval, orders are

placed including details of colours, volume, sizes, delivery dates, etc. These orders are then placed to the

specific production plants according to their production competencies and capacities. Fabric and

accessory sourcing decisions, including material specification and supplier selection are mostly made by

the company itself, unlike the case of the leading retailer’s network. The company does need to obtain

approval of the quality of all fabric and accessories from the supermarket in advance. They can then

proceed to source from any suppliers that can supply to the approved standards. The final quality audit is

also carried out by the manufacturing company itself. Finally, the approved garments are first sent to the

stores of such supermarket brands in Sri Lanka and then exported to the buyer via the forwarder

recommended by the supermarket retailer.

The two examples described here illustrate how different types of network have emerged to respond

to trends and dynamics in the global apparel market. A number of generic factors may be identified in

distinguishing different types of clothing supply network.

The degree of integration and the degree of permanency of the network are important. Temporary,

one-off supply networks operate differently to supply networks that have developed relationships and

Reputable retail

brand - UK

Forwarders

Shipping

Buyer’s SL

office

Buyer’s main

stores

Corporate

Office

Main Factory

Fabric

Suppliers

Trims

Suppliers

Mostly local

Little import

Local—50– 60

%

Import—40-

50%

Buyer

appointed

Quality

Factory

Factory

– placing the apparel orders

– Fabric and accessories sourcing flow

– Finished apparel flow

– Final quality check up before exporting

5



modes of operation established over a period of time. Some networks may be strongly integrated across

all elements, whilst others may have strong integration across upstream or downstream entities only.

The degree of involvement of retailers in dealing with the supply base is a critically important

distinguishing factor. Retailers may deal directly with a prime manufacturer in the supply base or retailers

may use agents (buying offices) as intermediaries when dealing with manufacturers. The latter approach

changes the nature of the relationships and responsibilities in the supply network.

Figure 2: Supply Network for a Major Supermarket

Process ownership is also important – design process ownership and sourcing process ownership in

particular. Design of garments may be carried out by retailers, retail agents, manufacturers, or as a

collaborative effort in different networks. Networks where retailers make the fabric sourcing decisions are

different to networks in which sourcing is done either by manufacturers or collaboratively by both

retailers and manufacturers. Actual ownership of fabric is also significant, distinguishing integrated

networks from contractual networks.

Garment complexity is a factor in distinguishing different networks. Designs with complicated

garment structures, demanding specifications and /or significant garment embellishments (e.g.,

embroidery, washing) require additional resources, skills and competencies than are required to produce

simpler garments. These complicate sourcing decisions, as well as routing, capacity and quality

management.

– placing the apparel orders

– Fabric and accessories sourcing flow

– Finished apparel flow

– Final quality check up before exporting

Factory

Supermarket

brand - UK

Forwarders

Shipping

Buyers main

stores

Corporate

Office

Main Factory

Factory

Fabric

Suppliers

Trims Suppliers

Mostly local

Little import

Local—50– 60

% Import—40-

50%

6



The nature of the involvement of retailers in quality assurance is also important. A retailer may assign

external quality experts to assure the quality of garments by conducting final quality audits or they may

devolve responsibility to manufacturers to carry out quality assurance activities.

Finally, supply networks differ with respect to power dependency between network entities and how

power is distributed across upstream and downstream supply network entities and the governance

structures for eth network.

The authors have developed a taxonomy of clothing supply networks based on these distinguishing

characteristics, which they continue to refine (MacCarthy & Jayarathne, 2010b).

3. Responsiveness in supply networks

Responsiveness has been defined in different ways in the operations management literature (e.g.,

Kritchanchai and MacCarthy, 1999; Reichart and Holweg, 2007). The importance of Quick Response

(QR) strategies has been emphasized in the clothing industry since late 1980s (Al-Zubaidi and Tyler,

2004). Common elements identified by MacCarthy and Jayarathne (2010a) in such strategies include:

effective information management and fast and accurate information transmission; utilising flexible

production resources and developing technological and automation solutions where appropriate;

developing supply chain partnerships and strong inbound and outbound logistics systems. In addition,

QR must be an explicit part of an organisation’s strategy and every opportunity for lead time compression

needs to be exploited in design, product development, planning and order fulfilment (MacCarthy and

Jayarathne, 2010a). However, much of the research on, and discussion of QR strategies in the clothing

industry and much of the focus of QR initiatives has been on clothing plants.

Global Quick Response

As contemporary clothing supply networks operate globally, Quick Response strategies need to be

considered in the global context. With this wider context in mind, MacCarthy and Jayarathne (2010a)

defined Global Quick Response (GQR) as a strategy that:

“seeks to achieve accurate, rapid, and cost-effective response to specific markets dynamically by leveraging the potential of

dispersed global supply and production resources through lead time compression, effective real time information management,

flexible pipeline management, and optimal logistics and distribution systems”.

GQR strategies in the clothing sector need to incorporate QR concepts but need additionally to

focus on the performance of the supply network as whole in the international context.

Managing the network for responsiveness – open pipeline approaches

Sourcing from geographically dispersed networks typically results in longer lead times than occur with

domestically sourced production. When such networks are purely contractually based with impermanent

relationships, sourcing may also lack flexibility once commitments are made. There are many challenges in

7



planning and managing international clothing supply networks to ensure appropriate levels of

responsiveness.

The more cohesive types of network discussed in section 2 above that have emerged in the clothing

sector tend to adopt more flexible strategies based on open pipeline and postponement concepts to

ensure an appropriate degree of responsiveness to market demands (MacCarthy, 2010; MacCarthy and

Jayarathne, 2010a). The open pipeline is particularly important for ongoing replenishment orders where

market requirements are changing dynamically.

Postponement is an important generic strategy in coping with high variety and customization when

precise demand requirements are uncertain (Van Hoek, 2001). The most common type of postponement

referred to is ‘form’ postponement. However, it is less relevant in the clothing context than in other

production environments. In clothing supply networks upstream fabric supply and downstream

distribution are very significant components of overall lead time (MacCarthy, 2010). For a number of

reasons, postponement in planning is more important in the clothing sector than form postponement.

Figure 3: Staged planning postponement in a clothing network (from: MacCarthy and Jayarathne, 2010a)

The power and control exercised by retailers and brand owners in supply networks has been noted

earlier. The retailer values the flexibility to delay precise commitments to volumes, styles, colour and size

mixes. However, manufacturers in the supply base value early commitments, allowing long lead times to

source and plan production and to maintain stable, controlled and low cost operations. Staged planning

postponement is a way of balancing these opposing desires. It is essentially a flexible make-to-forecast

approach that acknowledges the hard constraints in the supply process but that enables more precision in

ensuring supply matches demand.

MacCarthy and Jayarathne (2010a) describe a generic staged planning postponement process

operated over a rolling planning horizon shown in Figure 3, which commences with aggregate capacity

planning and moves though key stages for fabric procurement, rough-cut capacity planning and detailed

8



capacity and materials planning. Precision and detail in order commitment increase at each stage in the

process.

The details of any staged postponement strategy will differ depending on the nature of the market,

the complexity of garments produced and the nature of the supply network. Many factors may influence

the timing of commitments and the degree of flexibility allowed, including supply chain relationships,

sourcing lead times and importantly the power distribution across the supply network. Maximum

tolerable delays for key commitments need to be agreed and respected by key supply network partners.

The nature of commitments in different networks structures provides an interesting line of research.

Maintaining a responsive network

In order to operate a flexible and responsive open planning pipeline a healthy network needs to be

maintained. Although fashion trends can be difficult to predict, often changes from one season to the

next are more gradual. The same classic styles may be evident over a number of seasons. When style

changes are gradual, a strong healthy network should be capable inherently of flexing capacity and

absorbing seasonal and in-season changes for the required volume and mix levels.

There are often significant market opportunities when major changes in fashion occur. The retailer

or brand owner that can respond quickest may be able to generate significantly higher margins than is

typical in the industry. However, major changes in fashion may necessitate the acquisition of resources

and capabilities that were not required previously and may make some existing capabilities redundant,

thus challenging the strength and responsiveness of the network. Strong market intelligence systems and

effective communication with supply partners will help in limiting uncertainty, highlighting quickly where

additional capabilities may be required.

Retailers and brand owners need to understand where critical interfaces exist – those linkages in the

network with the greatest influence on responsiveness and lead times that demand effective planning and

management with supply network partners. Rapid supplier development programs may be needed to

facilitate supply and capacity expansion, e.g. in the sourcing of a new type of fabric for instance. Effective

quality systems also play a part in enabling responsiveness when major fashion changes occur. Early

detection of problems and identification of appropriate solutions will enhance network learning.

4. Measuring GQR in clothing supply networks

Assessing the health of a supply network requires some indication, assessment or measurement of its

responsiveness. Here we consider the challenges in doing so.

As noted earlier, MacCarthy and Jayarathne (2010a) have identified core elements in QR systems and

applications in the clothing industry. These are illustrated in Figure 4. They are: fast and accurate

information transmission (IN); flexible production resources (FP); utilisation of technology and

MacCarthy & Jayarathne (2010), Supply Network Design and Management for Global Quick Response (GQR) in the Clothing Industry

15th Cambridge International Manufacturing Symposium

automation where appropriate (TA

across the supply network (SI).

Figure 4 gives examples of s

from process analyses from several QR initiative

and Azuma (2004), Giunipero et al (2001), Sullivan and Kang (1999), Ko and Kincade (1999), Kincade

(1995), Hunter et al 1992, Forza and Vinelli 1997, 2000, Lowson et al 1999, Perry and Sohal 2001,

Oxborrow 2000, Al-Zubaidi and Tyler 2004, Birtwistle et al 2006, Gunasekaran et al 2008).

The authors of this paper have studied these

supply networks. However, for GQR t

worth noting that no study has

responsiveness of a network is non

these are noted briefly here.

In general, the prime manuf

strongest level of interaction with

manufacturer needs to be able to correctly

and engage in proactive planning with upstream and downst

typically charged with solving operational problems in the network to ensure supply and

Supply Network Design and Management for Global Quick Response (GQR) in the Clothing Industry

15th Cambridge International Manufacturing Symposium, 23 – 24, September 2010

TA); fast logistics (FL); lead time compression (LT)

Figure 4 gives examples of specific items under each of these dimensions that have been

several QR initiative reported in the literature (e.g., Ko et al (2000), Fernie


5), Hunter et al 1992, Forza and Vinelli 1997, 2000, Lowson et al 1999, Perry and Sohal 2001,

Zubaidi and Tyler 2004, Birtwistle et al 2006, Gunasekaran et al 2008).

Figure 4: Example dimensions of GQR

have studied these QR dimensions in particular entities within

GQR these dimensions need to be considered at the

worth noting that no study has been carried out at the network level in the literat

responsiveness of a network is non-trivial and doing so gives rise to significant challenges.

ufacturer within the network has the clearest pers

with both the upstream and downstream parts of the

be able to correctly interpret retailer requirements, anticipat

and engage in proactive planning with upstream and downstream network partners

typically charged with solving operational problems in the network to ensure supply and

9

Supply Network Design and Management for Global Quick Response (GQR) in the Clothing Industry,

September 2010.

(LT); systems integration

that have been derived

Ko et al (2000), Fernie


5), Hunter et al 1992, Forza and Vinelli 1997, 2000, Lowson et al 1999, Perry and Sohal 2001,

Zubaidi and Tyler 2004, Birtwistle et al 2006, Gunasekaran et al 2008).

particular entities within clothing

at the network level. It is

carried out at the network level in the literature. Gauging the

and doing so gives rise to significant challenges. Some of

perspective on, and the

e network. The prime

te future requirements

ream network partners. The prime is also

typically charged with solving operational problems in the network to ensure supply and therefore knows

10



where critical interfaces occur. The prime manufacturer thus plays the critical role in determining the

ability of the network to respond. However, as noted in the discussion on actual networks and their

composition in section 2, there may also be other important entities operating in eth supply network. In

particular agents play a crucial role in some types of networks. They have detailed knowledge on

requirements and supply resources and may exercise significant power on network operation depending

on the type of network. Their perspectives on network governance and how the operating policies

deployed are also important in assessing GQR in clothing supply networks.

Further elements indentified by MacCarthy and Jayarathene (2010a) in successful QR initiatives are

an organisation’s strategy and its prevalent culture and whether they truly support responsiveness.

Investigating these softer dimensions at the network level is also important. All of these dimensions are

considered in authors’ current work on GQR in clothing supply networks.

5. Extending GQR concepts to other sectors

The GQR challenge described in this paper is by no means unique to the clothing industry. GQR goals,

requirements and constraints are strongly relevant in many sectors that seek to leverage the potential of

dispersed global supply and production resources to achieve accurate, rapid, and cost-effective response.

Indeed some of these challenges are universal. In addition, demand factors including global brands and

global advertising, are extending the spread of markets for many types for products.

There are direct analogues to the clothing sector in many consumer product sectors. The relevance

of supply network structures observed in the clothing sector to such sectors needs to be investigated.

Product and market characteristics differ, as do supply networks, including their degree of integration and

their degree of permanency, the relative dominance of upstream and/or downstream players and the

power and governance that prime players can exercise or impose on the network. Thus, the study of

GQR in other globally dispersed industries provides many avenues for further research.

11



References

Abernathy F H, Volpe A, Weil D, (2006), “The Future of the Apparel and Textile Industries: Prospectsand Choices for Public and Private Actors”, Environment and Planning A, Vol. 38 (12), pp. 2207- 2232

Al-Zubaidi H & Tyler D (2004) “A Simulation Model of Quick Response Replenishment of SeasonalClothing”, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 32 (6), pp. 320-327

Audet D, (2007), “Smooth as silk? A first look at the post MFA textiles and Clothing landscape”, Journal ofInternational Economic Law, Vol. 10 (2), pp. 267–284

Birtwistle G., Fiorito S S, Moore C M (2006), “Supplier Perceptions of Quick Response Systems”, Journalof Enterprise Information System, Vol. 19 (3), pp. 334-345.

EMCC - European Monitoring Centre on Change (2008), “Trends and Drivers of Change in theEuropean Textiles and Clothing Sector: Mapping Report”, European Foundation for the Improvement of Livingand Working Conditions, http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ pubdocs/2008 /15/en/1/ ef0815en. pdf,visited on 27th Oct 2008.

Fernie J and Azuma N (2004), “The changing nature of Japanese fashion”, European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 38 (7), pp 790 – 808.

Forza C and Vinelli A, 1997, “ Quick Response in the Textile-apparel Industry and the Support ofInformation Technologies”, Integrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol.8 (3), pp. 125–136

Forza N & Vinelli A (2000) “Time Compression in Production & Distribution with the Textile-ApparelChain”, Integrated Manufacturing System, Vol.11 (2), pp. 138-146.

Gereffi G (1999) “International Trade and Industrial Upgrading in the Apparel Commodity Chain”,Journal of International Economics, Vol 48 (1), pp. 37-70.

Giunipero L C, Fiorito S S, Pearcy D H, and Dandeo L (2001), “The impact of vendor incentives onquick response”, International Review of Retail, Distribution and Customer Research, Vol. 11 (4), pp 359 – 376.

Gunasekarana A, Laib K, Chengb T C E (2008), “Responsive Supply Chain: A Competitive Strategy in aNetworked Economy” International Journal of Management science, Vol. 36 (4) pp. 549-564

Hunter N A, King R E, Nuttle H L M (1992), “An apparel –Supply System for Quick ResponseRetailing”, Journal of the Textile Institute, Vol. 83 (3), pp 462-71.

Hunter A, King R, Lowson R H (2002), “The Textile/Clothing Pipeline and Quick ResponseManagement”, The Textile Institute.

Kincade D H (1995), “Quick Response Management System for the Apparel Industry: Definitionthrough Technologies”, Clothing and Textile Research Journal, Vol. 13 (4), pp 245 – 251

Ko E and Kincade D H (1999), “The impact of quick response technologies on retail store attributes”,International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 25, (2), pp 90-98.

Ko E, Kincade D H, Brown J R (2000), “ Impact of business types upon the adoption of quick responsetechnologies”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 20 (9), pp 1093 -1111.

Kritchanchi D and MacCarthy B L (1999), “Responsiveness of the Order Fulfilment Process”,International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol 19 (8), pp 821-833.

Lowson B, King R., Hunter A, (1999) Quick Response: Managing the Supply Chain to Meet Consumer Demand,John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

MacCarthy B L (2010), ‘Open Pipeline Planning and Staged Postponement for Demand-DrivenFulfilment in High Variety Environments’, 4th ESIAM Workshop on Market Driven Supply Chains, (Brussels,March 24- 25, 2010).

12



MacCarthy B L and Jayarathne A (2010a), ‘Fast Fashion: Achieving Global Quick Response (GQR) in theInternationally Dispersed Clothing Industry’, in Springer Handbook on Innovative Quick Response Programs inLogistics and Supply Chain Management (Eds: Edwin Cheng and Jason Choi), Springer. pp37-60.

MacCarthy B L and Jayarathne P G S A (2010b), “Network Structures in the International ClothingIndustry”, PRO-VE 2010 - 11th IFIP Working Conference on Virtual Enterprises, Saint-Etienne, France, 11-13October 2010.

Oxborrow L (2000), “Changing Practices in the UK Apparel Supply Chain: Results of an IndustrySurvey”, Research Project Paper for Harvard Business Center for Textile and Apparel Research , accessedvia http://www.hctar.org/pdfs/GS04.pdf on 17th Oct 2008.

Perry M, Sohal A S, (2001), “Effective Quick Response Practices in a Supply Chain Partnership AnAustralian Case Study” International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 21 (5/6), pp. 840-854.

Reichhart A, Holweg M, (2007), “Creating the Customer-Responsive Supply Chain: a Reconciliation ofConcepts”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol.27 (11), pp 1144-1172.

Sen A, (2008), “The US Fashion Industry : A Supply Chain Review”, International Journal of ProductionEconomics, Vol. 114 (2), pp 571-593.

Sullivan P and Kang J (1999), “Quick Response Adoption in the Apparel Manufacturing Industry:competitive Advantage of Innovation”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 37 (1), pp 1-13

Tokatli N (2007), “Global Sourcing: Insights from the Global Clothing Industry-The Case Of Zara, AFast Fashion Retailer”, Journal of Economic Geography, Advance Access Published in Oct 23, OxfordUniversity Press.

Tyler D, Heeley J, and Bhamra T, (2006), “Supply Chain Influences on New Product Development inFashion Clothing”, Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, Vol. 10 (3), pp 316-328.

Van Hoek R I (2001), ‘The rediscovery of postponement: a literature review and directions for research’,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 19(2), pp 161-184.

Vollrath T, Gehlhar M, MacDonald S,(2004), ‘The Changing World Network of Trade in Textiles andApparel’, Economic Research Service, Amber Waves, Economic Research Service, USDA, Vol 2(4), pp 11-13, www.ers.usda/data/fibertextiletrade/.

Wadhwa S, Saxenay A, And Chanz F. T. S. (2008 March) “Framework for flexibility in Dynamic SupplyChain Management”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 (6), 15, pp 1373–1404.

clothing supply network

Documents

global quick response

supply network design

global context

clothing sector

nature of supply networks

international supply

costeffective response

maccarthy jayarathne