Abstract
Quick Response systems in the textile/apparel industry are recognized as the essential strategic information technology for more efficient production and ultimate consumer satisfaction. QR will eventually lead to demand activated manufacturing and mass-customized production. Much data specification efforts are needed to effectively take the individual body features and style preference of the consumer into account in automated apparel production process using CAD/CAM. Trial and error fitting methods will no longer be economically feasible with such mass-customized production. The purpose of this study is to compare basic bodice pattern design methods for mass-customized QR system using pattern CAD. We examined whether there was any significant difference in measurement items and test fit evaluation between drafts based on representatively selected Munwha and Armstrong methods. Followings were the findings of this research. 1) There were notable differences at 5% significance level between measuring two patterns in 13 items. Munwha method showed larger basic width line, armhole line, and armhole depth than the Armstrong method. 2) In evaluation of fitness, Armstrong method fitted better than Munwha method, especially bust, waist, armhole, front waist dart, and side line. 10 items showed significant difference at 5% significance level. Therefore, without try-on system with experts, like automated pattern CAD in mass-customized Quick Response systems, draft methods measuring more parts of the body, represented by the Armstrong method, seem to be suitable for better-fit basic patterns.