No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The CLOTECH Conference – organized every two years – is focused on the popularization of achievements of the worldwide scientific institutions in a range of directions for innovation and development of protective clothing, gloves and footwear, smart textiles and clothing, computer techniques in designing and making up clothing, mass customization and rapid prototyping, marketing and competitiveness of textiles in the European market, standardization and certification of textiles and clothing. The first CLOTECH conference was organized in 2003 on the national scale in Poland. In 2008 the CLOTECH conference gained the status of an international event and from this time successfully continue the communication in science and industry. The 2024 Conference was held 5-6 September in Dresden, Germany and was organized by the Chair of Development and Assembly of Textile Products, ITM, TU Dresden under the guidance of Prof.Dr. Yordan Kyosev. We were happy to welcome 116 participants from17 Countries: Germany, Ukraina, USA, Bulgaria, Portugal, Iran, Kenia, Poland, Romania, Niederland, Latvia, Ethiopia, Tunesia, Czech Republik, United Kingdom, Greece, Lithuania, Bangladesch, which presented 46 oral and 21 poster presentations. Selected papers of the conference will be published after successfull review process in the Diamond Open Access Journal 'Communications in Development and Assembling of Textile Products' www.cdatp.org

Le secteur automobile est aujourd’hui face au paradoxe de la personnalisation de masse. La diversité de produits finis est en augmentation perpétuelle du fait de la croissance de la personnalisation offerte au client. La diversité de composants à laquelle doivent faire faces les Chaînes Logistiques résulte de cette diversité de produits finis à fabriquer. Même si le coût de la diversité reste difficilement mesurable, cette diversité à un impact majeur sur la performance économique des entreprises de production. Dans le secteur automobile, une grande partie de ces coûts sont induits par le nombre très important de contraintes entre composants. De façon opérationnelle, ces contraintes rendent difficile la définition de nomenclature. Dans cette thèse, nous étudions une nouvelle façon de représenter la diversité. Aussi, pour limiter l’inflation de la diversité de composants à gérer, les fabricants doivent améliorer sans cesse leurs processus de conception et de production. L’usage d’une architecture modulaire des produits doit permettre de simplifier ces contraintes et donc la diversité de composants. Le succès de la mise en place d’une telle architecture dépend d’un certain nombre de conditions que nous étudions aussi dans cette thèse. Enfin, parce que la diversité de composants peut aussi résulter d’une vision locale des enjeux de diversité en phase de conception, cette thèse propose aussi une méthode de standardisation des modules et de leurs composants invisibles du client, basée sur une vision économique globale. / Nowadays, the automotive sector faces the mass customization paradox. The end-product diversity is constantly increasing as the customer can customize more and more product features. The component variety that Supply Chains must deal with, results from the end-product variety to make. Though variety cost is hard to measure, variety has a great impact on the economic performance of today's manufacturers. In the automotive sector, a large portion of these costs are due to the great amount of constraints between components. On an operational point of view, these constraints lead to difficulties in the establishment of Bills of Materials. In this thesis, we define a new approach that describes the variety within Bills of Materials. In addition, in order to limit the inflation of component variety to manage, companies should improve continuously their design and manufacturing processes. The use of a modular architecture should allow to reduce the number of constraints between components and as a consequence, to reduce the component variety. The success of the application of such architecture depends on some prerequisites that we also focus on in this thesis. Finally, as component variety might result also from local interests in design phases, this thesis proposes also a model that aims at standardizing both modules and their components that is based on a global economic perspective.

Au cours de la dernière décennie, les technologies de l'information et de la communication intégrées aux produits de consommation ont considérablement modifié la nature de leurs usages. Réactives, les entreprises se sont emparées de ces nouvelles technologies et proposent aux consommateurs de customiser leurs produits quotidiens après achat. J’ai intitulé cette approche "Smart Customization", dans ma thèse. L´idée étant que, pour qu'une telle customisation "intelligente" ait lieu, il faut intégrer directement des boîtes à outils intelligentes (ou smart UTCD) dans nos produits de consommation. Ces boites à outils intelligentes sont ensuite destinées à guider les consommateurs dans le procédé de customisation de leurs objets. Actuellement, il n’y a pas véritablement de recherche académique alors que, au contraire, la presse industrielle évoque la smart customization comme une opportunité à exploiter. Il semble pourtant essentiel, d'identifier les facteurs de succès de ces nouvelles offres de customisation, notamment, en adoptant le point de vue du consommateur sur l´élément principal Smart UTCD. C´est ce qui a déterminé l´objectif de ma thèse. Via une étude d´acceptante technologique dans le papier 1, un choice-based conjoint analysis dans l’article 2 et une exploration des mécanismes de co-conception qui ont lieu entre le consommateur et l´outil de conception « smart UTCD », je participe à la recherche sur la smart customisation. / In the last decade, our products have been more and more equipped with information and communication technology (ICT), which has modified the nature of their applications greatly. Notably, firms find finally a mean to empower customers to customize their products after purchase. One talks about “Smart Customization”. For such “smart” customization to happen, the idea is to embed directly smart user toolkits for co-design (smart UTCD) into our consumer products. That said, while in the business press, they largely view smart customization as an opportunity to be tapped, in contrast, research is hardly focused on it. Notably, it appears essential to identify factors of customer - based success of such novel customization offers. Thereby, in paper I, I adapt and test a technology acceptance model to smart UTCD. In paper II, I realize a choice based conjoint analysis on smart UTCD. In article III, I expose a theoretical framework for use generation and apply it one the two existing types of smart UTCD. With my findings, I contribute to theory by adding to our limited understanding of the smart UTCD acceptance, providing in-depth knowledge on the customer´s choice process on the smart UTCD´ design features and by opening the black box on the co-design mechanisms that occur between customers - smart UTCD. Additionally, the findings of my three article that compose my dissertation permit firms to be provided with some measures on how to design smart customization offers that fit better the target customers.

A capacidade de customização de produtos é considerada atualmente um fator de competitividade muito importante para a sobrevivência das empresas. A interferência dos clientes na concepção e na fabricação dos produtos está cada vez mais intensa. Dentre as várias estratégias de customização, a tipologia de produção Engineer to Order (ETO), na qual o cliente é envolvido nas fases de design e desenvolvimento do produto, é considerada a mais complexa e ineficiente. Embora o número de organizações classificadas como ETO seja bastante elevado e os problemas associados a esta tipologia sejam bem conhecidos, não existem registros consolidados na literatura sobre qual é a melhor abordagem de gestão das cadeias produtivas destes ambientes. Além disso, as práticas de gestão sugeridas por alguns pesquisadores consideram a tipologia ETO um sistema homogêneo, no qual todas as empresas recebem as mesmas abordagens. No entanto, dentro do universo ETO existem empresas com diferentes tipos de customização. Algumas empresas fabricam produtos completamente novos, desenvolvidos para clientes específicos. Outras empresas fornecem produtos com estrutura híbrida, na qual alguns componentes são padronizados e outros são customizados. A grande diferença entre os sistemas produtivos ETO exige que cada ambiente receba uma abordagem específica para o seu modelo de negócio. Com o intuito de preencher esta lacuna, o presente trabalho propõe uma classificação da tipologia ETO com recomendações das melhores práticas de manufatura para cada subtipologia ETO definida. A classificação proposta foi baseada em estudos de caso com implementações de projetos de melhoria em diferentes ambientes ETO. / The ability of customizing products is considered a very important competitive factor for the survival of nowadays companies. The power of customers influence on products conception and manufacturing is increasing. Among the various customization strategies, the Engineer to Order (ETO) production typology, in which customers are involved at product design and development stages, is considered the most complex and inefficient. Although there are many organizations classified as ETO and the problems associated with this typology are very known, there is a lack of agreement in literature about the best practices for the value chain management of these environments. Furthermore, the practices suggested by some researchers consider the ETO typology as a homogeneous system where all the companies receive the same approach. However, the companies of the ETO universe show different customization approaches. Some companies produce products completely new and designed for specific customers. Other companies provide products with a hybrid structure which is formed by standardized and customized components. The big difference found between all kinds of ETO production systems implies that specific approaches have to be applied for each business model. In order to fill this gap, this work offers a classification for the ETO typology with some recommendations of the best manufacturing practices for each ETO sub typology defined. The proposed classification was based on cases of improvement projects implemented in different ETO environments.

A capacidade de customização de produtos é considerada atualmente um fator de competitividade muito importante para a sobrevivência das empresas. A interferência dos clientes na concepção e na fabricação dos produtos está cada vez mais intensa. Dentre as várias estratégias de customização, a tipologia de produção Engineer to Order (ETO), na qual o cliente é envolvido nas fases de design e desenvolvimento do produto, é considerada a mais complexa e ineficiente. Embora o número de organizações classificadas como ETO seja bastante elevado e os problemas associados a esta tipologia sejam bem conhecidos, não existem registros consolidados na literatura sobre qual é a melhor abordagem de gestão das cadeias produtivas destes ambientes. Além disso, as práticas de gestão sugeridas por alguns pesquisadores consideram a tipologia ETO um sistema homogêneo, no qual todas as empresas recebem as mesmas abordagens. No entanto, dentro do universo ETO existem empresas com diferentes tipos de customização. Algumas empresas fabricam produtos completamente novos, desenvolvidos para clientes específicos. Outras empresas fornecem produtos com estrutura híbrida, na qual alguns componentes são padronizados e outros são customizados. A grande diferença entre os sistemas produtivos ETO exige que cada ambiente receba uma abordagem específica para o seu modelo de negócio. Com o intuito de preencher esta lacuna, o presente trabalho propõe uma classificação da tipologia ETO com recomendações das melhores práticas de manufatura para cada subtipologia ETO definida. A classificação proposta foi baseada em estudos de caso com implementações de projetos de melhoria em diferentes ambientes ETO. / The ability of customizing products is considered a very important competitive factor for the survival of nowadays companies. The power of customers influence on products conception and manufacturing is increasing. Among the various customization strategies, the Engineer to Order (ETO) production typology, in which customers are involved at product design and development stages, is considered the most complex and inefficient. Although there are many organizations classified as ETO and the problems associated with this typology are very known, there is a lack of agreement in literature about the best practices for the value chain management of these environments. Furthermore, the practices suggested by some researchers consider the ETO typology as a homogeneous system where all the companies receive the same approach. However, the companies of the ETO universe show different customization approaches. Some companies produce products completely new and designed for specific customers. Other companies provide products with a hybrid structure which is formed by standardized and customized components. The big difference found between all kinds of ETO production systems implies that specific approaches have to be applied for each business model. In order to fill this gap, this work offers a classification for the ETO typology with some recommendations of the best manufacturing practices for each ETO sub typology defined. The proposed classification was based on cases of improvement projects implemented in different ETO environments.

Techn. Univ., Diss.--München, 2006.