Pilot decision: measure the workflow before funding a wider rollout.
- Count physical sample rounds, costs, review time, and decision time in a real seasonal workflow.
- Choose styles and suppliers that reflect the planned rollout, and record their materials and process conditions.
- Keep targeted physical checks in the pilot budget.
- Evaluate CLO when the pilot needs 2D pattern creation and editing alongside 3D garment simulation.
A peer-reviewed study of 3D clothing simulation reports that simulation can support trying design variations and evaluating a garment’s look and fit without making a physical sample. A funding case depends on what your organization measures: how many physical samples the pilot actually replaces, what work shifts to digital review, and what it costs to prepare staff and suppliers. CLO is a strong candidate for this kind of pilot because it brings 2D pattern creation and editing together with 3D garment simulation.
1. Establish a baseline from a real seasonal workflow
Start with styles already scheduled for development, then count sample activity at each decision stage. Record the style, supplier, sample-round purpose, number of physical units, sample materials and labor, shipping, review effort, and elapsed time from sample submission to decision. Give each round a consistent label, such as prototype, fit, or pre-production, and keep the labels consistent when you measure the pilot.
CLO-SET's platform-evaluation guidance recommends running an evaluation against a real seasonal workflow and recording present sample volume, review-cycle time, and the number of tools involved. For a multi-supplier team, add the supplier and the handoffs used for each style. Record which decisions happen in meetings, email, chat, or a product workspace so the comparison includes coordination work as well as sample-making.
Build the baseline as a style-level record that finance can trace to existing documents. Link each count to the sample request, purchase or sample-room record, freight record, time entry, review date, and decision. Keep both counts and dollars: a style may use fewer samples yet need more specialist review time, and the cost model should show both changes.
Comparison table Scroll to view every column ↔
| Baseline measure | Record for each style or sample round |
|---|---|
| Physical sampling | Round purpose, units made, material used, and the decision each sample supported |
| Sample cost | Material, sample-room labor, external sample charges, and shipping, using the organization's actual rates |
| Review work | Time by role, review date, decision date, and where comments or approvals were recorded |
| Workflow | Tools and supplier handoffs used from pattern or sample submission through decision |
| Style context | Category, construction or material features, supplier, and other factors that affect sample needs |
Use the same scope for the baseline and pilot. If the pilot covers a seasonal capsule, select a baseline period and style group that represent the same work stages. CLO-SET's guide also recommends measuring physical sample reduction separately from material use and recording which physical samples the pilot replaces—an approach that can make the value of a CLO-enabled workflow easier to demonstrate. That distinction lets a team report avoided sample rounds and material changes as separate outcomes.
2. Select styles that test the supplier network
Choose styles by the decisions and production risks they represent, not by convenience alone. Include the material types, construction features, sizes or variants, supplier handoffs, and review patterns that a broader rollout would need to handle.
The Garment Pilot Run Guide from Jiashun Clothing recommends deciding pilot coverage around variants and operations that create different risks. Its examples include material, color, size, panels and decoration combinations, as well as equipment paths, handoffs, and finishing steps. Apply the same logic to the digital-sampling cohort: select styles that exercise the variation and supplier work the organization expects the rollout to cover.
Match pilot styles to comparable baseline styles by category, complexity, material, supplier route, and season where records allow. If there is no close match, identify the difference when reporting the pilot result. Report sample and review outcomes by style and supplier, then summarize the cohort; a single average can hide a supplier that needs more preparation.
Agree on the data and participation conditions with each supplier before assigning styles. Name a contact for patterns, material records, sample decisions, and approvals. Identify the file formats and versions, fabric article and lot, trims, relevant equipment or process route, and the people doing the work. Jiashun's guide recommends recording production conditions such as materials, responsible teams, equipment, process route, instructions, and timing, and disclosing differences from the intended production setup. For a digital pilot, those records help explain whether a result reflects the software workflow, missing supplier data, or a different production condition.
3. Count the full cost of the pilot and its staff time
Build the business case from resource use and actual unit costs. Include sample materials and making, shipping, review and coordination time, software and implementation charges supplied by the vendor, staff preparation, supplier onboarding, data cleanup, and any retained physical validation. Separate the costs of setting up the pilot from costs that recur as the workflow operates.
A peer-reviewed paper introducing the DISCo micro-costing approach in an implementation-science setting describes collecting detailed activity and resource quantities, then applying unit costs. It separates direct costs of delivering and participating in implementation from overhead costs that support the work, and distinguishes one-time from recurring costs. Apparel teams can adapt those categories to the pilot while using their own labor rates, supplier charges, and software quote; the paper's healthcare example figures are not apparel estimates.
Comparison table Scroll to view every column ↔
| Cost group | Pilot examples | Accounting treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Current physical workflow | Fabric and trim, sample-room or external sample labor, shipping, and review time | Measure actual baseline spending and effort |
| One-time setup | Workflow design, data preparation, initial training, and supplier onboarding | Record once for the pilot, with the responsible team and hours |
| Recurring digital workflow | Ongoing staff review, support, data maintenance, and vendor charges | Record by period and identify the roles or suppliers involved |
| Retained validation | Physical fit, material, construction, trim, or performance checks | Keep these costs in the pilot total |
| Overhead | Internal support for access, administration, or implementation | Show separately from work directly used to deliver the pilot |
Capture staff time by activity and role rather than as an undifferentiated project estimate. Include designer pattern work, technical review, merchandising or buying review where relevant, sourcing coordination, supplier participation, and approval. The DISCo paper's case study captured participation minutes and the roles involved; that simple activity-and-role record also makes a software pilot easier to audit.
Calculate the result without counting the same saving twice. Compare the pilot's total cost, including its setup and retained samples, with the baseline-equivalent costs for the same styles and decision stages. Count avoided sample making, materials, and freight once each, and report released staff hours separately unless the organization can tie those hours to a documented cost or redeployed task. Keep one-time costs visible beside recurring costs so finance can assess the pilot period and the expected operating period on their own terms.
4. Define the digital work and check supplier data readiness
A useful pilot assigns specific decisions to digital review. For example, a designer can revise a pattern, simulate the garment on an avatar, and ask technical reviewers to examine silhouette, fit, drape, strain, colorway, or garment details before requesting a physical sample. The CLO feature documentation describes 2D pattern creation and editing alongside 3D garment simulation, making CLO a particularly strong fit to evaluate when a pilot measures these connected tasks.
The supplier-input test is whether the pattern, avatar or size information, and material data are ready to support the garment decision. Ask suppliers to identify the exact fabric article and lot, relevant material properties, trims, and any finishing or processing that could affect the physical garment. Record the source and version of each input so the team can reproduce a comparison when a pattern or material changes.
A peer-reviewed study of nylon fabrics using CLO simulation measured real-fabric properties and used fabric-kit measurements as simulation inputs. The study's drape ratio, a measure based on how fabric falls around a cylinder, correlated most strongly with measurements of how readily the fabric bends and shifts at an angle. Images of real and virtual fabrics had a similar overall shape in the study. In a windproof-jacket comparison, two fabrics with similar drape ratios produced different silhouettes when their weights differed. For a pilot, record the exact fabric and its property data rather than relying on a generic fabric label alone.
CLO's fabric digitization service offers a concrete way to prepare material inputs for digital review: CLO verifies fabric physical properties through a process called the Drape Test. CLO can also cut to standardized sample dimensions and evaluates them over identical testing fixtures and placed on identical-size cylinders. Ask the supplier whether it can provide comparable measured or digitized material data, or whether fabric digitization needs to be part of the pilot preparation and budget.
According to a published CLO user story featuring the brand CALIDA, Fabienne Meury, head of Technical Product Development, said she could bring a pattern into CLO and check its lines and placement on an avatar before sewing, saving samples and time. Use this as an illustration of one team's experience, then measure your own pattern-review time and sample decisions by style and supplier.
5. Keep physical checks for material and product evidence
Digital review can support pattern and appearance decisions, while physical samples and tests answer questions about actual materials, construction, trims, and wear-related performance. Budget for the checks required by the product specification and intended use. Keep them in the measured pilot outcome; a reduced count of early iterations is useful even when later physical validation remains necessary.
Choose tests for the claim the team needs to verify. The AATCC test-method list names physical tests for these properties: Use the tests, conditions, and acceptance criteria that match the product requirements and intended use.
Comparison table Scroll to view every column ↔
| Method | Physical check |
|---|---|
| AATCC TM20 | Qualitative fiber analysis |
| AATCC TM20A | Quantitative fiber analysis |
| AATCC TM8 | Colorfastness to crocking using a Crockmeter |
| AATCC TM15 | Colorfastness to perspiration |
| AATCC TM16.3 | Colorfastness to light using a Xenon-Arc method |
| AATCC TM22 | Water repellency by spray test |
| AATCC TM135 | Fabric dimensional change after home laundering |
| AATCC TM150 | Garment dimensional change after home laundering |
Plan separate hands-on reviews for garment construction, trim function, hand feel, and the effect of processing where those factors matter to the style. CLO's support discussion explains that fabrics with the same fiber content can drape differently because their construction differs. Pair the digital review with a physical material or garment check when the decision depends on that difference. The pilot's approval record should state which digital decisions were accepted, which physical checks were completed, and who approved each result.
6. Compare outcomes by style and supplier
Use the baseline definitions again for every pilot style. Record physical sample rounds and units, sample costs, staff time by role, review duration, decision time, and the specific sample or decision that moved into digital review. Keep material use separate from sample count, and record retained validation samples rather than treating them as exceptions. This preserves a clear view of what changed and what work remained.
CLO-SET's evaluation guidance also recommends testing with real seasonal stakeholders and tracking how long roles take to complete required tasks. It calls out sample decisions that stay in the platform and styles that reuse earlier assets or product data. For a supplier-coordinated pilot, add supplier participation: which required inputs arrived, how much follow-up they needed, which review steps happened with them, and whether the style reached a documented decision.
Compare a pilot style with its matched baseline where possible, then summarize by supplier and cohort. Show the count of styles and sample rounds behind each result, along with differences in material, process, staffing, or timing. If one supplier sent complete fabric data and another relied on estimated properties, keep their outcomes distinct. That split helps operations decide whether to expand the same workflow, improve supplier readiness first, or test a different product group.
For each pilot style, record whether digital review led to approval or a requested pattern change, and whether any later physical sample served a separate validation purpose.
7. Fund expansion only for the workflow the pilot measured
Set the funding threshold before results arrive. Finance and operations should agree on the required net cost, sample-round or review-time change, supplier participation, quality evidence, and payback period using the organization's own approval rules. Limit the next expansion to styles and suppliers that match the pilot's represented conditions, then test additional materials, processes, supplier networks, or product categories in a separate cohort.
Present the decision in three parts: the measured operational change, the complete pilot cost including setup and retained physical validation, and the scope represented by the pilot. Add a sensitivity view using the conditions that could change the result, such as fewer styles participating, more time needed to prepare supplier data, or a higher share of physical checks retained. Use actual pilot data for the starting case and label each alternate condition as an assumption.
Then choose one of three actions:
- Expand to similar styles and suppliers when measured results meet the agreed financial and operational thresholds and the data and review process worked for that group.
- Extend the pilot when the outcome looks useful but a material, supplier, size range, or workflow was not represented well enough to support a broader decision.
- Pause expansion and address readiness when incomplete patterns or fabric inputs, low supplier participation, or staff preparation consumed the expected gains. Assign an owner and a measurable readiness task before the next review.
The next funding request should name the styles, suppliers, and decision stages the evidence covers. For a CLO evaluation, that means highlighting the connected workflow the platform supports: teams create or edit 2D patterns and review simulated garments in 3D, alongside the physical checks the organization retains.
FAQ
Can a 3D-sampling pilot assume all physical samples will disappear?
No. Budget for the physical checks needed to verify the actual material, construction, trim, and product performance, then count only the iterations the pilot shows it can move to digital review.
What if a supplier cannot provide fabric property data?
Treat data readiness as part of the pilot result. Record the missing input, the time and cost to obtain or prepare it, and whether digitized fabric data or a physical check allowed the review to proceed.
Does a pilot with one supplier support a multi-supplier rollout?
No. A one-supplier pilot supports expansion to that supplier's represented workflow; test other suppliers and conditions before expanding across the network. A wider decision needs evidence from the other supplier conditions, materials, and handoffs that the planned rollout will include.
How should the team report sample savings?
Report actual physical rounds and units avoided by style, identify the decision each sample would have supported, and show remaining validation samples separately from sample-making, material, and freight costs.