Case Studies

Background & constraints

A first-time luggage brand held a reference sample and had one candidate factory in Guangdong in frame. The decision in front of them was whether to commit to tooling and a first production deposit.

Problem to solve

They wanted an independent view of whether the sample and the supplier were ready before that commitment — specifically, what was unresolved that tooling would otherwise lock in.

Engagement scope

Agreed as a document-and-sample review: product spec, BOM and revision history; physical check of the sample against spec; and a review of the factory’s documented track record on similar shells. No on-site factory visit was included in this scope.

What we examined

• Spec line items vs. the BOM vs. the physical sample, including two revision versions in circulation.
• The wheel and trolley mount structure on the sample.
• The existence and content of any drop / handle-cycle test plan.
• The candidate factory’s documented experience with this shell type and volume.

Confirmed findings

• The lining specified in the spec was not reflected in the BOM; two revision versions were in circulation without a controlled changelog.
• The sample showed a wheel-mount structural choice that, based on field returns observed on similar designs, warrants validation under repeated drop — it had not yet been tested in this engagement.
• No defined drop-cycle or handle-cycle test was documented; sign-off criteria were not yet established.

Open items / to verify

• On-site verification of capacity and process control was outside this scope and remains to be arranged.
• Wheel durability under repeated drop to be tested before tooling sign-off.
• Target-market compliance testing (e.g. REACH) to be confirmed against the intended markets.

Background & constraints

An established accessories brand was working with an existing supplier. They faced recurring returns on zippers and stitching, plus delivery slippage that was starting to affect their launch calendar.

Problem to solve

They needed to know whether the root cause sat in the design specification, the supplier’s process, or incoming materials — and what to fix first, rather than replacing the supplier by guesswork.

Engagement scope

Review of after-sales records and returned units; physical examination of returns; supplier process documentation review; and one on-site observation of the sewing line. Root-cause confirmation at volume was scoped as a follow-up.

What we examined

• Return reason codes and teardown of three representative returned units.
• Stitch density measurement against the agreed specification on the affected seams.
• Zipper grade specified vs. zipper grade found on the returned batches.
• Line balancing and incoming-inspection records observed on-site.

Confirmed findings

• Stitch density on returned units fell below the agreed specification on two seams; this was measurable from the returns themselves.
• A mismatch between the specified zipper grade and the grade used on a batch, traceable to a gap in incoming inspection.
• The cause was not singular: a combination of specification ambiguity, an incoming-inspection gap, and line-balancing pressure.

Open items / to verify

• Correlation between the specific defect and field failure rate to be quantified over the next selling season.
• Corrective-action effectiveness to be verified after implementation, not assumed from the plan.
• Delivery slippage root cause shared with the supplier review, not yet closed.

Background & constraints

A travel-accessories brand held a concept and reference photos but no technical pack. Target cost and a specific hand-feel were fixed; the mechanism that made it “convertible” was the commercial differentiator.

Problem to solve

They needed to turn the concept into a manufacturable specification, select materials and components, find a supplier suited to the category, and develop samples without losing the differentiator or the cost target.

Engagement scope

Concept feasibility, material and component selection, supplier shortlisting from a vetted network, and sample-development coordination across two rounds. Final cost confirmation was dependent on supplier quotation.

What we examined

• Manufacturability of the convertible flap mechanism against the target cost and volume.
• Hardware (buckles, zippers) selected for durability-to-cost, not by catalogue default.
• Two suppliers shortlisted by category fit and MOQ; sampling coordinated in two rounds.

Confirmed findings / outputs

• One structural risk in the convertible flap was identified and revised in the second sampling round.
• A material substitution was proposed that held the target cost and hand-feel; validation against the brand’s approval remained to be completed.
• A supplier better matched to the mechanism complexity was selected over the lower-quote option.

Open items / to verify

• Final unit cost pending supplier quotation at committed volume.
• Pilot run required to validate the revised mechanism at production scale, not yet executed.
• Brand sign-off on the substituted material outstanding.