The Shoe Industry’s Origins and Don Laureano Kapitan Moy Guevarra’s Contribution

The shoe industry began when Don Laureano “Kapitan Moy” Guevarra, took an effort in studying his own pair of worn-out British shoes in 1887. He made sure to analyze its components by dismantling and keenly observed how Chinese shoemakers work. Together with his workers, they studied the layers of the shoe sample and learned how to fix it back. After accumulating knowledge and making patterns out of it, he then tried designing his own pair of shoes by using the only available materials and tools that they have with the villager’s support.

He passed down his knowledge and mastery to the locality. And for this, he was known as the founder of the Marikina shoe industry (“Marikina City: The Shoe Capital of the Philippines,” n.

d.)

Years later, the demand for machine-made shoes started during the American Period. Shoe factories were built due to the requested production of army shoes for the Americans in 1898. At the same time, Toribio Teodoro pioneered the use of machinery in shoemaking, formed his own firm and demonstrated his knowledge to the local community (Angeles, 2016).

At around the 1950s, Marikina earned the title “Shoe Capital of the Philippines”, producing 70% of shoes distributed around the country (Almocera et al., 2019). Even the work ethics of the native shoemakers have adapted in response to the growing market demands. Industrial plants sprouted throughout the vicinity which is followed by a growing number of workers. Marikina Shoe Trade Fair and Marikina Shoe Trade Commission were created for the industry’s promotion and advancement (“Marikina City: The Shoe Capital of the Philippines,” n.d.).

The Downfall of Industry: Trade Liberalization

In the 1980s, the liberalization in trading of goods between nations had made a huge impact on the city. Imported products were distributed around, which leads to the local community’s declination of their own industry. It resulted to a drop in local market demands followed by the number of closures in footwear stores. With great effort of the shoe manufacturers in reviving their business, Marikina Footwear Manufacturers Exporters Association was organized to systematize the industry by introducing modern techniques in managing businesses (Angeles, 2016).

In the 1990s, there was a notable importation of cheap products from neighboring countries due to the liberalization of trading. In 1995, it was unfortunate for the shoemakers that the country became one of the World Trade Organization. It counted an average of 38.5 million pairs of imported shoes and a half drop in the number of shoe manufacturers (Angeles, 2016).

In the late 1990s, Mayor Bayani F. Fernando had done several contributions to the shoe industry. One of which was the restoration of Kapitan Moy’s residence, declaring it as the city’s “Sentrong Pangkultura”. The Shoe Museum was also built to nurture and house the cultural values of the industry. It launched its first opening in 2001 and was entitled as the Footwear Museum of Marikina (Angeles, 2016).

Presently, imported shoes are still being distributed in our domestic markets. The local industry is in disorder, and its future is still unpredictable (Scott, 2005).

MaSIDO

The Marikina Shoe Industry Development Office (MASIDO) is a department that is greatly in charge in supervising the shoe & leathergoods industry of the city. They stand to promote and strengthen the values in the art of shoemaking by forming cooperation that will bring out a streamline of shoemakers in the locale (“Marikina Shoe Industry Development Office,” n.d.).

The city’s industry is too focused on the local market that they lack the encouragement in becoming competitive globally by promoting quality upgrade (Scott, 2005). And apparently, the shoe market still needs development as well as its promotion locally and internationally (Mendoza, n.d.). With regards to this, MaSIDO and the Department of Science and Technology-National Capital Region vows to revive the manufacturing sector and make it more competitive. Projects that were launched include the “Trainer” Training on the Operation of Machines and Equipment for the Shoe Industry of Marikina City”. This project gathers natives, with proficient skills in shoemaking, to train people by demonstrating them through hands-on. They also elaborate on its maintenance and the use of machinery in the process of manufacturing (Alcasid, 2017). The use of technology will increase the number of productions however, the comparison of quality between hand-made and machine-made is still ambiguous.

Mass Customization in Shoe Industry

Despite the continuous encouragement of becoming globally competitive, a study has reported regarding the economic problems from the global market. Recently, countries from Europe have been experiencing a challenge in the shoe industry in competence with the low-priced imported shoes coming from countries in Asia (Rahimifard, Newman, Barnett, & Newman, 2004). Citizens from Europe preferred buying imported shoes rather than locally made ones. It is unfortunate that the Philippine shoe industry, an Asian country, is also experiencing the same problem. The Marikina shoe industry had experienced the downfall due to the Trade Liberalization in the 1980s. Imported products were distributed around, which leads to the local community’s declination of their own industry.

As a solution to this problem, an approach that is emerging nowadays is the implementation of mass customization (MC) in the footwear industry. This can revive the local market as it is a service that the low priced imported shoes cannot offer (Rahimifard et al., 2004). Furthermore, in Chryssolouris, Pandremenos, Georgoulias, Jufer, and Bathelt’s (2010) analysis, customers, as well as the suppliers, equipment providers, etc. need to be involved in the design process through interaction with the designer in order for the MC to work effectively.

This concept will encourage people to engage more on the field of shoe manufacturing and increase their knowledge about the product. Due to the involvement of the customers in the design process, it is important in planning spaces to take into consideration the connectivity between the manufacturers and the public without interfering the user’s productivity.

Dynamic Facility Layout Problem

One of the goals of the shoe industry is to efficiently maximize the user’s productivity while minimizing wasted resources. Ulutas & Islier’s (2015) study stated:

“The total material handling costs within a facility are mainly affected by demand that usually depends on consumer, technological parameters, and facility layout”.

The authors introduced the concept of dynamism, referring to a flexible layout. Having problems in facility layout could greatly affect the production and costs of the manufacture. In Sharma & Singhal (2016) analysis, it is stated that:

“An improper layout will result in reduced productivity, increased tied up capital and in some cases it can lead the personnel being exposed to unnecessary physical material handling without any due cause. Between 20% to 50% of the entire operating costs and 15% to 70% of the total cost for a product is attributed to handling of material and at least 10% to 30% of these costs could have been saved if layouts were planned effectively.”

Achieving a proper layout can easily adapt to the dynamic trends in fashion and shoe industry, being flexible to the different process of manufacturing depending on the design. Another factor that could affect the users’ health is the evident smell coming from the raw materials such as rubber and leather, resulted from the lack of proper ventilation. The lack of communication between different sections creates unwanted errors which will increase another workload, wasted time and loss of product quality (Ulutas & Islier, 2015). In conclusion, planning a layout takes a lot to consider in order to design a facility efficiently and hospitable. What is mentioned above are just a few of the aspects that could affect production. Therefore, it is important to learn more about the local industry as well as the shoemakers’ experience to get an in-depth analysis of designing a shoe center.

Bibliography

• Alcasid, E. (2017). DOST-NCR Walks with Local Government of Marikina to Strengthen Shoe Industry. Retrieved April 16, 2019, from February 24, 2017 website:
• Almocera, A., De Guzman, I., Dubla, J., Endaya, J. K., Macapagal, J., & Salazar, J. (2019). Liberalization and the Value Chain Upgrading Imperative: The Case of the Marikina Footwear Industry. Retrieved from
• Alquitran, N. (2016). Marikina offers shoemaking course to students | Philstar.com. Retrieved May 4, 2019, from
• Angeles, N. (2016). The History of Marikina’s Shoe Industry?: Philippine Art, Culture and Antiquities. Retrieved from
• Fortes, T. (2013). Kenya Cultural Center Thamara. Retrieved from
• Marikina City: The Shoe Capital of the Philippines. (n.d.). Retrieved May 2, 2019, from
• Marikina Shoe Industry Development Office. (n.d.). Retrieved May 4, 2019, from
• Mendoza, J. (n.d.). The Marikina Shoe Industry. Retrieved from
• Rahimifard, S., Newman, S. T., Barnett, L., & Newman, S. (2004). Distributed scheduling to support mass customization in the shoe industry EPSRC CIMIS-GC: Resource Efficient Manufacturing View project Cloud Manufacturing View project. Article in International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing.
• Scott, A. J. (2005). The Shoe Industry of Marikina City , Philippines?: A Developing-Country Cluster in Crisis. Journal of Third World Studies, 20(2), 76-99. Retrieved from
• Ulutas, B., & Islier, A. A. (2015). Dynamic facility layout problem in footwear industry. Article in Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 36, 55-61.