Quality Hard to Quantify, Says Report

A GAMIS study shows that trying to establish a formula to define print quality is difficult, if not impossible.

Staff -- graphic arts online, 2/1/2001

Were 10 customers asked to define print quality, each likely would provide a different response. In an attempt to clarify the elusive nature of print quality, the Graphic Arts Marketing Information Service (GAMIS), a special industry group of the Printing Industries of America, Alexandria, Va., recently commissioned a study entitled "Market-Driven Print Quality: What is Good Enough?"

The initial goal of the study was to quantify print quality. Specifically, the objective was to develop a formula or set of rules to define quality. However, as the study progressed its researchers discovered that print quality was a subjective concept that could not easily, if at all, be quantified.

Eye of the beholder

Reports the study, "The task of defining print quality attributes in quantitative terms turned out to be much more difficult an undertaking than originally anticipated. As this study unfolded it became increasingly clear that not only is print quality in the eye of the beholder, but those things that physically determine an objective definition of print quality, with the limited exception of paper, are not necessarily part of the conscious decision-making process when defining the parameters of a print job."

Useful insights

Still, the study-which was based on telephone surveys, focus groups, and technical analysis-uncovered useful insights on quality that included:

• Quality is a function of perception, not fact, and only has relevance when looked at in the context of the purpose of the document. According to the report, "The process begins and ends with the consumer. Print quality decisions are made based on the perception of what will impact the consumer; thus, the consumer is both the beginning and the end of the process. What triggers the buying response of the consumer is a matter of taste."

• Print is a commodity that results from a manufacturing, not a creative, process. Consequently, notes the study, "As a manufacturing industry the value-added of printing is in the execution, not the definition."

• Quality levels above client expectations are a waste of money, but quality levels below expectations are unacceptable. "Print processes are much more consistent and predictably deliver higher levels of print quality with every passing year. The evolution will undoubtedly continue, but more from process improvements than a need to provide higher quality levels to document originators. However, it does increase expectations for the quality norm for any particular job," reports the study.

• When weighing the alternatives between quality, speed, and cost, document originators will not accept two out of three-they want quality, speed, and cost. "The document originators will not accept lowered quality levels," reports the study. "They will choose a printer based on the lowest cost, and then demand immediate delivery. Since it is very difficult for one printer to substantially differentiate himself or herself from another on the quality spectrum, cost has unfortunately become the differentiating factor."

• Paper exerts maximum leverage on print quality parameters and deserves most of the attention when determining print quality tradeoffs. "Paper is the largest single contributor to page cost, makes the most difference in setting the look and feel of a document, and puts a cap on the capabilities of all other factors," notes the study.

For more information on this GAMIS awareness report, call (703) 519-8179.