“The packaging is robust” is useful until you and I have to agree if a parcel will make the grade. One of us may squeeze it, another may scan for obvious defects, while a third demands a lab-based load test. The term “robust” describes a motivation not a quality property, a test protocol or an acceptance threshold. Vague claims don’t work until we specify measurable requirements we can all agree upon.
The word “durable” implies some unknowns like: how long will it last and how hard a load will it carry? Lightweight is relative: lighter than what? Resistant to what, such as water, heat, impact, chemicals? Suitable for which product, purpose, context and conditions? A measurable requirement answers enough of these questions to enable verification and make the decision clear cut.
“Easy to open” should become something like: the product container shall be opened in x seconds or shall require y newtons of force, using method A, under conditions Z, with acceptable results falling within the limits a through e. “Readability” should be: the product label shall display print with a contrast of x and shall retain legibility at 1 m distance for the first y days under lighting conditions z, or for 100,000 hours in the dark before fading to y. We shouldn’t invent figures for these but refer to standards, regulations, design or specialists.
So try this exercise: take 5 of the more vague product claims from the product definition or draft specification and for each one specify which quality property we are dealing with. Then add the unit of measure, conditions of operation or test, acceptance criteria and evidence required. We’re not inventing technical limits or making things up. We’re highlighting what is missing and whether we can source an official standard, test procedure, drawing or specialist decision.
Measurement of itself doesn’t guarantee a full requirement. “The thickness shall be 2mm” leaves an obvious gap if there’s no tolerancing. 2mm may be a nominal value with a defined upper and lower tolerance, but not 2mm plus or minus an undefined margin. And where does thickness get measured, using what instrument, from what batch, how much of it and whether results for individual items or average results are documented?
Trace each measurable criteria and source: is it a technical regulation, a product standard, an agreed requirement, a drawing, a material specification, a process quality rule, etc? And if it’s in a standard, what’s the name? Is the criterion linked to a test report or inspection record? Is there a requirement for a supplier declaration? A measurable criteria looks authoritative when in fact we don’t know its origin.
Some qualities are better represented with visual examples, with a clear defect definition, with controlled conditions for comparison or with expert assessment. It doesn’t do to turn every open ended product claim into a number without considering what the product and quality requirements really are. The point isn’t to dress up our product specifications into technobabble but to take out enough vagueness for different judges to look at the same evidence and come up with the same answer.