together quality and cost. 

the quality-cost

Theoretically, cost, quality of performance, ergonomics, the technical limitations of manufacturing processes, durability, design aesthetic and environmental impact all have to be taken into account.

In a real world manufacturing situation, the design team have to negotiate these constraints to reach a point of equilibrium, where these factors and the functionality of the design object are weighed and aligned to meet the greatest needs of the user, most efficiently, at the most reasonable cost. Constraint prioritisation depends totally on the user needs and limitations affecting the client such as available manufacturing processes, and the target market. There's no point in designing something using techniques or materials that the client hasn't the cash flow to manufacture. Equally, if a limited price point means that only low cost materials can be utilised, the design must function to work within that constraint, if possible. A good way round this constraint is the innovative use of materials.

Safety is usually the highest priority. No one wants a law suit. After that prioritisation of constraints all depends on the item's target audience.

If the item is a mass produced domestic utility, then function, cost, performance, safe use, durability and aesthetic will be the hierarchy.

If the item is a luxury, then these factors will be re-arranged, with material costs being inconsequential, design ergonomics more thoroughly researched, and aesthetics prioritised. Even if it doesn't actually perform that well.

If the item is a safety item, then reliable performance will be a more influential factor than cost.

If the item is a modular component that no-one sees for any length of time, then it won't matter that it's ugly, as long as it durable and works safely.

This shift in answering the design constraint hierarchy is the process which results in the difference between Trabant's and Maserati's. Both perform the same basic function, they take you from A to B, but the other design constraints produce very different creations.

In some instances, say in designing safety gear, performance must always outweigh cost, (since a life is at stake). In yet other situations, say where the function includes sitting in someone's home, then aesthetics might be high priority when cost and performance are equal. Where the item is for no-risk industrial use, aesthetics can be demoted, and the balance will be equal between cost and performance, and it won't matter how ugly the item looks as long as it's reliable and offers value for money.

In a trade off between just cost and performance, it is only possible to say which takes precedence on a case by case basis.

In an open ended theoretical question it is impossible to reach an answer. It's a bit like saying who is the greatest tenor; it really all depends what you want them to sing.

You should be optimal, it means that the best strategy is to minimize the cost of design and maximize the quality of performance as much as possible. You should consider an optimal tradeoff among these significant factors.

Quality. Design is always about quality (that devil in the details). Cost is just one of the design contraints that a designer can learn to handle, along with other constraints, regulations, etc. But a design is sucesful usually because of quality. There is no binary selection or tradeoff, as these two are two different categories of things.

You have to consider the type of artifact being designed. However, in a broad sense, the quality is very important because without it the product can not perform as expected and the final cost of it can be very high. The cost among many other parameters must be always considered. You must seek to find a tradeoff between them.

FInding the optimal balance in managing the costs and producing quality is the key whenever making designs. In some very fortunate projects, there is possibility to almost ignore the costs.

Quality of design is not necessarily related to the cost. There can be very good designs with very low production costs in some industry examples. Constraints are an integral part of designing. It is more about skill and creativity (to produce quality within the constraints) rather than resources.

Quality and Cost. we always meet the quality with economic design.

Realistically speaking. Every design needs to be compromised in terms of quality to a certain extent to match the cost cutoff slab. A designer's true skill lays in his/her efficiency to give the best possible withing that boundary

It’s an axiom you hear frequently: Invest in quality now for long term benefits.

So why do so few people follow these words of wisdom?  Usually, it comes down to price.   When designing a sales kit or sample kit, one of the first questions asked is, “Does it fit into our budget?”  If getting the lowest price is your priority, you’re already on the wrong track.   Lets face it: sales kits drive sales, or they’re supposed to.   An effective sales kit aligns business goals, creativity, and communication.   But with a poorly designed sales kit, you might hinder sales rather than help.   You should first ask, “How can we best represent our business?” If you have a quality product, your sales kit should make that obvious.   Here are 3 reasons to put quality above price:

Primary emphasis should obviously be given to quality first while designing; cost can be the secondary factor to consider. Most of the customers always go for good quality product; if the quality is given consideration it will create a good market. Customer now a days are very sensitive, before purchasing any stuff they do a survey about the quality first. Its all about the expertise & true skill of designer to fit the good quality & efficiency within the best possible boundaries.

Cost and quality need not be poles apart. The true measure is, is your product or service good value? An unsatisfactory meal in an expensive restaurant is expensive, but a memorable and enjoyable one is not. A high priced design studio does not necessarily mean that the client is getting value for money. It is very apparent that the quality of book production is often lower than it should be, both in appearance and in content. The measure of maximised sales and profit is not a measure of value. A well designed product that is valued by its buyer and user and that will last, remain comparable with earlier models, and retain its customers, is cheaper even when its initial price may be a little higher than its competition. 

Hi Ellvio, Of course safety should be a priority. I imagine that it is possible to design and manufacture a children's book that may be a hazard to children under the age of five. Poor book book typography can tire eyes, poor binding, narrow gutters and margins and cheap paper can annoy, but are hardly life threatening. However, cheap aluminium cladding that can turn a concrete building into a furnace is another matter. It raises questions about the nature of what is cheap or expensive. The enforcement of building  and customs regulations, the testing of materials and so on. Another example is a product such as the "Thurmo-Mix" where, in addition to alleged design flaws, the range of things the product is expected to accomplish is pitted against a sales pitch that emphasises these features and the need for well articulated safety instructions make education and proper instructions mandatory. New products of greater complexity and made from untried materials and or processes are necessarily more costly to bring to a market. Patents and legal agreement become necessary if the new product in to survive the intrusion of low cost copies, and scale of production is also a hazard if the product is found to be widely utilised.

Dr Stephen Poon,Dr  Anshu Singh Choudhary, Dr Dennis Lindsay Bryans and Dr Elivio Bonollo Thank you very much for the clarification.

Cost is important for poor, quality is important for rich

Mushtaq Ahmad you have point. Personally I refuse to use a chain saw. They are complex, noisy and dangerous. My father taught me how to store, sharpen and use an axe. Not only are the skills worth knowing, but cutting wood with an axe is also good exercise. 

This may depend on who you are designing for and the application of the device/product.  Even at a low cost, poor design isn't beneficial to the end user.  Also, if the cost of the device is something that can decrease once it can be mass produced, then the initial cost may ensure some level of quality and still be cost effective overtime. This is a big issue in the wellness world.  There are thousands of wellness/health devices/apps/platforms.  Very few produce the results they claim they are able to achieve.  

It depends on meaning. In essence, design is about the creation of meaning. Priorities in design therefore should be defined based on meaning.

You cannot extract the notion of market from cost and quality. Design is constrained by customer and market space - optimising performance for market is the key consideration for any practicing designer.

Working within those parameters is key to the commercial success of any product, commercialism also includes bespoke design. Defining market is a key skill for any professional designer.

Designing at the low end of the fashion market would mean (cheap) cost is the key factor. Customers consider a low cost price first, value, then style - quality is not a factor with products being disposable.

Working at the higher end - the product components, design composition, contextual relevance, band heritage, manufacture quality, craftmanship, scarcity, brand equity, desirability will all play a factor in its perceived value. The quality (high) should be reflective of these values. We can only speculate that price, at this market level, is surpassed by quality and style.

Conversely, cost could also be a badge of honour or offer a sense of exclusivity. So in this case, an expensive price tag is also a market space (luxury) determinant and therefore also has an important impact on brand perception and market position. Buying the most expensive product on the market will offer comfort for some - haute couture is a very good example of this.

I find when I design I base it upon the cost. Cost and quality are important factors but many times I can't pay for quality. However, doing the work yourself, cuts down on the cost.

There is no one right answer. Like all design, each project is dependent on the customer.