.png)
I know, I know. I’ve repeatedly banged on about how important Tech Packs are in product development, and now here I am about to tell you there are things they simply can’t do.
They are still essential. If a decision can be recorded, it should be. Measurements, construction, materials, tolerances, approvals. I don’t want important product information living in somebody’s memory or buried halfway down a WhatsApp thread.
But there’s more nuance to it than “good Tech Pack = good product”.
A Tech Pack gives everyone a shared point of reference. It doesn’t replace the experience of the people interpreting it, and it definitely shouldn’t stop them asking questions, challenging something that doesn’t make sense or suggesting a better way to achieve the result.
That, to me, is where really good product development happens.
I started my career as a pattern maker, so when a sample technically meets the measurements but still doesn’t fit properly, my brain usually wants to know what’s happening underneath.
A measurement tells you the distance between two points. It doesn’t necessarily tell you what shape exists between them. Give two pattern makers the same measurements for the curved sides of a triangle cup and you can still end up with two quite different patterns.
So sometimes I’ll look at a sample and think, the numbers might be right, but something here isn’t.
I’m much more comfortable trusting that feeling now. I don’t need to immediately know the answer, but I know there’s a reason, and I want to investigate it.
Often that means asking to see the pattern. Some factories are completely comfortable with this and others can be quite protective of it, which still mystifies me a little.
For me, sharing the pattern when something isn’t working is simply part of solving the problem together. I’m bringing a pattern-making background, they’re bringing their pattern and manufacturing knowledge, and between us there’s a much better chance of getting to the root of the issue quickly.
That’s the kind of relationship I want with a factory. Not one person protecting their patch, but everyone bringing what they know and using it to move the product forward.
The same thing happens with workmanship.
A construction can be exactly as specified and still not be executed particularly well. Maybe a seam is unnecessarily bulky, an edge feels scratchy, or an attachment technically does what it’s supposed to do but looks clumsy.
I’ve seen this on products where a very specific construction detail is central to the brand’s USP. Technically, the feature was there. But the execution wasn’t.
And that matters.
If you’re developing something genuinely different, there may not be an existing product for the factory to copy. You’re asking them to make something new. At that point I don’t really want a factory that simply follows the drawing and sends it back whether it works or not. I want one that looks at it and says, “We tried this, but we think there’s a better way.”
Please! Tell me.
The Tech Pack is there to communicate the intention, not to shut down everybody else’s expertise.
I see this a lot in bra specs: measurements that make the table look very complete, but don’t actually tell me anything useful.
Quite often I find myself looking at one and thinking, why are we measuring air?
Take the distance between two straps on a three-dimensional garment that doesn’t naturally lie flat. You can move the garment around on the table until you hit the number. Excellent. Box ticked.
But what have we actually controlled? Very little.
Those measurements often feel like busy work to me. They exist because somebody felt a measurement ought to be there, not because that measurement genuinely helps us assess whether the garment is right.
Bras are full of curves, tension and shaping. Sometimes the useful measurement needs to follow a curve or go around a corner, and sometimes a pattern amendment changes it in a way that isn’t easy to predict in advance.
This is exactly why I want the factory involved in the conversation. If a measurement no longer makes sense, tell me. If there’s a better way to control that part of the garment, suggest it. If the number simply can’t be achieved without distorting the sample, please don’t manipulate the garment until it technically passes and send it back as though everything is fine.
That just creates another round of comments for all of us.
The document should help us control the product. It shouldn’t become an exercise in proving we can make the sample agree with the spreadsheet.
I still care enormously about detail. I don’t think that part of me is going anywhere. But I’ve become better at distinguishing between something that could technically be improved and something that genuinely needs to be improved.
Sometimes a small fit issue is going to affect the customer experience, compromise support or create a problem in bulk. That needs resolving. Sometimes the product could be made marginally more technically perfect, but doing so means missing a launch date and creating a much bigger commercial problem.
There isn’t a formula for that decision.
Likewise, there are occasions when I’ll approve an amendment directly into production without seeing another sample because I know the factory, understand the change and trust them to execute it. With a different factory or a different amendment, I absolutely wouldn’t.
That judgement doesn’t come from lowering standards. It comes from understanding where the risk actually sits.
This might be the thing I value most now.
Of course I want a factory to follow the Tech Pack. If I’ve specified a particular fabric, construction or measurement, I don’t want them discreetly changing it because it suits them better.
But following instructions and contributing expertise aren’t opposites.
A good factory knows things I don’t. They know their machinery, their production methods, what their operators can reproduce consistently and what they’ve seen work across thousands of garments. I want that knowledge in the conversation.
If something I’ve specified won’t work, tell me why. If there’s a better construction, show me. If a measurement doesn’t make sense once the pattern has changed, flag it and suggest what you think it should be.
Then I bring what I know about the product, the fit, the customer and the brand. Someone else might bring expertise in materials, production or commercial planning.
Nobody needs to pretend they hold the whole answer.
That’s what collaboration actually looks like to me. Everyone brings their expertise to the table, the documentation keeps us aligned, and together we work out the best way to make the product.
You can put an enormous amount of information into a Tech Pack.
You just can’t put the people in there.
