I don't like your options. "good enough" rarely is, and perfection is usually a pipe dream. How about "good enough" versus doing it right? In that case I'd pick doing it right regardless of the time frame.
>While doing it right is important, you also need to take time into account.
Yes, you do, but that shouldn't affect quality. If you have to throw more resources at the problem, so be it. If you need to remove fluff to focus on core problems, so be it. But if you can't do it right in a reasonable time frame, you shouldn't be doing it at all.
On the otherhand there are times when perfection is required. I don't want to jump out of an airplain with a parachute that was folded just "good enough" (I wouldn't jump out of a perfectly good airplain anyway, but you get my drift).
good enough is misleading. if a job can be done good enough then it is perfect if it solves the fundamental problem without creating more. in that case good enough should suffice.
but there is absolutely no point in doing a thing which does not solve the problem. and to do this specific thing when there is a solution which solves the problem but takes to long is even worse. in that case you have to make a decision. do you want the problem solved or not. if you do then you should do the thing that work no matter how long it takes.
so in the end you have to go for "perfection". as i said. there is little point of doing something if it saves time but achieves nothing or even not enough.
labour is expensive. if you spend too much time working on something you waste time which wastes money. this money which had been wasted has to be paid in by the consumer. so if something takes long to produce thenit is expensive.
conversely if you make it quick you save labour hours which drives down the costs. so if it is made quickly it is cheap.
maybe salem meant good quality but takes a long time to produce and hence expensive vs mediocre quality but is produced quickly and in probably in large quantity.