This is a basis for assessing ‘quality’ of an object (or for example a process or organisation)
The term “fit for purpose” has a great heritage. In the UK it is a phrase enshrined in consumer law. An item sold must be “of merchantable quality and fit for purpose”[1]. For some decades “fit for purpose” was a common phrase in political debate with claims that one or other department was not “fit for purpose”[2]
Use of the “fit for purpose” concept in the context of strategy
I have been called upon to review or validate work clients have already done under the umbrella of “strategy”. There are wide variations in opinion and practice regarding what a strategy should comprise. We risk getting into terminology wars about what ought to go into documents that have particular names. Getting into arguments about whether a document is or is not “a strategy” is generally not helpful (see distinctions before labels – avoiding terminology wars).
One approach is to compare contents against a template (are all topics adequately covered?). This is a form of measurement by comparison against a known reference) but that often is not really what the client needs or wants.
An effective way to avoid getting bogged down in terminology wars or arguments over templates is to work with the client before conducting such reviews and validation exercises to establish “fit for purpose” criteria. This is generally strongly based on why they need a strategy. This provides a focus for the engagement, gives clear completion criteria (so we can tell that our review is compete) and also helps the client to get better value from the engagement.
In some cases “covers well all the topics in a particular template” may be an adequate expression of fitness for purpose. In other cases, we may find that the client need is actually more focussed, for example, with a need to:
- Establish a vision for a preferred alternative future
- Create a prioritised roadmap of activities
- Establish success metrics and KPIs
- Sort out some specific presenting issue (for example, sourcing, organisation, poor quality, poor reputation)
We might not consider that documents with such a focus should be called “strategy” but for the client who wants help with their issue and problem, what they call the document is probably not the biggest issue
This author has found that talking through the concept of “fitness for purpose” as part of the sales process for review and validation work has built a lot of confidence with the client that the review will be valuable.
Heritage: UK Consumer Law.
[1] Sale of Goods Act 1979. Since superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which has more familiar language for the concept of merchantable quality)
[2] More recently the phrase of needing to “get a grip” seems to have become more fashionable.