Newspeak Jargonitis

[AndyID]

I know it's popular for people in the UK to ridicule the Americanization of English (oops, I think I just made a new one!)

 

But, these days, whenever I read a UK publication, I keep running into something called "fit for purpose". What pl**ker came up with that one I ask?

 

Admittedly it's been a while since I lived in the UK, but there was no such thing when I lived there. Back then, we might have said "it doesn't work", plus or minus a few carefully selective adverbs (particularly in the vicinity of Glasgow).

[Ian J.]

The phrase isn't new, and I have heard 'not fit for purpose' quite a lot. In the I.T. industry, software that hasn't been well designed is often called 'not fit for purpose'. It has meaning, in that something may work but just either isn't for the job it's being used for, or is not up to the job it's being used for.

 

I could certainly say that of the software I had to use in the last job I just started then finished less than three months later - for me it actually made the job harder, but the management had decided many moons before I saw it that it was good enough for 10 years ago therefore it was still good enough now (despite siginificant changes to the landscape of the job that needed to be done).

[Oakydoke]

"Not fit for purpose" must have been in general use for 20 years or more.

[trisonic]

One thing I’ve noticed about English since I’ve lived abroad is the UK “Copspeak” of ending sentences with the rising inflection “yeah?”. There a few others that simply don’t exist in the USA like the “that’s a Big If” too. It’s too early over here to rationalize my head.....

 

Best, Pete.

[RhBBob]

Likely to turn up frequently in the next two months along with its old friend 'lessons have been learned'.

 

Ends on or about 7th May although I haven't yet seen anything about it in the press......

 

 

Ian J. I like the 'landscape of the job' - that's a new one on me !! 

[Metr0Land]

Use (in UK) probably started and grew from the Sale of Goods Act 1979

 

Under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 goods must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.

 

The phrase 'fit for purpose' thus crept into common usage from there, as it seemed to apply to a lot of situations irrespective of whether sales of goods were at issue or not.  eg a working process that was perfectly acceptable when introduced may have become not fit for purpose over time, as situations changed.

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

The concept of 'fitness for purpose' lies at the heart of quality management, and the term was certainly current in the UK in the 1960s as that's when I heard my father use it. I suspect it may go back at least as far as the wartime ABC standard, the forerunner (in the Anglo world at least) of what we now know as the ISO 9000 standards. Although I don't have a copy by me to check (gave it to a younger colleague to add weight for beating others over the head) I am pretty sure the term will be found in Joseph Juran's 'Quality Control Handbook' first published in 1951.

[Horsetan]

.... quality kwalitee management, .....

 

There, that's more like it. 

[jonny777]

I always thought that "Quality Management" was just a way for admin types to re-build vast staff empires that seemed to have been lost when computers took over the jobs of filing clerks?

 

It replaced decisions based on common sense and decades of experience, with massive books of instructions which had to be signed off every few hours as "controlled copies" and recent activities monitored from one minute to the next (with the benefit of hindsight) by people who had no concept of the complexities of an ongoing fluid situation, where vital decisions had to be made instantaneously given the current data and aforementioned experience of what was likely to happen.

 

 

 

Right, that's got that off my chest.

[Ian J.]

Likely to turn up frequently in the next two months along with its old friend 'lessons have been learned'.

 

Ends on or about 7th May although I haven't yet seen anything about it in the press......

 

 

Ian J. I like the 'landscape of the job' - that's a new one on me !! 

 

The metaphor works for me, of course, as I know the situation I'm talking about, but it does sound a bit new-speak when taken out of that context...

[Bill Radford]

The one that gets me is "because it is the right thing to do" emanating from the mouths of politicians. It might not be an Americanism but it it bugs me!

[34theletterbetweenB&D]

...It replaced decisions based on common sense and decades of experience,..

Correct. Quite often the people making those 'common sense' decisions had to be sacked or otherwise sidelined when counter-intuitive decisions based on data were required to operate the business most economically.

 

A simple example of this from my own portfolio, burn outs in motor windings. The 'common sense' solution that had been applied was to specify an increase in the lacquer thickness on the wire. And the burn outs became yet more frequent. The solution was to reduce the lacquer coating thickness, but under better statistical process control. Quite apart from eliminating the failures, it directly saved money too by reduced materials consumption.

[Pacific231G]

It's worth remembering that "Newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984 was about tightly controlling and reducing the language so that people wouldn't have the words available to talk about or even  think about concepts that might constitute "thoughtcrime" or any thoughts that weren't approved of by The Party. For example, the word "free" could only mean free as in "This dog is free of fleas" and the phrase commonly used by party members "Proles and animals are free" would become meaningless . Every word had a simple and unambiguous definition approved by the authorities (which is sometimes what some Radio Four listeners seem to crave) 

 

If controlling the language is a way of controlling people's thoughts then having a language that nobody, especially not English teachers, has the authority to control but which develops naturally and sometimes a bit messily, is I believe something that underpins our freedoms in other areas.

[DavidB-AU]

The Académie française has ideas about obsessively and conservatively controlling another language.

 

Cheers

David

[Huw Griffiths]

I know it's popular for people in the UK to ridicule the Americanization of English (oops, I think I just made a new one!)

 

But, these days, whenever I read a UK publication, I keep running into something called "fit for purpose".

 

Likely to turn up frequently in the next two months along with its old friend 'lessons have been learned'.

 

Ends on or about 7th May although I haven't yet seen anything about it in the press......

 

"Lessons have been learned" ... hmmm ... that kind of sums things up - doesn't matter which mob are in power, or trying to get into power.

 

I suspect that a number of mere voters might tend to favor the "duck test":

 

"If it looks like a duck - walks like a duck - and talks like a duck - ... ." Yup - guess what, guys - it looks like somebody might be having duck for dinner - either that, or said ducks might be about to get a floating house on a lake - paid for by taxpayers, of course.

 

 

(As always, I'm being careful not to give any clues about my own political leanings.

 

However, in the interests of political neutrality, I should point out that a number of MPs, of a number of political parties, were censured over fraudulent expenses claims. Some were forced to resign - some were prosecuted - some were even convicted and jailed.

 

Still - in the words of Shakespeare: "so are they all, all honourable men" - so that settles it, then - MPs are not allowed to be dodgy - and I'm not sure that anyone's allowed to suggest otherwise - so I'm not going to.)

 

 

Still, at least we haven't yet heard talk of "blue sky thinking" - even if, in televised debates / Q&A sessions, leaders of political parties* are being forced to confront voter cynicism.

 

(*Those that can actually be bothered to turn up, that is.)

 

 

I always thought that "Quality Management" was just a way for admin types to re-build vast staff empires that seemed to have been lost when computers took over the jobs of filing clerks?

 

It replaced decisions based on common sense and decades of experience, with massive books of instructions which had to be signed off every few hours as "controlled copies" and recent activities monitored from one minute to the next (with the benefit of hindsight) by people who had no concept of the complexities of an ongoing fluid situation, where vital decisions had to be made instantaneously given the current data and aforementioned experience of what was likely to happen.

 

Correct. Quite often the people making those 'common sense' decisions had to be sacked or otherwise sidelined when counter-intuitive decisions based on data were required to operate the business most economically.

 

A simple example of this from my own portfolio, burn outs in motor windings. The 'common sense' solution that had been applied was to specify an increase in the lacquer thickness on the wire. And the burn outs became yet more frequent. The solution was to reduce the lacquer coating thickness, but under better statistical process control. Quite apart from eliminating the failures, it directly saved money too by reduced materials consumption.

 

This brings us back to QM (Quality Management) - and its distant cousin, the "paper airplane" exercise of QA (Quality Assurance).

 

 

Meanwhile, on the railroads railways, passengers have been replaced by customers - the only thing that seems to have changed is that some passengers might have got taken for a ride ... .

 

We're now expected to be on the platform a few minutes early, because the companies allow themselves to lock the train doors - and dispatch consists trainsets - before the advertized time.

 

However, these same companies also allow a number of their trains to arrive / depart a few minutes late - so we're also kept hanging around, often with no information whatsoever and completely out of the loop.

 

I sort of guess that some people might see this as a case of "hurry up and wait".

 

 

Anyway - that's enough of that - "move on - there's nothing to see" - whatever.

 

 

I also like the observations about the writings of a certain Eric Arthur Blair (aka "George Orwell") - and talk of tight controls of the media, what people are allowed to say and the language they are allowed to use.

 

Of course, I'm not about to accuse another guy by the name of Blair - or some guy by the name of Cameron, for that matter - of using Orwellian tactics to muzzle the press and smash dissent. I'm not about to accuse any of our political leaders of nonsense like this. After all - haven't you heard - they are all honourable men.

 

Yes - right - well, I'm not saying that they are not ... .

 

 

Anyway, I think it's time to get back to the trains.

 

 

Regards,

 

Huw.

[teaky]

"That's a big ask".

 

Grrr!

[Fat Controller]

The Académie française has ideas about obsessively and conservatively controlling another language.

 

Cheers

David

You left out 'ineffectually'....

[Graham Hughes]

Didn't "Not fit for purpose" enter common usage, beyond the narrow definition laid down in the Sale of Goods Act, following a report into some public body or other which declared it thus?

In regard to political terms, why does every possibly unfunded policy always have to be "a black hole"?

[Metr0Land]

Didn't "Not fit for purpose" enter common usage, beyond the narrow definition laid down in the Sale of Goods Act, following a report into some public body or other which declared it thus?

 

 

You're probably thinking of the John Reid quote of 2006 which gave the term quite a public boost?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/23/immigrationpolicy.immigration1

[108]

"Lessons have been learned" ... hmmm ... that kind of sums things up - doesn't matter which mob are in power, or trying to get into power.

 

 

 

I suspect that a number of mere voters might tend to favor the "duck test":

 

 

 

"If it looks like a duck - walks like a duck - and talks like a duck - ... ." Yup - guess what, guys - it looks like somebody might be having duck for dinner - either that, or said ducks might be about to get a floating house on a lake - paid for by taxpayers, of course.

 

 

(As always, I'm being careful not to give any clues about my own political leanings.

 

However, in the interests of political neutrality, I should point out that a number of MPs, of a number of political parties, were censured over fraudulent expenses claims. Some were forced to resign - some were prosecuted - some were even convicted and jailed.

 

Still - in the words of Shakespeare: "so are they all, all honourable men" - so that settles it, then - MPs are not allowed to be dodgy - and I'm not sure that anyone's allowed to suggest otherwise - so I'm not going to.)

 

 

Still, at least we haven't yet heard talk of "blue sky thinking" - even if, in televised debates / Q&A sessions, leaders of political parties* are being forced to confront voter cynicism.

 

(*Those that can actually be bothered to turn up, that is.)

 

 

 

 

This brings us back to QM (Quality Management) - and its distant cousin, the "paper airplane" exercise of QA (Quality Assurance).

 

 

Meanwhile, on the railroads railways, passengers have been replaced by customers - the only thing that seems to have changed is that some passengers might have got taken for a ride ... .

 

We're now expected to be on the platform a few minutes early, because the companies allow themselves to lock the train doors - and dispatch consists trainsets - before the advertized time.

 

However, these same companies also allow a number of their trains to arrive / depart a few minutes late - so we're also kept hanging around, often with no information whatsoever and completely out of the loop.

 

I sort of guess that some people might see this as a case of "hurry up and wait".

 

 

Anyway - that's enough of that - "move on - there's nothing to see" - whatever.

 

 

I also like the observations about the writings of a certain Eric Arthur Blair (aka "George Orwell") - and talk of tight controls of the media, what people are allowed to say and the language they are allowed to use.

 

Of course, I'm not about to accuse another guy by the name of Blair - or some guy by the name of Cameron, for that matter - of using Orwellian tactics to muzzle the press and smash dissent. I'm not about to accuse any of our political leaders of nonsense like this. After all - haven't you heard - they are all honourable men.

 

Yes - right - well, I'm not saying that they are not ... .

 

 

Anyway, I think it's time to get back to the trains.

 

 

Regards,

 

Huw.

Like ( from my phone, so I can't press any buttons. Boo. Unsmileyface. (Is that a word?)

[AndyID]

Thanks everyone!

 

I lived in the UK until 1982, but I don't remember ever hearing "fit for purpose" prior to that. It seems to pop up all over the place these days.

 

What annoys me about it is that it uses a three word phrase to express a subjective assessment that could just as easily be expressed in one word. I would prefer "meets requirements" or something similar, but the snag with that is that somebody might have to get off their backside and define what the actual requirements are

[AndyID]

A favorite of mine in the US is "high rate of speed". Policemen, TV announcers and journalists use it all the time. I think the UK still, correctly, refers to "high speed".

[Ozexpatriate]

A favorite of mine in the US is "high rate of speed". Policemen, TV announcers and journalists use it all the time. I think the UK still, correctly, refers to "high speed".

Yes, "high rate of speed" is (inexactly) acceleration (rate of change of speed).

[olivegreen]

Vaguely on topic… when in Australia a couple of years ago I picked up a book called 'Bendable learnings'. Like many others of the genre, I am sure, it is a wonderful collection of quotations from various sources of the utter drivel that is management newspeak. It makes me laugh and cry with despair at the same time!

[olivegreen]

Yes, "high rate of speed" is (inexactly) acceleration (rate of change of speed).

I see what you mean, but I suggest it is not even inexactly acceleration. If one is being kind, it is a pleonasm; if not, it is complete nonsense.

As I understand from the OED (which I suppose Americans who use the expression would not follow anyway) the nouns 'rate' and 'speed' amount to roughly the same thing, so 'a high rate of speed' is (roughly) the same as 'a high speed of speed', which most would agree is nonsensical…thus as AndyID suggested 'a high rate of speed' is also nonsense. 

Isn't language fun?