This is because the second-hand car that I bought was fit for my purpose (transported me in safety), but it was not conceived to be a quality car by many of the people who I showed it to, except the sycophants who always tried to please me. Many people stated that the car was a 'reject" due to the fact that it was rusty and the roof was leaking. Now that I have sold it, I would agree with these people, it was not a quality car, but it was fit for purpose. So therefore, this prime example gives you an indication that 'fitness for purpose" does not always mean quality. .

             The definition begs the question of 'whose purpose?" Plato"s (philosopher) theory suggests that it was the customer who defined the purpose and the customer who defined quality. But Juran"s definition does not even mention the purpose of the customer. Another problem with the fitness for purpose definition is that the purpose may not always be known. Juran believes that the majority of quality problems are because of poor management, rather than poor employee work. In general, he believes that management controllable defects account for over 80 per cent of total quality management problems. Overall, Juran"s definition is too elementary where there is a need to closely define to what is going to be offered, then quality can become 'conformance to requirements".

             Conformance to requirement is widely used in industry to define quality. "This definition is often attributed to Philip Crosby, another well-known guru of quality". (Owen,B 1995). Crosby believed that if a product were conformed to requirement, then there would be no such thing as a quality problem where the company itself has established its products based directly on its customers" needs. The Crosby definition places an emphasis to meet a certain specification that also leads to an emphasis on the reliability of the product or service.