Comments on: Three Questions for Opening Up Possibility

By: Gurteen Knowledge-Letter: Issue 112 – October 2009 « Oxfordprospect.co.uk – Oxford News

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 17:52:41 +0000

[...] we could do on a day-to-day basis to move ourselves forward. I drew on comments by Dave Snowden, Stephen Billing and John [...]

By: Chris Rodgers

Chris Rodgers — Mon, 25 May 2009 21:16:44 +0000

Hi Stephen,

In reading your post, and David and Chris’s comments, a couple of quick thoughts came to mind.

First, in relation to the present-v-future discussion, I would see the (constructed) present as always including our perception of the likely/hoped for/feared future (as well as of the “re-membered past”, as I think Stacey et al would describe it). So, from this perspective, the “evolutionary possibilities of the present” that David refers to have, embedded within them, the current conceptions of past experiences and future aspirations.

Secondly, I agree with Chris’s point about Benner’s third question. And, besides the endless debate that this might provoke, who can say what will turn out to be the “most worthy”? In the complex social process that is organization, intention isn’t the same thing as outcome.

Cheers, Chris.

By: Chris Mowles

Chris Mowles — Sun, 24 May 2009 11:11:19 +0000

I am a bit puzzled by the third question, Stephen, which seems to me capable of proking endless rounds of discussion about ends which might be more worthy.
Chris

By: David Gurteen

David Gurteen — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:50:12 +0000

Stephen, Spot on! Reminds me of what Dave Snowden has to say about KM and I whole heartedly endorse:

“Knowledge Management should be focused on real, tangible intractable problems not aspirational goals. It should deal pragmatically with the evolutionary possibilities of the present rather then seeking idealistic solutions.”

best wishes David