What do you think of the draft statement on the ning? Does it capture what you see as key principles to guide today's change efforts? What's missing? What don't you agree with? Please add your comments.
I find myself largely in agreement with the draft statement as it exists. I'll need to take more time for a detailed analysis. One a first read, the only thing I find missing is reference to the continual re-evaluation and reshaping that will be needed. The extant wording makes it seem (at least to me) as if we are trying to create a system that, like its predecessor, will suffice with only minor modifications for a foreseeable future. I suggest that we need a system that is constantly self-evaluating. Admittedly, a system that is client-driven will, of necessity, be self-adjusting. Nevertheless I'd be more comfortable with some wording that suggests that such constant re-examination and adjustment of any system established will be a basic tenet.
I am in agreement with Adrian Durlester - I had the same reaction to the missing concept of continual relevancy / evolution through assessment, improvement and innovation. Other than that, I think its right on target.
The leadership team of the Lippman Kanfer Institute - Jonathan Woocher, Arnee Winshall, and Ellen Kagen Waghelstein - is primarily responsible for the document, with input from a number of other individuals.
Cheri Ellowitz said:
I'm interested in knowing who wrote the statement. It's very comprehensive and current in many of the issues that it contains, but I'd like to know who wrote it.