For this "risk" debate that is possible now - may I make a suggestion and a
claim :-
I suggest that we might continue in the way that is sought for by many. A way
that is reasonable and vigorous without being bad in terms of the work that we
all do. That is an informed and well informed dialogue.
I claim that the so called "adventure paradigm" ( by which I understand, at
this stage, to be Simon Priest and others) might be debated quite easily and
shown to be something that we must be more than suspicious about in a very
short time. But in that time we might find many new areas of debate and work
for all.
But, for better or for worse, this will ( to move on) take a certain slow-time
agreement and a slow-time consideration of the very materials and texts that
are cited as support of each and any claim. But if this could be done - no
matter just how long it might take - there might then be a debate to build
upon our existing debate. My point here is not that this debate is in any way
wrongheaded ( in fact quite the opposite, I think) but such a debate now needs
some earth under the feet to be able to walk on.
Maybe we should try and take "risk" in the context(s) of agreed domains. "Risk
and the "Adventure Paradigm", for example. That would be one way and then cite
and reference firmly all. Another might be ....... ?
best wishes
steve bowles
Peter Bunyan wrote:
> If you consider the
> Adventure Paradigm the model holds for all categoeies of risk. Management
> development involves risk in these less thought about domains.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|