<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Principles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jbordeaux.com/principles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jbordeaux.com/principles/</link>
	<description>Organizational Knowledge Design.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:19:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robert Miletich</title>
		<link>http://jbordeaux.com/principles/comment-page-1/#comment-4387</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Miletich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 03:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drfuzzy.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/principles/#comment-4387</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the offer John. 

I&#039;m a senior manager that manages IP on a daily basis. Probably been doing it wrong for years, and not even sure that KM = IP, but I assume it does in my case what with the focus on repeatability and the impact of repeatable solutions on margin..

WRT MBA courses, well I gotta say that from looking at the economy over the last few years and the general state of corporate governance since NAFTA I&#039;m not too impressed with the results and output of the graduates. Not trying to be obnoxious, just have a different viewpoint on the correct approach as practiced.

I do take MBA level courses once in a while, as an exercise in group interaction, and I do find them incredibly interesting as a method of breaking out of my own echo chamber to get a spectrum of ideas and opinions from the interaction.

I understand now that your four principles apply to KM and not to corporate behavior in general.

ttfn</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the offer John. </p>
<p>I&#8217;m a senior manager that manages IP on a daily basis. Probably been doing it wrong for years, and not even sure that KM = IP, but I assume it does in my case what with the focus on repeatability and the impact of repeatable solutions on margin..</p>
<p>WRT MBA courses, well I gotta say that from looking at the economy over the last few years and the general state of corporate governance since NAFTA I&#8217;m not too impressed with the results and output of the graduates. Not trying to be obnoxious, just have a different viewpoint on the correct approach as practiced.</p>
<p>I do take MBA level courses once in a while, as an exercise in group interaction, and I do find them incredibly interesting as a method of breaking out of my own echo chamber to get a spectrum of ideas and opinions from the interaction.</p>
<p>I understand now that your four principles apply to KM and not to corporate behavior in general.</p>
<p>ttfn</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://jbordeaux.com/principles/comment-page-1/#comment-4386</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:56:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drfuzzy.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/principles/#comment-4386</guid>
		<description>The company or agency, from an organizational perspective, matters more than the sum of any of its parts.  This refers to the necessity of cooperation across elements, the need for emergent value to be realized from an organizational flow of knowledge and activity, etc.  Your description of sacrifice is somewhat beside the point, unless you&#039;re referring to public sector or social organizations - where that sacrifice may indeed be requested.  Asking whether the people &quot;matter more&quot; is a bit of a red herring, this list is designed to capture KM principles for the firm.  As such, they &quot;assume&quot; honorable behavior.  Any attempt to capture focused principles will by necessity make some assumptions.  If you&#039;d like me to expand on corporate ethical principles, corporate social responsibility,  principles of human capital management, principles of global sustainability, let me know.  Or take my course.  Be happy to accommodate you at Walsh College&#039;s MBA program.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The company or agency, from an organizational perspective, matters more than the sum of any of its parts.  This refers to the necessity of cooperation across elements, the need for emergent value to be realized from an organizational flow of knowledge and activity, etc.  Your description of sacrifice is somewhat beside the point, unless you&#8217;re referring to public sector or social organizations &#8211; where that sacrifice may indeed be requested.  Asking whether the people &#8220;matter more&#8221; is a bit of a red herring, this list is designed to capture KM principles for the firm.  As such, they &#8220;assume&#8221; honorable behavior.  Any attempt to capture focused principles will by necessity make some assumptions.  If you&#8217;d like me to expand on corporate ethical principles, corporate social responsibility,  principles of human capital management, principles of global sustainability, let me know.  Or take my course.  Be happy to accommodate you at Walsh College&#8217;s MBA program.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Miletich</title>
		<link>http://jbordeaux.com/principles/comment-page-1/#comment-4385</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Miletich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 02:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://drfuzzy.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/principles/#comment-4385</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;The company matters more than the sum of any of its parts&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Including the people that make up the company? 

That seems to be main consensus behind the broken workplace social contracts of the last 50 years -- when the company asks us to give, and give again, to be selfless - we discover that once in the pangs of existential survival, the company turns on individuals to treat them like disposable rubbish attached to it&#039;s shoe.

And there wouldn&#039;t be anything wrong with that if the company had the honesty to tell you as much so that you can intelligently make that decision when you&#039;re asked to give and give again.

But alas, it&#039;s never as clearly articulated as your four points.

(*Of course, I don&#039;t refer to you, but to the royal you.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>The company matters more than the sum of any of its parts</p></blockquote>
<p>Including the people that make up the company? </p>
<p>That seems to be main consensus behind the broken workplace social contracts of the last 50 years &#8212; when the company asks us to give, and give again, to be selfless &#8211; we discover that once in the pangs of existential survival, the company turns on individuals to treat them like disposable rubbish attached to it&#8217;s shoe.</p>
<p>And there wouldn&#8217;t be anything wrong with that if the company had the honesty to tell you as much so that you can intelligently make that decision when you&#8217;re asked to give and give again.</p>
<p>But alas, it&#8217;s never as clearly articulated as your four points.</p>
<p>(*Of course, I don&#8217;t refer to you, but to the royal you.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
