[From Marc Abrams (072795 1100 EST)]
Since I spoke _for_ the two lists at the conference, let me restate them for
the benefit of the entire list.
1) Discussions concerning the application of PCT in existing methods (i.e BPR,
TQM, Schools, etc.) involve people who are generally not very "technical". My
view is that if anyone from such a background happened to log onto CSG and
lurked for a few days observing the B.Abbott, B.Powers, R.Marken thread on
EAB, they might wonder how much value there is for THEM. I don't think they
would stick around to find out.
2) The discussions of methods might involve other things then PCT directly.
For instance, Someone might wonder wether a certain tool or method is
congruent with PCT, and if not what might replace it or change it. These
discussions would not be centered on PCT but on the tool.
3) I don't think making a second list is for the existing members of CSG-l. I
don't think too many people have much to contribute about real applied use of
PCT. I don't think thats a crime, just the way it is. Making PCT more inviting
to people who currently utilize a S->R model ( and don't even realize it )as a
base for existing methods and practices might gain us new members.
4) If this could be accomplished without making a new list I'am all for it.
5) Sorry you feel that way Ed. It would have been nice to see what you thought
of some of the other methods utilizing PCT other then your own.
In about a week I will start posting on my current work Trying to integrate a
number of different methods ( all congruent with PCT ) to help facilitate
organizational change.
Marc