I am trying to convince the owners of the strategy that what is written
means to the casual user is do this thing (activity) four times in a 3
month time span.
The notion of maximum time permitted to prevent or fight of knowledge or
ability decay is a valid one. What the authors want to have interpreted
from the above example is: do this thing four times with in a year, and
make sure each time is no more than 3 months apart. Precision tells me we
should be able to say no more than 90 days. But even the 3 month level of
precision lets us know that it should have no more than 3 months between
and that you shouldn't execute one practice at the end of one quarter then
again at the beginning of the next. That would not be, by implication, not
a efficient use of resources.
I hope I am making sense. The question posed is: does the intent versus
the written word create knowledge indifference (or the tendency toward
ignorance- an emerging topic here)?
Making sense?
Stephen R. Swan
Force XXI Program Analyst
AB Technologies
Fort Knox, Kentucky 40121
502-624-6806
Web Site http://147.238.100.101/fxxitp.htm
--"Swan, Steve R. SETA CONTR" <SwanSR@ftknox-dtdd-emh5.army.mil>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>