John,
although I would stick to Goldratt's notion of "ambitious" (nobody
believes the target can be achieved), I don't think that there is a
difference to yours ("Everybody believes that there's only about a 50%
chance of achieving it.").
Hey, Winfried, now you are really talking logical nonsense! Am I? I was
talking about the drive coming from a "being - becoming - new being -
start of great becoming" structure/process:
It's the process of going through collecting obstacles and line up
intermediate objectives, that make the difference.
If after that process still nobody believes that the target can be
achieved - forget that target. It's not ambitious anymore, its just a
destroyed dream.
But if after that process everybody, who previously thought "impossible"
give it a 50% chance, than the process will act like a turbo charger for
that hot ambitous target.
Do you agree? I mean, what Goldratt did, when he defined "ambitous target"
was, that he managed not to define a "being" as usual, but a
"becoming-being". In At's word, I may say: A target cannot be a mere being
- It must at least include the essentiality liveness. I think that this is
quite exceptional. In fact, when I would analyse the process, Goldratt
really suggested in detail, I am quite sure that I would find out, how he
took care for the other six essentialities - ensuring that reaching the
target will become an emergent experience for the each of the members of
the team, now creating a learning organisation.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>