| |
|
Action |
-
Quality Assurance Committee
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| CONFIDENTIAL |
|
|
| |
|
|
-
Intellectual Property
Committee
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| CONFIDENTIAL |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Redressed Terminology
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
EKB moved that official
recognition be given to the redressed terminology, viz. Actualiser-Enabler.
This would require changing Section XVI, Part E, ¶ 5 of the Manual
of Behaviour Actualisation (MoBA), beginning: "actualiser is defined
as an autonomous unit engaged in the carrying out, to full and total completion
of conceptual structures" with "actualiser is defined as an autonomous
unit engaged in determining and overseeing the carrying out, to full and
total completion, of conceptual structures". Similarly, Section XVI,
Part E, ¶ 6 of the Manual would change from: "enabler is defined
as an autonomous unit engaged in determining and overseeing the carrying
out, to full and total completion, of conceptual structures" to: "enabler
is defined as an autonomous unit engaged in carrying out, to full and total
completion of conceptual structures".
|
|
EKB |
| |
|
|
|
LZ expressed his
concern that in changing terminology, "mid-stream as it were", there could
be repercussions, particularly from those clients who would see this as
confusing, and might question the necessity of such a "fundamental paradigm
shift". EKB argued that those were precisely the sort of clients who would
never be able to successfully actualise conceptual structures, and could
in the end give dF a bad name. BS concurred with EKB, and felt that the
theoretical underpinning of Behaviour actualisation was essential to the
success of any co9ncern engaged in actualising conceptual structures.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
EKB also noted LZ's
use o the phrase "mid-stream as it were"; EKB stated this was an "unactualisable
conceptual structure" and LZ's use of said phrase "proves [EKB's] point".
|
|
|
| |
|
|
-
Offshore Interests
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| CONFIDENTIAL |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AOB
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CONFIDENTIAL
|
|
|