Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
Not to sound curt, but this whole document sounds like something "full of sound and fury, in the end, signifying nothing."

Maybe I'm just dense, but I read the draft document twice and have kept up with this thread and I'm still drawing a big "so what?" A lot of high-tech buzzwords (which have been picked apart by astute observers) and now we're looking into a fancy form of analysis that is, admittedly, "hard to grasp".

I think it was agreed upon that this document was simply too complicated to be of real use. I would hope I could put something considered "capstone" infront of a Rifle Platoon and that they could read it and easily relate it to their job.
The reason Appreciative Inquiry is hard to grasp is that most of us are used to taking a problem-solution approach to thinking about the future. It's not really that complicated, and I agree the capstone shouldn't really be that complicated of a document. A Rifle Platoon should be able to read it and "get it." Good point. That's why I suggested getting a core group representative of the Army from all ranks, and then asking them questions about when and how they are at their best doing their jobs, then grounding the future propositions in those examples. It's not "fancy."