In a message dated 2/18/2005 2:52:25 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
<<I do observe that, when "we" is removed, all of my objections
toned down a couple of notches.>>
Interesting. I am specifically guilty for this. My reading of
the text without a 'we' is that it is a group of would-be grandmasters lecturing
down to disciples.
Read the text without a 'we':
1. Increase return on investment by ...
2. Deliver reliable results by
3. Manage uncertainty through ...
4. Unleash creativity and innovation
5. Boost performance through ...
6. Improve effectiveness and
reliability through ...
This comes across to me as talk-down style, and I would have a hard time
signing my name to anything that directed and lecturing. I felt that with a
'we', we were at least being honest about what we do (echo the agile manifesto,
with "through doing and blah blah, we ...")
With the 'we', other people can say, "We do that, too"; without the 'we', I
feel people would have to say, "I accept to do that".
Anyway, that's my emotional response to the 'we' question, and I worked my
bit to convince the others likewise.