Thread by @BruceJGrant

@Copeland309 Model I used that broke org decisions into 4 related concepts:
1) “Can we” (e.g. technologically solve the problem, engineer a solution, implement the idea, etc).
2) “May we” (i.e. do we have the legal authority; policy limits can be challenged here) 1/2

@Copeland309 3) “Should we” (looks at considerations like links to outcomes, GBA+, ethics, finance, FPT/foreign relations, etc).
4) “Will we” (this is where the actual decision is made to “go”/“no go” on an option that has a “yes” to the first two criteria and weighing cat 3 considerations).

@Copeland309 3/4
…so “can’t” in my mind means there is no one smart enough to solve the technical/implementation problem. What most people mean is either “we may not” (ie, it is not permissible) or “we will not” (ie, active decision to terminate an option that is legal and doable).

@Copeland309 4/4
If it is “we should not”, then it is based on considerations other than implementability or legality. The model creates a means to understand what considerations are stopping something being “yeses” and then working to address those underlying considerations to get to 4 X yes