As a list of principles it is difficult to disagree. I think that Tushar makes a good point too about making the list terse. We all know, of course, that normative (this is what we want) lists, do not , of themselves produce the hoped for changes in behaviours. The 'assumptions' of this approach tend to ignore the power/political dimension of any organisational learning intervention. i.e/. the rhetoric and the reality often don't match. So, how might the desired behaviours be encouraged? Well if we accept that attitudes drive behaviours the senior group have to model the very thing they want(walk the talk), secondly the participants need to be led to understanding the KM principles underpining the intervention, so I would suggest making them aware of Nonaka and Takeuchis Knowledge Spiral and getting them to discuss blocks and biasses as they exist in the organisation, and getting them to articulate what is needed to achieve the KM outcome. Lastly, the problem with lists of principles is that they emphasise WHAT, and remain silent on HOW and WHY. Participants need to understand the specific purpose of the intervention. However you will meet scepticsim if the purpose is couched in 'managerialist' terms - like It'll improve competitive advantage, It'll make best us of our know how, etc. Whilst these are necessary senior team objectives , participants will not (although they'll publicly claim they do) give a damn. What are the WIIFms from their point view (after all respect and open dialogue is a behaviour your list wants to encourage!) Or is it just another version of 'My Way or The Highway' )F.I.F.O. management. Finally as for declaring assumptions; are the management team aware of their own neo-modernist HR, KM, OL asumptions on this issue...might their be another way of seeing it....:)