Council for Enterprise Advancement
The CEA develops the IDEA Standard through a contributing member model. We're seeking critical peers — people who will examine this work honestly and help determine whether it holds.
What We're Asking For
Because enterprise spans industries, sectors, disciplines, and geographies, no single perspective is sufficient to define it responsibly. We are not seeking consensus, agreement, or promotional support.
We are seeking people who can evaluate whether the framework's claims hold under the conditions they know — and who are willing to say clearly when they don't. The Standard improves through challenge, not affirmation.
The inner circle of the Standard's development. Core Steering members review the full normative body, participate in architectural decisions, and contribute to Eddie validation sessions.
Active participation in Standard review cycles, Eddie processing of new propositions, and architectural decisions that affect the framework's normative content.
Contributing members who review sections of the Standard and provide structured feedback. The council values diverse disciplinary backgrounds — systems engineering, organizational development, cybernetics, enterprise architecture, leadership science, AI governance, and adjacent fields.
People with judgment, experience, and the ability to think across disciplines and domains. This work benefits most from those who understand enterprise as a lived system — not just a theoretical construct. Cross-sector representation is essential.
Follow the Standard's development, access published materials, and engage when ready. This is the entry point for those exploring IDEA — no commitment required, no expectations assumed. Read the published articles, study the framework, and reach out when you're ready to contribute.
How Decisions Are Made
The CEA maintains the Standard on behalf of the enterprises it serves. Council members are custodians of an evolving body of knowledge, not owners of intellectual property.
All major decisions carry documented rationale. Feedback is logged, categorized, and dispositioned transparently — accepted, modified, deferred, or declined with explanation. Dissenting viewpoints are respected and recorded.
The emphasis is on coherence over consensus. A standard that tries to please everyone serves no one. A standard that maintains its intellectual integrity while incorporating diverse perspectives serves the field.
If you recognize the gap described in our rationale and would like to contribute your perspective, the council welcomes the conversation.
Visit the Council Email UsThe council is actively forming. Expressions of interest are welcome at any time.