Category Archives: Systems Thinking

26 July 2025

The U.S. is Not 1930s Germany

By Rick Ladd

Claiming that America today is equivalent to 1930s Germany is both historically shallow and strategically counterproductive. Nearly a century has passed since Adolf Hitler rose to power amid the wreckage of World War I, a global depression, and the collapse of the Weimar Republic. Germany in the 1930s was a humiliated, war-torn, economically devastated nation with no democratic tradition, no cultural resistance to totalitarianism, and no institutional muscle memory to prevent the consolidation of absolute power. The U.S., by contrast, has nearly 250 years of democratic infrastructure, a robust culture of dissent, a decentralized federal system, and a Constitution designed precisely to resist authoritarian overreach.

Moreover, the social, technological, and informational ecosystems are radically different. The 1930s lacked the internet, social media, whistleblower protections, or investigative journalism at scale. Today, every abuse of power can be documented, disseminated, and debated within minutes. We are not helpless—we are connected and aware in ways that were unimaginable in interwar Europe.

That said, dismissing authoritarian threats altogether would be just as naïve. We face unique 21st-century dangers: digital disinformation, polarization, and demagogues exploiting modern platforms. But invoking Hitler or the Nazi regime too loosely dilutes the specificity of that horror and numbs people to its actual warning. Let’s confront today’s threats on their own terms, with courage rooted in history, not hysteria.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Education, Government & Civics, History, News & Politics, Systems Thinking

19 June 2025

Americans are Ignorami

By Rick Ladd

Reclaiming the Hammer and Sickle: Symbolism, Struggle, and Systemic Illiteracy

In large part because of my activities in the antiwar and peace and justice movements shortly after I celebrated my 20th birthday, I began reading Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Castro, and Guevara, as well as Black authors and activists like Eldridge Cleaver, Malcolm X, and George Jackson, among others. I was especially fond of reading Lenin’s explanations and defense of the theories of Karl Marx and, to a lesser extent, Friedrich Engels. My interest wasn’t only in their political and economic theories, but also in their general philosophy, which is Dialectical Materialism. I’ve touched on this philosophy somewhat tangentially in some of my previous writings.

I’ve long been both dismayed and somewhat fascinated by the sheer ignorance of my fellow Americans when it comes to understanding what some very important terms and concepts actually represent. I am here referring to socialism, communism, capitalism, and dialectical materialism—perhaps a few other economic, political, and philosophical terms as well.

The hammer and sickle is one of the most enduring symbols of communism and socialist movements, representing the unity and solidarity of industrial workers (symbolized by the hammer) and agricultural laborers (symbolized by the sickle). While it gained prominence in the 20th century as an emblem of the Soviet Union, its roots and symbolism tie back to the broader communist ideas as envisioned by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Theoretical Foundation: Marx and Engels

Marx and Engels, in works like The Communist Manifesto (1848), envisioned a society where the working class (proletariat) would overthrow the capitalist class (bourgeoisie) to establish a classless, stateless society. Central to this vision was the unification of all laborers—regardless of their specific trades or industries—against the exploitative structures of capitalism. The hammer and sickle perfectly encapsulate this ideal by bringing together two key groups of workers who were often divided in pre-industrial and industrial societies:

  • Industrial Workers (Hammer): Factory workers, craftsmen, and laborers—urban dwellers essential to the mechanized production processes of capitalist economies.
  • Agricultural Workers (Sickle): Peasants and farmers who toiled in rural areas, producing food and raw materials. Often marginalized and exploited under feudal and capitalist systems.

By combining these two tools, the hammer and sickle symbolized the unity of these distinct groups in their shared struggle for liberation and equality.

Historical Context of the Symbol

Although Marx and Engels themselves did not create or use the hammer and sickle as a symbol, their ideas inspired later revolutionary movements that adopted it. The symbol gained prominence with the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia (1917), when the Bolsheviks sought to unite industrial workers and peasants under the banner of communism. The hammer and sickle were officially adopted as part of the Soviet Union’s flag in 1923.

Significance to the Communist Movement

The hammer and sickle became a powerful visual representation of several core ideas in Marxist-inspired movements:

  • Worker Solidarity: It emphasized unity among all exploited classes to overthrow the capitalist system.
  • Class Struggle: It depicted the tools of labor, highlighting the centrality of workers and their productive power in shaping society.
  • Revolutionary Change: It called workers and peasants to action—to seize the means of production and build a socialist society.

Criticism and Evolution

In practice, the unity symbolized by the hammer and sickle was not always realized. Tensions between urban industrial workers and rural agricultural communities persisted in the Soviet Union and other communist nations. Moreover, the symbol became associated with authoritarian regimes, giving it a controversial legacy in modern times.

Still, the hammer and sickle remain potent emblems of worker solidarity and the Marxist vision of a classless society—despite how much interpretations of communism have evolved over time.

The American Context: Weaponized Ignorance

This, however, is where things get more complicated—and more infuriating.

In the American political lexicon, socialism has become a slur hurled without understanding, a catch-all bogeyman meant to stoke fear, not provoke thought. The hammer and sickle, meanwhile, has been reduced in the public imagination to little more than a sinister relic—stripped of context, stripped of nuance, and weaponized in the culture war by people whose understanding of history could fit neatly on the back of a fast-food receipt.

The fact is, most Americans have never seriously studied Marx or Engels—let alone Lenin or Mao—and wouldn’t recognize dialectical materialism if it organized their kitchen pantry and handed them a checklist. We are a people sold the myth that capitalism is not just the best economic system, but the only one consistent with freedom, democracy, and morality. Anything that questions this orthodoxy is treated as heresy, regardless of its intellectual rigor or empirical grounding.

Dialectical Materialism: Not a Manifesto, But a Method

Let’s be clear: dialectical materialism is not a manifesto—it is a method. A way of understanding the world not as a series of isolated events, but as a dynamic, interconnected whole; a recognition that history moves through contradiction, and that the driving force behind historical change is the conflict between classes, between ideas, between material conditions themselves. It is not “communism” as caricatured by reactionaries—it is a framework for grasping the engines of change that shape human societies.

The Real Threat to the Status Quo

And therein lies the real threat to the American status quo: not the hammer and sickle itself, but the idea that working people—whether factory machinists, field hands, or Uber drivers—might recognize their common interests. That they might see through the illusion that their suffering is individual, rather than systemic. That they might stop blaming immigrants, or the unemployed, or “welfare cheats,” and instead aim their righteous anger at the extractive systems that keep them exhausted, precarious, and obedient.

The Struggle Continues

We are long past the time for empty patriotism and red-scare hysteria. We need deep, structural critique rooted in historical knowledge and philosophical clarity. Not to idolize past revolutions, but to learn from them—critically, courageously, dialectically.

The hammer and sickle endures not because it’s fashionable, and certainly not because it’s flawless, but because the struggle it symbolizes has never truly ended. The tools have changed. The fields have changed. But the workers are still here. And the fight—for dignity, for justice, for liberation—remains.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Economics, Education, Government & Civics, History, News & Politics, Personal, Philosophy, Politics, Systems Thinking

16 June 2025

The Trump Vacuum and the Opportunity of Idealized Design

By Rick Ladd

There’s a strange sort of energy in the air these days. You can almost feel it—the wheels coming off the rickety jalopy that is Trumpism. The man himself, once a master of chaos and distraction, is looking more and more like a washed-up carnival barker whose tricks have lost their shine. The legal walls are closing in, the rallies are less electric, and the “movement” has become less about a future and more about clinging to a bitter, grievance-soaked past.

But let’s not kid ourselves: while Trump has been busy turning the federal government into a shell of its former self—gutting agencies, stacking departments with yes-men, and driving out career professionals—he’s also unwittingly created a rare opportunity. Nature, as they say, abhors a vacuum. And what we’ve got, right now, is a vacuum the size of Pennsylvania Avenue.

If you’ve ever read Dr. Russell Ackoff—and if you haven’t, now would be a good time—he talks about something called “idealized design.” The gist? When the system you’ve got is broken, don’t just patch the leaks and slap on another coat of paint. Instead, ask yourself: If the current system disappeared overnight, what would you create to take its place? Not what’s possible within the old constraints, but what’s ideal given what we now know.

Well, look around. Thanks to the Trump wrecking ball, a lot of the old constraints are gone—obliterated, really. Agencies like the EPA, Education, even the Post Office, have been hollowed out to the point of absurdity. The courts are in crisis, the CDC is a shell, and the State Department looks like a ghost town. There’s nothing left to “fix.” So, what if we stopped trying to resuscitate the corpse and started imagining a new body politic altogether?

Here’s the opportunity: We get to ask, “What do we want government to look like, now?” Ackoff would tell us to ignore the nostalgic call for a return to the “good old days.” Instead, let’s design forward. A government that’s transparent, accountable, and explicitly built to serve all its people, not just the one percent or the loudest megaphones. What would a Department of Justice look like if it truly prioritized justice? What about immigration—not as a problem to be “solved,” but as a vibrant source of national renewal?

The Trump era, for all its destruction, has left us with a blank page. The lesson is not to cower in fear or yearn for the status quo ante. It’s to seize the moment, roll up our sleeves, and start sketching out the kind of institutions we wish we’d always had. It’s the ultimate act of resistance: refusing to settle for less than the ideal, and demanding a government worthy of the people it serves.

Let’s not waste the vacuum. Let’s fill it—creatively, bravely, and with the best of what we can imagine.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Economics, Government & Civics, History, Leadership, News & Politics, Personal, Systems Thinking

7 May 2025

The Secret to Innovation Isn’t Learning More—It’s Forgetting Less

By Rick Ladd

In today’s hyper-connected, information-overloaded world, companies spend billions on training programs, knowledge-sharing platforms, and professional development. The conventional wisdom is simple: the more you learn, the better you’ll perform. But what if the key to innovation isn’t about learning more, but rather about forgetting less?

It might sound counterintuitive, but this subtle shift in perspective can transform how you think about knowledge management and creativity in your organization.

The Forgetting Curve: Your Biggest Knowledge Leak

The problem starts with how our brains work. Research by German psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus introduced the concept of the “forgetting curve.” Essentially, we forget up to 50% of newly learned information within an hour and as much as 90% within a week—unless we take deliberate action to reinforce it.

This isn’t just an individual issue. Consider the collective implications for organizations where employees undergo training, attend meetings, or share insights. If 90% of that knowledge is forgotten or left unutilized, what’s the point of investing in learning initiatives?

Forgetting is natural, but it’s also a huge leak in your company’s knowledge pipeline. And while many organizations focus on teaching employees new skills or introducing the latest tools, they often overlook the need to help employees retain and apply what they’ve already learned.

The Innovation Gap: How Forgetting Limits Creativity

Innovation thrives at the intersection of knowledge and application. It’s not about the sheer volume of information you have but how effectively you can connect the dots between what you know and what you do.

When knowledge is forgotten, those dots disappear, making it harder to generate fresh ideas, solve problems, or build on past successes. Employees waste time reinventing the wheel, repeating mistakes, or duplicating effort because critical lessons learned have been buried in the sands of time.

The result? A company that feels stuck, constantly chasing the next big thing while failing to capitalize on the wealth of knowledge it already has.

Flipping the Script: How to Forget Less

So, how do you ensure your organization forgets less—and builds a culture of continuous innovation? Here are three actionable strategies:

1. Reinforce Learning Through Spaced Repetition

Spaced repetition is a proven technique for combating the forgetting curve. Instead of a single training session, reinforce critical knowledge over time. For example, follow up on workshops with microlearning modules, quizzes, or discussion groups that revisit key concepts. This repetition strengthens memory retention and ensures that knowledge sticks.

2. Capture Knowledge in Accessible Systems

Don’t let valuable insights evaporate into thin air after a meeting or brainstorming session. Use knowledge management tools to document and organize critical information. Platforms like Notion, Confluence, or SharePoint make it easy to store and retrieve knowledge so that your team can access it when they need it most.

3. Foster a Culture of Knowledge Sharing

Encourage employees to share their learnings and experiences with their peers. This could be through informal lunch-and-learns, internal blogs, or mentorship programs. When knowledge is shared, it’s reinforced—not just for the sharer but for the audience as well.

The Competitive Edge: Retention Over Acquisition

The companies that will thrive in the future aren’t the ones that simply learn the most but the ones that retain and apply their knowledge effectively. By focusing on forgetting less, you can unlock the full potential of your team’s creativity, reduce inefficiencies, and build a culture of innovation that lasts.

Remember, innovation isn’t about accumulating more—it’s about making the most of what you already have. What steps will you take today to help your organization forget less?

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Collaboration, Education, Knowledge Management, Leadership, Systems Thinking, Technology, Writing/Editing

31 March 2024

Deming and Rocketdyne

By Rick Ladd

Sometime in late January of 1987, almost one year to the day after the Space Shuttle Orbiter Challenger was destroyed as it ascended to orbit, I was assigned by the temp agency I was using at the time to begin work on the Space Shuttle Main Engine team at Rockwell International’s Rocketdyne Division in Woodland Hills, CA.

Prior to that fateful date I had, with one exception, never worked at a company with more than a dozen employees. My family’s wholesale food business, at its peak, was only my father, brother, me, and one employee and most of the numerous jobs I had held over the previous 20 years or so were similarly small.

Rocketdyne employed several thousand people, most of whom labored at our campuses in Woodland Hills and Canoga Park, CA. It was a division of Rockwell International, which employed over 100,000 people world-wide. It was a jarring transition to go from small (really small) businesses to a multi-national aerospace conglomerate. However, having been somewhat of a space-cadet, i.e. enthusiast most of my life, I was thrilled with the opportunity.

A year later on 1 February 1988, I was hired to work in Engineering Computing on the Flight Ops team – a position I would not have dared to dream of filling. Nevertheless, there I was helping our nation’s space program get back on track. It was truly a dream come true.

At the same time, I was becoming aware of the unique way in which large organizations conduct themselves. Some of it wasn’t pretty. I first encountered the business philosophy of W. Edwards Deming soon after I was officially hired as I was lucky enough to have a colleague who was a student of his. Deming had written a book (he wrote many) in which he laid out a fourteen-point explication of his concept of TQM (Total Quality Management).

I was enamored of his positions, as they coincided with my growing understanding how things worked in virtually any organization. I had long been someone who looked for and found ways in which to improve the processes and procedures of any organization I was involved with, and Deming’s philosophy made a great deal of sense to me.

At the same time, I was becoming increasingly aware of the reality that many companies, including Rocketdyne, were honoring those principles in their breach, not their adherence to them. As I was studying Deming’s 14 points I began to realize just how thoroughly many of the managers I encountered were oblivious to the virtues Deming laid out.

Somewhere around 1990 I decided to see if I could capture the differences between what Deming offered and how Rocketdyne was actually doing things. I captured Deming’s 14 points and then created Rocketdyne’s 14 counterpoints. I’ve kept them over the years and am here sharing my understanding with two screenshots of those differing points of view. Please keep in mind not all managers were as controlling as the worst of them. I was lucky to work under the supervision of several truly wonderful managers in my nearly quarter century of employment there. Regardless, I think my analysis was reasonable, even after over 34 years. You?

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Business, humor, Leadership, Personal, Philosophy, Space and Exploration, Systems Thinking, Work

22 January 2024

A Chatbot Experiment

By Rick Ladd

I thought I would give Google’ Bard AI assistant an authoring test drive. I’ve used it to do things like help me come up with tags and I just had it prepare me a packing list for a Hawaiian vacation, which we’re leaving on this coming Thursday. What follows is Bard’s response verbatim to my request for a 500 word blog post, which read: “Write a 500 word blog post on the following topic: Is Marxism still relevant? Evaluate the ongoing relevance of Marxist theory in the 21st century, considering globalization, technological advancements, and the changing nature of social class.“

Is Marxism Still Relevant in the 21st Century?

Karl Marx, the bearded revolutionary with a penchant for manifestos, left an indelible mark on history. His economic theories and philosophy of dialectical materialism ignited revolutions, shaped political landscapes, and inspired countless thinkers. But in the 21st century, with globalization, technological advancements, and shifting social dynamics, one can’t help but wonder: is Marxism still relevant?

The Spectre of Capitalism Haunts the World

Marx’s core critique of capitalism remains eerily relevant. He argued that capitalism inherently generates inequality, with the wealthy owning the means of production (factories, machines) and exploiting the labor of the working class for profit. Today, we see this play out in stark income gaps, wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, and precarious job markets that leave many struggling to make ends meet.

Globalization has further intensified these issues. Corporations can now exploit cheap labor in developing countries, further widening the gap between rich and poor. The 2008 financial crisis, triggered by reckless financial speculation, exposed the inherent instability of a system driven by the pursuit of profit at all costs.

Technology: Friend or Foe of the Proletariat?

Technological advancements, a cornerstone of the 21st century, present both challenges and opportunities for Marxist analysis. On the one hand, automation threatens to displace large swathes of the workforce, potentially exacerbating unemployment and inequality. On the other hand, technology can also be a tool for empowering workers. Communication platforms and social media enable workers to connect and organize across borders, potentially building solidarity and challenging corporate power.

However, the benefits of technology are not evenly distributed. Access to education and training is crucial for workers to adapt to changing technological landscapes, but these opportunities are often limited by socioeconomic factors. The digital divide can further marginalize vulnerable groups and exacerbate existing inequalities.

The Metamorphosis of Class

The nature of social class has also undergone significant transformations since Marx’s time. The traditional working class of factory laborers has shrunk, replaced by a more diverse and service-oriented workforce. This makes it harder to identify clear class divisions and build class solidarity.

Furthermore, identity politics have risen in prominence, with groups emphasizing shared experiences based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. While these movements are crucial for addressing specific forms of oppression, they can also complicate the traditional Marxist focus on class as the primary driver of social conflict.

Beyond the Manifesto: Rethinking Marxism for the 21st Century

So, is Marxism still relevant? The answer is not a simple yes or no. While some of Marx’s specific predictions haven’t materialized (like the inevitable proletarian revolution), his core critique of capitalism’s inherent inequalities remains as sharp as ever. However, to remain relevant in the 21st century, Marxism needs to adapt to the changing realities of globalization, technology, and the evolving nature of social class.

This could involve developing new strategies for worker organizing that leverage technology and social media. It could mean acknowledging the importance of identity politics while still recognizing the role of class in shaping broader social structures. Ultimately, a 21st-century Marxism should be flexible, adaptable, and open to incorporating new ideas and perspectives.

Marxism may not offer all the answers, but it provides a valuable framework for analyzing the power dynamics and inequalities inherent in our current economic system. By critically engaging with its core ideas and adapting them to the realities of the 21st century, we can build a more just and equitable future for all.

Remember, the conversation on Marxism’s relevance is far from over. This blog post is just a starting point. What are your thoughts? Do you think Marxism still has something to offer us today? Share your views in the comments below!

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , , , | posted in Economics, Government & Civics, History, Philosophy, Politics, Systems Thinking, Writing/Editing

28 June 2023

Bass Ackward EVM

By Rick Ladd

Has anyone else noticed how the majority of illustrations depicting Earned Value Management methodology show projects over budget and behind schedule? Why the pessimism? I know it’s frequently how things work out, but why do we put up with what amounts to continuous failure improvement? Why don’t we – since we’re only depicting how measurements and calculations are made – show the positive side, e.g. under-spent and ahead of schedule?

It seems like it would make a difference if, rather than presenting failure in the abstract, we presented success in the abstract. Isn’t it better to be going in with a success-oriented mindset, tempered with a good dose of reality? Of course, this presupposes situations where we’re not driven by the dynamics to be overly optimistic and unrealistic at the front end of a project in order to win a bid or compete with others, especially in large programs/projects. A tall order methinks.

Earned Value Management chart example.
Behind Schedule & Over Budget!

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Business, Collaboration, Info Tech, Systems Thinking, Technology

16 May 2023

Don’t Call Me a Guru, Dammit!

By Rick Ladd

NB: I published this article sometime in 2010, around the time I accepted an early severance package from Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and retired. It was published using WordPress’s old classic editor and didn’t render well any longer, so I’ve upgraded it to their current block editor format. This should explain why the date associated with it is May 16, 2023.

This article is a few years old, but there’s so much good stuff in here I’m thinking I should post it every other week for the rest of my life. Seriously, with all the talk lately about how you need to be careful of people who hold themselves out as Social Media Experts, Russ’s words are even more impactful.

This October Russ will have been gone for a year. I’m willing to bet I speak for a lot of people when I say he is sorely missed. He is surely not forgotten. Read the whole article; then get the book f-Laws.

Update (Thanksgiving, 2013) This post was originally published from www.telegraph.co.uk using Amplify, a curation service that no longer exists. Below is the excerpt as Amplify prepared it.

Anti-guru of joined-up management

Published: 12:01AM GMT 08 Feb 2007

My Last Visit With Russ
I was fortunate to spend Russell’s 90th birthday with him in Philly, I took this photo when Bill Bellows and I had dinner with Russell and his wife, Helen

If you were asked to picture what a management guru should look and sound like, you might come up with a description of someone very like Russ Ackoff. Grey-haired, distinguished, softly spoken, Ackoff fits the bill. And also, since he turns 88 on Monday, he can claim the benefit of wisdom earned over the course of six decades studying and working with businesses and organisations.

Except, of course, that “guru” is not a label that Ackoff is keen to accept.

“A guru produces disciples, and a discipline, and a doctrine,” he says. “If you are a follower of a guru, you don’t go beyond his thoughts, you accept his thoughts. He gives you the questions and the answers – it’s an end to thought. An educator is exactly the opposite,” he says. “You take off where he sets you up for the next set of questions. One is open-ended, the other is closed. Most consultants are gurus. They are ‘experts’, not educators.”

So please don’t refer to Ackoff’s body of work as gurudom and please don’t describe his work with clients as management consulting.

“We don’t call it consulting,” he states firmly. “We make a distinction between consulting and being an educator. A consultant goes in with a solution. He tries to impose it on a situation. An educator tries to train the people responsible for the work to work it out for themselves. We don’t pretend to know the way to get the answer.”

In his distaste for gurudom, Ackoff is of a mind with his old friend and colleague, the late Peter Drucker. Drucker famously once observed that the only reason people called him a guru was that they did not know how to spell the word “charlatan”.

“Peter Drucker made a great distinction between doing things right and doing the right thing,” Ackoff says. “All of our social problems arise out of doing the wrong thing righter. The more efficient you are at doing the wrong thing, the wronger you become. It is much better to do the right thing wronger than the wrong thing righter! If you do the right thing wrong and correct it, you get better.”

Read more at www.telegraph.co.uk (I don’t believe you can see the entire article without accepting a “free” monthly subscription, which you will have to cancel if you don’t want to be charged.)

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Business, Leadership, Personal, Systems Thinking

2 May 2023

Memories

By Rick Ladd

This month will be 13 years since I retired from Rocketdyne. At the time it was owned by United Technologies’ Pratt & Whitney division. When I first joined the organization in 1987 the mother ship was Rockwell International. Later it was sold to The Boeing Co. It is currently owned by Aerojet, but negotiations are continuing to complete its sale to L3Harris.

Throughout all these changes, which I have either experienced or watched somewhat closely from not too far, one thing has remained relatively constant. The quality of the people who work there. I believe I was privileged to work with some of the smartest, most competent people on the planet. After all, it WAS rocket science. To be more precise, Rocket Engine science.

Now, I’m neither an engineer, nor a scientist. I am not a machinist, technician, or mechanic. I had nothing to do with the actual design, manufacture, assembly, test, or flight of the rocket engines we manufactured and provided to NASA. Not directly, that is. An organization such as Rocketdyne cannot operate without ancillary functions to ensure lines of communication are robust and effective between and amongst each of the dozens of functions such an org needs and I am happy I was able to provide some of the skills and knowledge necessary to facilitate those connections.

When I left the company in May of 2010, I took home with me numerous mementos of my time there. These include printed editions of studies I played a major role in conducting, training materials for a tool I was the project manager for, internal awards I received, and other items that had some meaning for me. Today I once again came across this simple ticket. I’ve kept it all these years because it reminds me of one of my favorite people ever. Myrna Beth Thompson or, as we knew her, Beth.

She was one of the first people I met and became friends with when I joined the Program Office of the Space Shuttle Main Engine team. In an organization composed of very conservative people, she was another progressive I could relate to and she wasn’t shy about her beliefs. She was also kind, caring, empathetic, and always available to help anyone who needed it. Tragically, she died of a massive heart attack nine years ago this month.

The ticket is a prop from a class Beth championed and taught as part of our efforts to instill the concept of Systems Thinking into the heart of the organization for which we labored. It was based on Barry Oshry’s book, Seeing Systems: Unlocking the Mysteries of Organizational Life. If I recall correctly, one of the concepts taught was that of the Abilene Paradox or, as many people refer to it, The Road to Abilene. You can read about it here. It’s understanding, however, is ancillary to my reason for posting this.

Beth has been gone nearly a decade. I don’t think of her often, much as I don’t think of my father, mother, and others who have passed on. But I’ve kept this simple little ticket all these years because it reminds me of her and our friendship. I can’t bring myself to part with it. I’m pretty sure it will be one of those things my children will unceremoniously dump when I am gone. It has absolutely no intrinsic value any longer. Its value is entirely dependent on my memories and my life. I consider that extremely valuable.

PS – In case you’re wondering, SSME stands for Space Shuttle Main Engine (the program we both worked on for many years) and O.E. stands for Organizational Excellence, one of the numerous efforts we indulged in over the years to improve how we did business. They were often spectacularly unsuccessful, but that’s another story.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Business, Leadership, Personal, Random Thoughts, Retirement, Systems Thinking

27 April 2023

Test Driving Google’s AI, Bard

By Rick Ladd

In early 2009 I was privileged to spend a weekend with Dr. Russell Ackoff thanks to a friend and former colleague. I recall one incident where, while we were at Russ’s home, I mentioned my belief there was a similarity between the philosophy of dialectical materialism and the concept of systems thinking. As I recall, he was pretty upset with me for saying this. It’s stuck with me over the years.

Thanks to another friend on Facebook, I now have access to a set of AI tools, one of which is Google’s Bard. The other day, in an effort to test drive it, I proposed the following task and received the following reply:

Me:

Compare the philosophy of dialectical materialism as expressed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to the concept of systems thinking as expressed by Russell Ackoff and others.

Bard:

Dialectical materialism

• Dialectical materialism is a materialist philosophy that emphasizes the role of conflict and change in history.

• It is based on the idea that the world is constantly changing and evolving, and that this change is driven by the conflict between opposing forces.

• These opposing forces can be social, economic, or political, and they can be found at all levels of society, from the individual to the global.

• Dialectical materialism is a dynamic and evolving philosophy that has been used to explain a wide range of historical events, from the French Revolution to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Systems thinking

• Systems thinking is a holistic approach to understanding the world that views it as a complex system of interacting parts.

• It is based on the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and that it is impossible to understand any part of a system without understanding the system as a whole.

• Systems thinking has been used to understand a wide range of problems, from environmental degradation to economic inequality.

Comparison

• Both dialectical materialism and systems thinking are complex and sophisticated philosophies that have been used to understand the world in different ways.

• Dialectical materialism is more focused on the role of conflict and change in history, while systems thinking is more focused on the holistic nature of the world.

• Both philosophies have their strengths and weaknesses, and they can be used to complement each other.

For example:

• Dialectical materialism can be used to explain how conflict between social classes leads to social change, while systems thinking can be used to understand how the different parts of a society interact with each other.

• By combining these two approaches, we can gain a more complete understanding of the world and how it works.

Not quite as in-depth as I would have liked, but it does kind of jive with my understanding of the overlap of the two outlooks.

Leave a comment   |  tags: , , , , , , , , , | posted in Education, Entertainment, Government & Civics, History, News & Politics, Personal, Philosophy, Politics, Systems Thinking