This is a transcript of a speech originally given by Dr. Ackoff
in Tallberg, Sweden on the occasion of his receipt of the Tallberg
Foundation / Swedbank Leadership Award for Principled Pragmatism
on August 3, 2005.
So much time is currently spent in worrying about the future that
the present is allowed to go to hell. Unless we correct some of
the world's current systemic deficiencies now, the future is condemned
to be as disappointing as the present.
My preoccupation is with where we would ideally like to be right
now. Knowing this, we can act now so as to constantly reduce the
gap between where we are and where we want to be. Then, to a large
extent, the future is created by what we do now. Now is the only
time in which we can act.
I have found widespread agreement among governmental and organizational
executives that their current state is more a product of what their
organizations did in the past than a product of what was done to
them. Therefore, our future state will be more a product of what
we do now than of what is done to us.
If we don't know what state we would be in right now if we could
be in whatever state we wanted, how can we possibly know in what
state we would like to be in the future? Furthermore, statements
of where we want to be in the future are usually based on forecasts
of what the future will be. Such forecasts are inevitably wrong;
we cannot identify all the significant changes that will occur in
our environments between now and then.
It is for this reason that so many plans are never completely implemented;
they are dropped when it becomes apparent that the forecasts on
which they are based are false. I was once told by a public planner
that only two percent of the public-sector plans produced in my
country were ever completely implemented for this and other reasons.
Nevertheless, it is apparent that our current decisions are based
on what we expect the relevant future to be. Obviously, we must
do something about those aspects of the future that we cannot control
but which can affect us significantly. But this should not be based
on forecasts; it should be based on assumptions.
When forecasting addicts hear a statement such as this they think
"Aha, gotcha! Assumptions are nothing but forecasts in disguise."
They could not be more wrong. For example, we carry a spare tire
in our cars because we assume a flat tire is possible, not because
we forecast that one is going to occur on our next trip. In fact,
one can easily show by examining our preparations for the next trip
by automobile that we forecast implicitly that we will not have
a flat tire on that trip. Forecasts are about probabilities; assumptions
are about possibilities. We handle future possibilities differently
than we handle future probabilities.
There are two nonexclusive ways of dealing with possibilities;
contingency planning and developing responsiveness. In contingency
planning we identify a set of (hopefully exhaustive) possibilities
that would be costly not to anticipate if they came about, and prepare
a plan to identify and respond to the correct possibility as early
as possible. In World War II I participated in planning the invasion
of Leyte in the Philippines. We had poor intelligence on the conditions
we would encounter on landing. We identified a set of possibilities
that we thought were exhaustive and prepared a landing plan for
each. Then the commanding general selected the one he thought most
likely. We had hardly hit the beach when it became apparent that
the possibility he had selected was wrong. The plan was changed
immediately. If this had not been done, I and many others would
not be here today.
Making organizations able to respond rapidly and effectively to
the unexpected is appropriate when we can't identify anything approximating
all the possibilities. For example, when I drive from my home in
Philadelphia to New York City, my getting there depends on what
a large number of people do while driving their cars along the route
I take. I do not try to forecast what I will encounter because I
believe I can react rapidly and effectively to whatever confronts
me. Design of a theater's stage does much the same thing. The designer
cannot anticipate all the scenes the stage will have to accommodate,
but he can design a stage so flexible that it can accommodate virtually
any set that a producer wants to put on it.
Some, if not many, aspects of the relevant future are subject to
our control. For example, a municipal government can control land
use by zoning ordinances. It can control the availability of publicly
owned utilities. It can control traffic, and so on. In addition
it can influence much of the behavior it cannot control. The prices
it sets on publicly provided services influence their use. Taxation
influences savings and expenditures. Financial aid influences attendance
at universities, use of medical facilities, and so on.
There are two types of control: control of causes and control of
effects. For example, we can use DDT to destroy mosquitoes bearing
yellow fever and thereby avoid an epidemic of this disease. On the
other hand we can avoid an epidemic by immunizing people against
yellow fever. Where we cannot prevent negative effects we may be
able to reduce them. For example, we cannot prevent earthquakes
but we can build buildings that will not crumble when one occurs.
It should also be noted that many of those relevant aspects of
the future that we cannot control or influence may, nevertheless,
be subject to control or influence if we and others collaborate.
For example, sanctions unilaterally imposed by one nation on another
may have little effect; but the same sanctions imposed by a number
of nations may have a considerable effect. The same is true of measures
to reduce or eliminate environmental pollution.
So much for how I believe we should think about the future- we should
do so by focusing on the present and the gaps between where we are
and where we want to be now, ideally. We can then march into the
future redefining those gaps as we and our environments change,
and by closing or reducing them.
Now let me focus on what I believe to be the major gaps between
where we collectively are and where we would most like to be.
[CONTINUED FROM NEWSLETTER]
I believe that those attending a meeting like this would like a
world in which in the future there would be a more equitable distribution
within and between countries of standard of living, quality of life,
and opportunities to improve both. Despite this desire, the War
on Poverty is at best stalemated globally and even within many developed
countries. Ronald Reagan, former president of the United States,
referred to the version of this war initiated by his predecessor,
Lyndon Johnson, as a war that poverty won. It is still winning.
If poverty is defined as living on an income of less than two dollars
a day, fifty per cent of the world's population is still living
in poverty. In parts of Africa it goes up to as high as seventy
per cent. Even if one argues that we are making progress globally,
it is apparent that we are a long way from solving the inequity
problem. The World Bank currently estimates the number of poor there
will be in 2015 to be exactly the same as Robert McNamara estimated
there were in 1973.
I am aware of the large amounts of relief given to the disadvantaged
in crises. This is obviously necessary and an appropriate thing
for governments and government institutions to engage in. Of course
the victims of man-made and natural catastrophes should be helped.
But this is a bottomless pit unless what is provided is an ability
to help oneself. To provide charity is not to facilitate development.
There is a Chinese proverb that makes the distinction between development
and charity clear. If you give a hungry man a fish, he will be hungry
again tomorrow. But if you teach him how to fish, he will never
be hungry again.
I see little evidence that international programs currently directed
at producing development know what development is. Development is
not the acquisition of wealth, an increase in the standard of living,
as they assume. Standard of living is an index of growth, not development.
Quality of life is an index of development. Development and growth
are not the same thing. For example, cemeteries and rubbish heaps
grow without developing. On the other hand Einstein and Beethoven
continued to develop long after they had stopped growing.
Development is a process, the process of increasing one's competence,
an ability to satisfy one's own needs and legitimate desires and
those of others. A legitimate desire is one the fulfillment of which
does not decrease the ability of anyone else to satisfy their needs
and legitimate desires.
Development occurs in the process of learning, not earning, as
growth does. Development is not so much a matter of how much one
has as it is of how much one can do with whatever one has. Robinson
Crusoe is a better model of development than J. P. Morgan. A developed
person can produce a better quality of life with few resources than
an undeveloped person can with many. Of course, at any level of
development a higher quality of life can be produced with more rather
than less resources.
Because one person cannot learn for another, development cannot
be done for, or imposed on, another. The only kind of development
that is possible is self-development. But like learning it can be
encouraged and facilitated by others.
The UN is correct in believing that education is essential for development,
but it is wrong in assuming that education and schooling, and that
being taught and learning, are the same things. Ivan Illich (1972,
pp. 1-2) wrote:
"The pupil is
'schooled' to confuse teaching and learning,
grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and
fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is
'schooled' to accept service in place of value."
Therefore, Illich concluded, "
public education would
profit from the deschooling of society. Relevant experience, not
schooling, remains the best way to obtain an education."
Knowledge of how to facilitate development of disadvantaged communities
and nations is already available. Supported by corporations as well
as government agencies, it has been used in disadvantaged neighborhoods
in developed countries, in peasant villages in Mexico, and in many
other places. The extension of the method employed in these small
societies to larger social systems presents no problems that lie
outside the minds and will of people. But this is no small obstacle.
I have learned the following from my efforts to facilitate the development
of others.
First, organizations, institutions, or government agencies of any
size can serve as facilitators of development. They should engage
in it directly by providing support to others without intermediaries.
Only by so doing can they learn how to facilitate the development
of others. Furthermore, by so doing they acquire "something
to show" for their efforts and can more easily justify continuation
and expansion of their efforts.
Second, a pool of resources-financial, human, and equipment- should
be made available to those who are less developed. This should only
be used in development efforts, ways that contribute to an increase
in the competence of the recipients. The recipients, not the donors,
should decide how. The donors may expresses their opinions but should
not impose them on the recipients of their efforts
Third, the less advantaged should be allowed to make non-self-destructive
mistakes. Recall that experience is the best teacher. We do not
learn by doing things right because we already know how to do them.
What we get by so doing is confirmation of what we already know.
This has value but it is not learning. We can only learn from mistakes,
by identifying them, determining their source, and correcting them.
Furthermore, people learn more from their own mistakes than from
the successes of others. The great composer Igor Stravinski put
it very effectively, "I have learned throughout my life as
a composer chiefly through my mistakes and pursuits of false assumptions,
not by my exposure to founts of wisdom and knowledge."
Fourth, decisions on how to use these resources should be made
democratically: by those who will be directly affected by them or
by representatives that they have selected, and by others who will
be indirectly but significantly affected by these decisions.
Fifth, corruption should not be tolerated. Its presence should
be a sufficient reason for discontinuation of a development-support
effort. This should be made very clear at the beginning of an effort.
Sixth, the effort should be monitored and evaluated objectively
by a group whose members are acceptable to both the recipients and
the donors of the aid. Consider some aspects of these conditions
in more detail:
Sources: Each developed country should have an agency to
administer development programs. It should receive and process applications
for aid.
A percentage of the income tax collected in every more developed
country should be designated for investment in equalizing development
among nations. Institutions and organizations receiving subsidies
or contracts from the governments of more developed countries-especially
colleges and universities- should provide the human resources required
on development projects.
Development: Recall, development is an increase in competence.
"Omnicompetence," the ability to obtain whatever one wants
or needs, is an unattainable but continuously approachable ideal
for all mankind- past, present, and future. No one can want anything,
including the absence of desire or need, without wanting the ability
to obtain it.
Corruption: In this context, corruption consists of the
appropriation of resources intended for use in the development of
others. Where it is rampant, it is a major obstruction to development.
It also produces a feeling of futility in many of the intended recipients
and provides a fertile soil for fanaticism and terrorism.
Monitoring: It should be directed at facilitating learning
by those whose development is intended. In order to do this a record
should be prepared for each significant development-intended decision.
This record should include, among other things, the expected effects
of the decision, by when they are expected, and the assumptions,
information, knowledge, and understanding on which these expectations
are based. It should also record how the decision was made and by
whom.
The monitors should then track the expectations and assumptions.
When a significant deviation from them is found, it should be diagnosed
to determine what produced it. Corrective action should then be
taken by the decision makers.
A record should also be kept of these corrective decisions. Monitoring
these makes it possible to lean how to learn. This may well be the
most valuable thing one can learn.
How can one create the critical mass required to move the developed
parts of the world into a sustainable effort to develop the rest
of the world? If this decade were not already pre-empted by a number
of declarations, proclamations and evocations I would suggest establishing
a Decade for Development. The most notable preemption is the United
Nations Development Program and it's recently proclaimed Decade
of Education for Sustainable Development. This is neither the time
nor place to criticize this effort but I must say I have little
expectation of good to come from it. I do not think it is based
on a sound concept of either development or education. It confuses
development with its products and it confuses education with schooling.
There are parallel declarations and proclamations from the World
Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the European Union, the Club
of Rome, The Club of Budapest and recently from Tony Blair, among
others. I see no reason to expect little more than no development
from any of these.
The current alleged effort by corporations to contribute to sustainable
global development does not strike me as any more promising than
the efforts of governments and international institutions. Corporate
efforts are largely focused on finding ways to convert less developed
countries into profitable markets, to convert the poor into profitable
customers. They seek to modify products sold in developed countries
so as to be saleable in less developed countries. It is hard to
see how shampoo and toothpaste, however modified and packaged, can
contribute to development of their users. They may increase quality
of life but without increasing development.
I don't believe that calls to action addressed to others will evoke
much action. We, not they, should start doing something here and
now, each of us with or without the organizations of which we are
a part.
In response to a request from GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world's
major pharmaceutical companies, one that already has a distinguished
record of community involvement, I developed the following proposal
to which the company is now committed. The idea behind the proposal
derives from two sources. The first is a very successful community
development effort carried out by a research center at The Wharton
School of the University of Pennsylvania with a so-called urban
black ghetto in Philadelphia. The story of that effort appears in
print in several places (Ackoff and Rovin, 2003). It led to the
adoption of the process used in sixty-two other cities in the United
States.
The second source is an anti-littering campaign conducted in the
United States in which non-governmental organizations accept responsibility
for keeping a designated stretch of highway clear of litter. They
regularly police the designated stretch of road removing litter.
Signs are posted that identify the organization that has adopted
the part of the highway affected.
I propose that organizations engage in the following type of development
effort, one divided into four stages:
Stage 1: Each organization selects a disadvantaged community in
the city or region in which its headquarters are located. It adopts
this community and becomes a facilitator of its development, using
the steps described earlier.
Stage 2: It induces the local Chamber of Commerce, or some similar
community-based organization, to induce other organizations into
doing the same thing. In this way it initiates a City- or Region-Wide
Development Program.
Stage 3: The originating organization initiates similar community
adoptions in each city or region in its home country in which it
has operations. Other organizations in the community or region of
the originating company do the same thing.
Stage 4: Each organization then adopts a community in each foreign
country in which it has an operation.
I have found it desirable to employ one or more persons who live
in the community selected and who have shown leadership potential.
It also helps to provide him or her with a small amount of funds
to use at his or her discretion, but for development purposes only.
In the United States I have been able to do this for a neighborhood
of 22,000 people on an annual budget of only $35,000. That neighborhood
was eventually able to generate several million dollars of income
each year by its own initiatives.
My hope is that public and private organizations will make a commitment
to initiate a development-facilitation effort in a community to
which they have or can gain access. Unless organizations are willing
to become engaged in community development efforts, I can see no
reason for us to expect public efforts to become more effective
than they are currently. On the other hand, if non-governmental
organizations become involved in facilitating the development of
the less developed, they can make such facilitation efforts contagious.
There is no more effective way of developing themselves than facilitating
the development of others. This requires inspirational and courageous
leadership from such people as are assembled here.
Dr. Russell L. Ackoff is the Anheuser Busch Professor
Emeritus of management science at the Wharton School of the University
of Pennsylvania. Dr. Ackoff has authored over 20 books and 250 articles,
and has conducted research for more than 300 corporations and government
agencies.
|