Roland Dürre
Wednesday October 3rd, 2018

BUSINESS Visualisation


Behind this really harmless title, you will find a truly exciting non-fiction book. I would call it a book for people between six and ninety who want to have more joy and success in life.

The sub-title

A tour guide for curious and visionary persons
already gives an idea about the book being something really special.

Special? Well, I read it and I would call it revolutionary. It is about a trip into a new world I very much love and cherish. It is a world full of creative and appreciative communication and of “living together”. And it leads into a world that will continue to change and grow.

Basically, it is not a book you will read, but more a book you will feel your way through. In an exciting and humorous way, the trip of a young lady whose name is Barbara (Babs) into an agile adventure is described. This trip brings her through the world of modern communication, beginning from listening and understanding and ending in a very rounded way via the creative when the results are documented.

For me, it is quite clear: communication is the basis for all kinds of “social systems”. And communication will work better if we make use of innovative formats (some of them are actually very old). Part of this concept is the use of images and haptic – as part of a new and very sympathetic mental frame.

During my activities, I am often surprised to see how many people simply ignore the “agile change” that takes place around them, or else they are almost overrun by it. The book, which was written as a co-operation project between Botta, Reinold and Schloß, could be a solid introduction to this “new world“ for non-experts. But also the “experienced agilest” will find quite a few innovative ideas.

I can guarantee that this book will remain exciting from the first to the last page. It is not one of those works where the message is clear after the first fifty pages and where said message is then artificially lengthened and repeatedly proven in a boring way. No – you will find something new on every page. It remains full of humour at all times and the joy of reading will never end.

I would wish that the authors were to write more books about more trips, because the wonderful world of modern communication is endless. The book really contains a lot of it – but naturally not all of it. Barbara (the hero an inspiration of the authors in real life) could easily take us with her on many more great trips.

That would be nice. But I already very much recommend the first trip. For entrepreneurs and (project) managers, the book is a must.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Monday September 24th, 2018

Disruptive Technologies & Fear of the Future

Afraid of IT?

Are you scared of the more and more speedily growing complexity? And do you long for such buzzwords as agile, resilient, anti-fragile?

I never knew either of those fears. For me, the change was something exciting and I looked upon all the buzzwords as the normal result of more and more nonsense being talked without any responsibility in our times.

Because I believed that, even today, we experience nothing but very ordinary progress. Which, of course, at all times, has massively changed the world and society. Just remember the times between 1918 and 1938! Those were twenty years during which everything was in uproar.

And those times, too, can be summarized quite adequately by the words of Bertrand Russell:

» Every increase in technology will cause the same increase in wisdom, provided it is also meant to mean more instead of less human happiness. «

Because even then, it did not work.

There are at least three exceptional and particularly exciting technological dimensions.

  • World-machine interaction (sensors) instead of human-machine interaction.
  • Total networking of machines (IoT).
  • Learning machines at the roots (artificial intelligence) .

Well, these factors have the potential of new superlatives when it comes to change. Because the machines get exponentially more intelligent, they are connected world-wide and they will no longer need humans as connecting agents between themselves and the world.

Taken together, this will probably change our world and society as much as (or even more than) the triumphal procession of the “individual mobility based on combustion motors“ changed it. And that is an idea that brings even me to a point only slightly short of fear. Because the triumphal procession of the car really had tremendous consequences and it probably minimized the happiness of mankind considerably.

Well, the only hope that remains is that people will become wiser with the same speed as the “technological advancement“ gains momentum.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Saturday September 15th, 2018

Manifesto of Life

Currently, you get manifests like mushrooms sprouting from the soil, for example the Manifesto of New Work (Manifest zur neuen Arbeit) as a Microsoft (!) denomination on #newwork.

Inspired by #PMCampBER and beautiful discussions in the last few days, I now came up with a manifesto of life. Naturally, the agile manifesto (this time you get the link to the English version), stood in as a model.
Here is how my proposal for a manifesto of life:



Manifesto for Life

We are looking for values that make it possible to live in joy and with courage
and we try to live said values in our own lives and when in contact with others.
Looking for these attitude of mind, we learned to appreciate:

  • Self-responsibility and self-organisation beat being controlled by others and immaturity!
  • Values and positions (mind-set) beat morals and dogmata!
  • Love and peace beat hatred and war!
  • Freedom and abstinence beat suppression and extravagance!
  • Trust and transparency beat distrust and secrecy!

Signed by

Now all we need is a few equally minded people who wish to sign!?
(recommendations for improvements welcome)

(Translated by EG)

A short time ago, Dr. Marcus Raitner came up with 10 google theses for “good leadership” (10 Thesen von Google für “Gute Führung). They might be a good basis for a “leadership manifesto”.

Hans Bonfigt
Saturday May 26th, 2018

Moderne Zeiten

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Thursday May 24th, 2018

Why the DSGVO is moving in the wrong direction.

Roland als Insel-Philosoph mit (sauberer) Wäsche in Sifnos (Kykladen, Griechenland).

A philosophical analysis.

My theory:

We have too much property and too little common land.

We strive too much after ownership and too little after shared social life and survival, experiences, …

Here are a few facts that support my theory:

  • 62 super rich people practically own half the world.
    (62 Superreiche besitzen so viel wie die halbe Welt)
  • Why is it a matter of course that humans (“natural persons”) can acquire (buy) soil and property to their hearts’ content?
  • Why is everyone allowed to own a car that causes considerable damage to the common good? Or a yacht? Why can huge social systems with an economic goal be completely owned by few people or other social systems?

Something is rotten with property. To be sure, I understand to some extent – and even wish for myself – that people, who in our legal system are called “natural persons”, can own property to a reasonable extent.

But why do “legal persons” like capital companies (GmbH, AG, Company Limited … – in French, they are called  “society anonyme“) have the same rights?
If a “natural person” dies, the problem of inheritance is added, which strengthens the polarisation of “poor and rich”.

“Legal Persons” will not die naturally. But they can become bankrupt. And what then? Even with our modern bankruptcy laws, the protection of those who are owed something has priority over saving the enterprise.

In addition, money will usually increase by itself. That makes property more and more powerful and power richer and richer.

Now let us look at the components of ownership.

Initially you own objects. As I see it, that is ok as long as we are not talking objects that should belong to the community and as long as the situation does not do any damage to the common good.

It gets harder when we are talking the ownership of rights. Is it really fair that someone who, with his team and in a fortunate communication system, developed a patent and therefore has a huge income over many decades, can buy any property he feels he wants in Munich City every year? That the authors of bestselling novels or soccer stars will be billionaires after a few years?

To be sure, I understand that the effort of an artist should be suitably paid for. But why is the right to mental property given in the same way to “legal persons” as to “natural persons”? Why does the music of Bob Marley or of the Beatles not belong to all the people of this world, rather than to a few concerns? The same is true for the dramas of Bert Brecht?

And now we also have ownership of data? Isn’t that totally grotesque? As I see it, we do not need data security but the obligation to be transparent! And that we should not try to protect ourselves against institutions that manipulate us. Instead, we should abolish them.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Saturday May 5th, 2018

People and Their Characteristics

The following text might be a little hard to digest for many of you.

A few years ago in the South Sea – guaranteed to be far removed from seminars and all kinds of mentoring.

It is not the people who are good or evil but what they do.

For me, this is a very central idea from the age of enlightenment.

Similarly, you can say
It is not the managers who are correct or incorrect but their decisions.

“Incorrect” in this context means “wrong“.

Mind you, it is even more problematic when it comes to decisions than when it comes to behaviour. What you do often has consequences. More often than not, you cannot really know, even à posterior, what consequences your decisions really had for the enterprise or for the world. Because the question is always ”how real is reality?“, which you can read about in Watzlawick. And decisions that seemed to be the right decisions at the time often turn out to have been totally wrong in retrospect.

You cannot give people and managers characteristics like good or evil. They are not gear-wheels that function as part of a clockwork in your family or enterprise.

With humans, even trivial measurements such as weight and height are not too easy. You see a tall lady with unbelievably long legs – then she takes off her shoes and becomes a dwarf. An overweight person might easily turn into a slim one because he lost 20 kilograms.

Nor can you decide about beauty. One day, the hero shines in all his splendour wearing his gala uniform; but what about when he wakes up hungover and has not shaved (for reasons of gender fairness, I chose a male example and abstained from using the example of the one-night stand and the terrible morning after).

With intelligence, there is also no objective measure. You determine the I.Q. – but what about emotional intelligence , see Emotionalen Intelligenz in his book ”EQ … “.

Consequently, we should not give people characteristics such as fat, tall, beautiful or intelligent. They are frivolous and inadequate. But you can do a lot worse.
Some people told me that I am a “brain-controlled person”. Others testified that I am a “person who decides following his gut-feeling“.

They all were persons who are close to me and presumably even meant well by me. They believed they had learned enough about me to judge my personality. And they pitied me because they believed that I, being a brain-oriented or gut-oriented person, cannot do a fair job as a manager.

These – incidentally they were all male – people all saw themselves as great leaders. I saw them as idiots, or rather: I perceived them as such.
But that is exactly what it is all about:

It is all just our perception.

We all wear masks and act in the way we think we need to inter-act, which does not make communication and understanding easier. This is how we are (too) quickly prepared to make others look “smaller”, rather than “taller”.

There is no such thing as a person who is “brain-oriented or “gut-oriented“, “cold“ or “emphatic“, “sensitive“ or “insensitive“, “weak“ or “strong“, “emotional“ or “unemotional“, etc. These are all values you cannot measure. Regardless of the fact that some charlatans claim that they can do exactly that and make a lot of money selling the idea.

It is something we should permanently remember.

Especially, we should be careful when it comes to our self-perception. It is mostly wrong!

(Translated by EG)

I can easily prove this last statement by relating discussions with many people who come to see me as my mentées. More often than not, it is truly shocking for me to see how they make themselves look small.

Roland Dürre
Sunday April 1st, 2018

April, April, April.

This is another way to perceive April, 1st.

Even as a child, I rather liked April-Fool’s. It was such pleasure to play it upon my small sister on April, 1st.

Later, as I grew older, I found April Fool’s more and more interesting. When reading the “Augsburger Allgemeine” on April, 1st, the first thing I did in the morning was look for them. And more often than not, I found something that did not really qualify.

Naturally, later in life, the April-Fool’s were also prominent in my IF Blog. I even remember one year when there were three of them.

In 2018, I started thinking about a good April-Fool’s early in the year. Perhaps because, these days, there are so many daily news that I would prefer to have been (poor) April-Fool’s.

This morning, my old eagerness to read them was re-kindled. And I found one that I really liked.

Bike Town Münster
Press Release (Pressemitteilung:):
After what happened recently in our city, we, the interest group Bike Town Münster, concluded that the effort it would take for us to really become a bike town, is extremely huge. Consequently, we will decide by an internal majority vote to no longer work towards this goal.

Instead, we will focus on making the already quite noteworthy car-friendliness in Münster even more of a success. The promising developments of the past show us that it is far easier to have far more success in this area with far less effort.

We hereby offer our full support to the ADAC and the ACV Automobil-Club Verkehr for all their projects that promote car-friendly cities. The highly promising NO on driving bans we hear from such model cities as Stuttgart motivates us to now fight for our highest goal “all citizens are free to drive“.

This is what our name stands for!

Best wishes

Die IG
(Of course, our Social Media Domains will shortly be changed, but Facebook and Twitter need a little time for name alterations. We hope to finish the process as soon as possible.)
Westfälische Nachrichten
Münstersche Zeitung
WDR Lokalzeit Münsterland
Radio Q
Münstersche Volkszeitung
Die Wiedertäufe

I really, really like it. Perhaps because, deep down, I am a little worried that it might not be an April-Fool’s but a true statement. But also because what is an April-Fool’s in Münster is actually the generally accepted strategy in Munich.

And this is not only true for Munich, but also for my hometown Neubiberg. They still spend a considerable amount of money on public car parks in the town centre. Through the entire region, they build parking spaces on, under and above ground. Sports centres eventually cannot be built because there are not enough car parks, and all over Bavarian, they cover natural ground the size of soccer fields for parking lots near schools, cemeteries, railway stations,… in no time with concrete.

And wherever there is a place of resistance against the car-mania, as there seemed to be in Oberhaching, the reader will notice on perusing his newspaper that this bastion, too, has now been cut down.

But this year, we all get our Easter Eggs for free on April 1st! And today, Haching will win against Rostock.

(Translated by EG)

Hans Bonfigt
Sunday December 31st, 2017

Wie Gewalt entstehen und wohin sie führen kann

Und wieder einmal stehen wir unmittelbar vor einem neuen Jahr.

Roland Dürre
Sunday November 26th, 2017

Dear Evil Sexual Drive.

My road. On a narrow path. On a dangerous route.

Currently, I sometimes write about sex. And electric bikes. Today, it is again about sex.

For me, this is not about sex as such. It is more because it makes me rather sad to see how this is a topic where there is so much hypocrisy and moralizing. And how people lie to themselves, perhaps because they are afraid of their own urges and sub-conscious wishes.

As I see it, we could live better lives if we did not damage our own lives and the lives of the “others” by installing unnecessary taboos and morals.

If, these days, my articles are breaking patterns, then it is certainly not because I want to hurt or insult anybody. It is only because I want to promote a little thoughtfulness and questioning of your own habits.

There was quite a bit of headwind coming my way after my article on “meetoo“ (meetoo). Basically, there were two statements:

(1) “Men, too, should be able to control themselves, no matter what they are currently doing“
(2) “No matter in which situation, we always have to respect another person’s right to self-determination”.

Well, both of these arguments sound nice to me. And actually, I try to live by them. And I also believe both should be true for all people and all sexes, not just for men
(note: incidentally, we now have three sexes. When it comes to sexuality, the bit now has three values – informatics insider).

But then let us take a close look at (1). What does “men, too” mean? Men in the same way as women? As children? Or as pets? Or as car-drivers? Is there anyone who should not be able to control himself/herself?

On reading (2) with diligence and time, my first idea is “wow, what a nice sentence”. But then, is it not utopia, or just a phrase? What do we see in reality, where we were socialized and where we socialize our children? In my life, it happened to often that I experienced the opposite of statement (2).

It would have been so nice if other people had respected my right to self-determination! Especially those in charge of my education and upbringing!
Is there any law that protects our self-determination? I am afraid there is none. Can I deduce the right to self-determination from the guarantee of human dignity? After all, freedom also means to “live your own life in self-responsibility”. And is that not frequently limited whenever someone says they “want to protect me”? From myself!

🙂 The only self-determination I know is the self-determination as far as my data are concerned. …

My “self-determination” suffered under more powerful people or issues all the time. I could give you an endless list of experiences in life from my childhood home, school, the army, my college education, my professional life, in special situations such as for instance traffic and the “shared” everyday life. My stories would fill many pages.

However, this does not concern me alone. In the public environment, I see almost constantly how people do not respect the right to self-determination of others at all. It happens in all the dimensions we share when living. And the most harmless kind is still “moralizing”, which can easily become mobbing.

Regardless, I try to live by (2). And by (1). However, living by (1) is not so easy, either. Is it really a good thing for me to always practice self-discipline? And why should I condemn, persecute and punish others just because they are courageous enough to do things I am not courageous enough to do? For instance if they take the liberty of telling another person that they think he/she is beautiful. For fear of being called sexist, I do not dare saying such a thing. Should I condemn them because I envy them their courage and their freedom? And should it annoy me that they will then get a positive reaction to their “outrageous behaviour”?

And as far as moralizing is concerned, let me – for a change – cite the new testament (only roughly, because you cannot do it in any other way). 
Let those who are free of fault throw the first stone!

After all, we must never forget that, when all is said and done, “humans” (we all) are just mammals. Sometimes more sympathetic and sometimes less so. Once in a while, we are full of enmity, and then again full of friendliness/humanity! To be sure, we are mammals who have a moral cerebellum, but it is still only the small part of the brain. And it makes people believe they are ever so wise, strong and free. Regardless of the fact that the really relevant memories and experiences are saved in the sub-conscious.

How do the Bavarians pay tribute to their Franz-Josef (Strauß):
“Well, he was quite a number, wasn’t he?“.

There is so much information (almost all of it) that we cannot consciously access. Basically and de-facto, the subconscious makes and prepares all decisions. We are not the noble, god-like race, without flesh and only made of soul that is so different from animals. Consequently, we should not try to pretend or, even worse, to become such a different species.

Basically, we have no un-influenced and conscious will. Which means that our criminal responsibility, too is only very limited and very artificially constructed. This (scientifically proven by modern neurology) highly probable reality is not something we like to hear. With many (most of the) people, it will usually trigger outrage and a strong counter-reaction. The consequence is that, for instance, a prison sentence given for wrong (socially detrimental) behaviour is no longer punishment but instead a measure that wishes to prevent things from happening again.

What I ask myself is: does it make sense and is it legitimate (in the sense of truthful) if I lift myself over “culprits” or even speak in terms of “culprit categories” by condemning them? What social advantage is there in me or us becoming part of a witch hunt and also, for instance, ignoring legal facts like, in such a case, the limitation period?

Thesis (1) – not being capable of self-discipline – is something especially men are accused of all the time. I am a man and do not know the “instinct urge situation” of women. Some women told me they also knew “urge-like situations”. I believe what they said, because it matches my own personal experience. Sexual drive is part of being human (or of being an animal?). To be sure, the intensity can differ, depending on the socialization or even the genetic predisposition. Perhaps even down to the zero set.

And I am sure you can lie to yourself by just pushing the sexual drive away. Perhaps in some cases even successfully. Or perhaps doing a lot of damage to yourself in the process. The very upright but latently homosexual citizen in the piece “Orpheus steps down” by Tennessee Williams comes to mind. He hates and prosecutes homosexuals with extreme vigour. Perhaps because he secretly feels that he himself is also homosexual – but in the upright-citizen-milieu of the quiet and well-organized small Dixie town, this is unthinkable! A stranger comes – and the witch hunt starts. It is a play I saw in the Kammerspiele and it really gave me pause.

So far, they have not really found out how the brains work in this respect, and consequently, I do not know it either. But I assume that the person who hates homosexuals and kills them because he is or might himself be homosexual suffers maximum unhappiness. As is so often the case when culprit and victim are the same.

What annoys me most about discussions like the one we currently have about sexism is that groups are severely criticized. For instance single mothers. I really have all the respect in the world for them.

I know people who actually discredit them. If they do not outright call them prostitutes, they at least accuse them of having carelessly become pregnant. After all, their cerebellum could have been watchful when the sexual drive came. After all, today everybody knows how you become pregnant. The physics teacher taught us all the poem for memorizing the words concave and convex: 
If the girl behaves, her stomach remains concave, but if she has sex, it will be convex.

Other – particularly virtuous – moralists say they should have said NO. Which indicates a failure in the sense of (1) “Women, too, should actually be capable of a little self-discipline, no matter what they are currently doing.“ 
And then there are the very strict moralists who say: “It is their own fault, why didn’t they have an abortion?“.

Of course, a pregnancy has something to do with sex, and it changes the life of a woman considerably. There are women who “chose the right method of contraception” and still became pregnant. For instance because they used a product like the “copper spiral” that has the characteristic “unreliable” even written in its product description (Pearl-Index). And it was developed from men for women.

Others have become pregnant because they were weak for a total of eleven minutes. It was a huge awakening for all parties concerned. Some corrected the error and had an abortion. They were often supported and encouraged by their social environment. That is also an area where I think nobody has the right to judge these people morally. That also goes for the men involved during conception because they could not control their sexual drive?

I admit that the temptation to postulate a moral demand such as “you must be able to say NO” is huge. Both in sex and corruption. Except, as I said above: “Who has the right to throw the first stone?” Why don’t we offer all people respect, instead of morally condemning them?

Mind you, there were times when it was even worse than now. I remember times when it was amoral for a woman to have an orgasm. Because sex included a sacred mandate to multiply and not meant for satisfying your lust. If a woman enjoyed sex, she was a harlot. And, as I already wrote, the men sought the harlot and wanted the saint at the same time.

Poor stupid, in this case male, cerebellum!

Let me say it again: using violence against other people is an absolute #nogo. It is totally irrelevant to what end you apply it. There is no justification. Here is a final provocation – which is not meant as it sounds, but only as an inspiration and impulse for another thought process:
Violence and the application of violence in the context of sexual urges is severely criticized and enthusiastically prosecuted.
That is OK!

The most brutal violence against people is tolerated, promoted and actively supported or organized. By the same people and the same society!
That is not at all OK!

(Translated by EG)

In our society, contraception is in the hands of the woman as a matter of course. I think that is rather disrespectful towards WOMAN. It is another facet of the morals in our society that I would call sexism.

Roland Dürre
Tuesday November 7th, 2017

Sex and Electricity

At the height of my Catholic-Christian career!

On electronic bikes and #MeToo.

Some IF blog friends asked me why I do not write about new and more important topics.
They suggested that I write about e-bikes. After all, they said it was an interesting and relevant topic.

That is true!

So I will do it. Now that I have some e-bike experience, I understand even less than before why anybody would want to drive a car.

Or, to express it more refined: why does anybody punish him-/herself and drive a car? We are apparently a nation of masochists  (I almost wrote maso-christians).

Which brings me to the second topic I was asked to write about: our sexual hypocrisy.
Some of my readers asked me tell them my position on it. For instance, I got the following tweet:

…If you are perfectly honest, my dear @RolandDuerre
I assume all this sexism debate is something that annoys you, isn’t it?

Yes, it is true! It does annoy me.

As soon as anybody talks sexuality, hypocrisy blooms. Both among men and women. They all start campaigns that, in my opinion, simply ignore the real problem in our society. Or even worse: they deflect from the real problem. Because in all discussions, evil men violate and exploit nice women. And because, allegedly, when it comes to sex, our society forgets “to accept borders”. Well, if it were only in connection with sex that we forget those borders, and if we were not constantly doing it in our everyday lives …

With increasing enthusiasm, they demand that these borders be restored as fast as possible. The sheer joy in punishment increases. Except that, when all is said and done, this behaviour deflects from the fact that, for millennia, power has been the valid substitution strategy and the common behavioural principle when it came to suppressing and manipulating people. And consequently, it would certainly be strange if this rule from “normal life” were to be invalid when it comes to sexuality, which, after all, is rooted in “instinct”, rather than “greed.

So up from now, I will also occasionally write about the e-bike (as a very normal topic) and about sexuality (in order to break a few taboos). I will establish two new IF Blog categories: eBike and Sexuality.

So far, they are both empty. But the next thing I will write is about #MeToo. And then I will start with the e-Bikes.

(Translated by Evelyn)