Roland Dürre
Monday July 6th, 2015

My “Destina”

🙂 From the South-Sea Island of Runit to Munich Rosenheimer Straße.

„Runit Dome 001“ von US Defense Special Weapons Agency

”Runit Dome 001“ by US Defense Special Weapons Agency

In the SZ weekend edition (July, 4th and 5th, 2015), I found two articles that horrified me. And I posted them as often as possible in Facebook, Google+ and Twitter.

The first article appeared in the “knowledge” sector and was titled: “Dome of Death”. It is about what the 67 nuclear bomb tests executed by the USA between 1946 and 1958 on the atolls Eniwetok and Bikini left behind.

The second artikele  is titled “Extensive Human Tragedy” and tells us about a declaration by the Nobel Prize winners they published during a meeting in Lindau, demanding a fierce fight against the climate change (Klimawandel).

In the first report, the extent of the catastrophe happening in the South Sea truly horrifies me. It again brings back to my mind what a huge danger radioactive waste is. And how small-minded and futile the current attempts to find safe disposal zones in Germany are. Again, politics terminated a project that, de facto, is destined to fail.

I can well understand both the people and the counties opposing a disposal zone. After all, it seems to me that contaminating even more regions on this earth is the biggest possible mistake. Because, naturally, there can be no safety in this area.

Here is another note. The aforementioned article also again mentions that plutonium is one of the most poisonous of all radio-active materials and has a half-value period of up to 24,000 years. Well, in times when we are constantly confronted with billions, 24,000 years seem almost negligible, don’t they? Except – it has been only 2,400 years ago that the first human cultures invented writing – and that is one digit less.…

However, the second article made me almost more furious. In all fields of our lives, we trust science. When we eat food, we trust that science guarantees us healthy nutrients. When we fly, we are sure that, thanks to physics, we will not fall down. We get vaccinations and trust in science. When driving cars, we trust our airbags and even when we ride a bike we follow the laws of science.

But whenever said science provides us with matching results from different disciplines and sources, we do nothing if we do not like those results. My special fury is directed to our current government.

Regardless us of being bankrupt ourselves, they stage a “Western Community of Values” that costs hundreds of millions of Euros in Elmau. And all they can show for it in the end is a few “programmatic decisions” – all of which, even a few days after the declarations, turn out to have been nothing but lip-service.

Germany’s government actually celebrates itself for being the teacher and guardian of public virtue for all Europe and does not even hesitate to come up with slogans such as:  “If the Euro dies, Europe will die”. Incidentally, this is a statement that, like many others from the same source, will not survive dialectical questioning.

For the Greeks, she has a program even the IWF finds totally counterproductive, demanding that they must reduce the retirement money they pay but that they cannot under any circumstances reduce their military budget.

And much more of the same.

Except that she is not doing her homework, for instance by introducing a general speed limit in Germany. She does not put a stop to the gigantic subsidies of company cars. Putting taxation on plane kerosene, too, is something she cannot even allow herself to think about.

And she bathes in self-praise, looking on as infra-structure and education in this country go south. How profits are privatized and losses are socialized and thus how the rich get ever richer while the number of the poor increases along with their dwindling property. To make up for it, she is number one in Europe when it comes to indoctrination and coming up with stupid dogmata.

That is when I occasionally start asking myself if my “destina” might not be to fight all this stupidity and counter-productivity. But that would mean I have to stop doing what I am currently doing, namely linking and mentoring persons and supporting start-ups. And I have not yet quite reached that stage.

(Translated by EG)

Tonight will be the first time in many years that I will again be part of a demonstration. I will sit on my bike and ride it for a fair distribution of space on the Munich Rosenheimer Strasse: Radel-Demo Rosenheimer!

I took the picture “Runit Dome 001“ by US Defense Special Weapons Agency from Wikipedia:– It is licenced under “common property” through Wikimedia Commons –

Roland Dürre
Saturday February 14th, 2015

Changing Your Life-Style – But How?

The art of living as propagated by Rupert Lay, Hermann Schmitz and Wilhelm Schmid

Rupert Lay was my most important mentor. Even before I founded the InterFace AG, I first attended one of his seminars in Frankfurt early in the 1980ies. This is now more than 30 years ago. The meeting was the start of a long cooperation, leading to an intense friendship I am very happy with.

Carsten Lange (also a friend I met in the network created through Rupert) of Lange Communication pointed me towards a dissertational thesis. I contacted the author Stephan Thiele and we had a very nice discussion.

Here is the dissertational thesis by Stephan Thiele, also about Rupert Lay, for your download:

Sein Leben ändern - aber wie? (919)

Written at and with a certificate from the Hochschule für Bildende Künste Braunschweig in order to earn the title of “Doctor of Philosophy” – Dr. phil. – by Stephan Thiele, born July, 3, 1966 in Zeven.

For me, it is very important to make material about or on Rupert Lay available for as many persons as possible. Especially also for all the friends I first met through Rupert. This is a reason why you will find many videos and presentations by Rupert Lay on my Youtube-Channel (Roland Dürre), some of them from the times of the “Ronneburg Circle”.

It seems to me that this dissertational thesis is an important contribution worth reading for all those persons who are willing to think about their personal concept of life. And you are always permitted to disagree. Even the author himself told me that he would formulate some theses and topics differently if he had to write them today.

Many thanks to Carsten Lange (who pointed me in the right direction) and Stephan Thiele (the author).

(Translated by EG)

Since today the state of affairs for all humans is more critical than ever, it is absolutely imperative: ”You Must Change your Life” (after Rilke)
(by Peter Sloterdijk)

Bauer-GoosI consider myself to some extend as a third generation informatics pioneer. And I like remembering my first huge projects in the 1970ies. They were called START, ITS, Dispol or SNATCH.

In my private order of things, the second generation of IT pioneers is represented by F.-L. Bauer, whom I personally hold in high esteem. When I was a mathematics student at TUM (at the time it was still called TH for Technische Hochschule) in the fall of 1969, I sat in his lecture when I first studied my minor subject: computer science. Incidentally, the book you see on the picture is my personal copy bought at the time. As you can easily see, it has been read in quite often.

In those days, informatics was something totally new for me. And I probably chose the minor subject because I did not really know what it was. Simply because, in some way or other, it pointed towards the future.

BauerAlmost as a logical consequence, I did not understand everything professor Bauer wanted to teach us during this beautiful lecture course. Very regrettably.

During the last few years, I was permitted to accompany professor Bauer when he gave several guided tours in the Informatics department of the Deutsches Museum. Those tours were held for our (InterFace AG) customers, friends and partners. Many things I had not understood as a young student became a lot clearer in the wake of those tours.

Incidentally, I count Konrad Zuse among the first computer science generation. I made his personal acquaintance at the end of the 1086 InterFace-Konrad-Zuse-Bike Tour. He gave us a great welcome, delivered a wonderful speech and presented us the picture you see here during the great reception at Hünfeld. Today, you can see the picture hanging on the wall at the InterFace AG building in Unterhaching.

K_ZuseBy now, informatics has moved on by “light years”. I was and still am a computer scientist with all my heart. For me, the combined meaningfulness of my work, my life and society has always been important. Consequently, the development and future of informatics is important to me. Articles written by third parties about the subject and by distinguished informatics representatives are, naturally, of special interest.

In the 14th edition of the TUM magazine “Faszination Forschung” – a first-class high-gloss TUM München magazine – dated June 2014, I found the article  “Connecting the World”.

Here is the trailer:

In the future, everyday objects will be linked via the Internet, enabling them to interact autonomously. To realize this vision, computer scientists are developing virtual models they can use to test practical implementation and monitor the security, safety and reliability of connected systems.

The article describes the future of computer science on the technological level. It is basically about how systems can be coordinated in a future “cyber physical world”. Since I consider the article worth reading and a good basis for further discussion, I am providing you with the download: Cyber-Physical (770).

My friend and partner in the InterFace AG advisory board, Professor Dr. Manfred Broy, is cited in the article. You will also find his picture. It can be assumed that the content of the article is partly the result of the research supervised by him.

I do not totally agree with the article. To be sure, there will be remarkable future developments in our technology, perhaps even more remarkable than those described in the article. However, I do not believe in what applications are predicted. Instead, I assume that the society of the future will have to cope with totally different challenges than we assume today. And I am sure we will then find very exciting solutions. But those solutions will not be part of this “brave new world”.

Yet matters begin to get exciting (and for me alarming) when I read the reply written by Professor Werner Meixner. In a presentation, professor Dr. Meixner described how this article “strikes someone (him) who basically understands the meaningfulness of his professional life as a fascination with the natural sciences as a humanist value”.

This presentation is also part of an open letter addressed to Professor Dr. Manfred Broy with the title: 

Where is informatics headed?
Like before, I am providing the link for downloading of the open letter by Professor Meixner:
Wohin geht die Informatik? (756)

Since I wish to motivate IF blog readers to read the articles, I will now cite a short but perhaps central part of the article:

All human decisions – and concerns know this quite well – contain an act of added value, which means they are valuable per se. The most important factor is that the owner of the produced value is the one who made the decision and is responsible for it. This is exactly the meaning of privacy and the consequence is the indisputable worthiness of privacy protection. All business behaviour is a consequence thereof.

In fact, I do not quite understand what the author wants to say. My attempt at analysing it dialectically results in me finding a random truth claim which is easy to disprove.

🙂 However, since I am a blogger, I never write open letters to anyone. Instead, I publish my personal opinion in my blog. Totally transparently, everybody can read it.

Here comes:

I find the TUM magazine article one-dimensional. The “open letter” gave me consternation.

In both articles, I find a concept of the world and humans which is no match at all with what I see in the real world. The first article reminds me a little of the nuclear energy euphoria (which at the time was controlled by business interests) more than fifty years ago. The second article glorifies a meaning of privacy and laments its worthiness of protection which – based on my experience in life and my knowledge of anthropology, neurology, psychology, philosophy and sociology – is not at all justifiable. Even theological reasoning would probably fall short

For all of us, the real challenges will quickly be others than those described. The dream image of a networked world will not help us to cope with all those challenges. Neither will the convulsive protection of our private data – which, basically, cannot be protected anyway.

The current news about the IS fronts, other wars and their consequences, refugees seeking asylum in the EU, the assassinations in France , or #Pegida and #Anti-Pegida in Germany are clear indications of a reality that quickly changes and that we have to accept. Also, we have to learn how to deal with this reality in a rational way.

A dominating global economy which creates free markets for products yet leaves labour unfree (a seamstress in Bangladesh cannot move to Europe and do her work there, even though the dresses she makes are exclusively sold in Europe) will come to its end. The rich persons of this world (we) exploit the poor more than ever in human history and the number of slaves is higher than ever.

The tensions generated by these contrasts will probably discharge themselves like earthquakes. It has already started. Basic conditions (climate, food and soil) in many regions already deteriorate and will geometrically continue to do so. Sooner or later, this process will catapult us into critical spheres. The tensions will become more and more noticeable.

In fact, we might be approaching a rough awakening from our current dreams faster than we had anticipated. It is my hope that here, too, informatics can help. Naturally, I do not yet know how this might happen. All I can do is imagine how it might be.

I think the IKT can only contribute positively towards the humaneness of mankind if it – above all – succeeds in supporting a highly complex, world-wide and truthful discourse which thus will render striking results. This is the only way to come to a consensus not based on enmity and exploitation. Instead, it should prepare humans (us) for the necessary changes in our mental concepts and life.
This is the only way to change society without violence. It is the only way to transform today’s economy into a “common-good-economy”. And it is also the only way to find solutions for a better copyright and patent system. Through the wisdom of the masses and against the simple-mindedness of the individual person.

[Note: perhaps our colleagues at already understood this – which is why they wrote a wonderful APP for “world agreement”.]

As to the TUM magazine article: I would argue that we do not need a luxury world of networked technology which, when all is said and done, will only enslave us even more. As to Werner Meixner’s theses, I think he inflates the topic “pretty good privacy” like a profession of faith. However, instead of giving credible reasons, he remains dogmatic.

And I also believe that our privacy will be something we will be fairly indifferent about in the future. Because we will have other problems. Also, we humans will always move in the stress field of individuality and collectiveness. Either way. With data protection or without. And the only way we can manage to do that in a humane way is if we think and act in a value-oriented way. Dogmata and their prayer-like publication will not be helpful.

Here is another idea about personal data. Isn’t it a rather normal part of human civilization to collect information about people. After all, there were good reasons to come up with administration and, for instance, write down when a child is born. Of course, technological advancement made unbelievable things possible since they invented filing systems and cataloguing.

With “new” technologies, you can certainly collect a lot more data than formerly. Yet this is only the continuation of a development that started with the invention of writing on paper as a means to conserve and hand on information. Quite possibly, the invention of filing systems (certainly an IT invention) brought another impulse. And IKT yet another.

But: did IKT really make such an enormous difference? And how huge is the damage? And isn’t it just great that in general information can be made available by whistle blowers and that it was IT which made it easier?

I see a threat if “a-moral systems” (like unlawful systems) get hold of the data. But if it comes to that, no data protection will help us, anyway. Instead, we should see to it that “a-moral systems” never gain control over us. And that is a permanent social challenge for every citizen. Basically, you can only resist “commercial utilization” of data by being autonomous. But then, the same is true for the continuing threat of manipulation through marketing. And if you consume senselessly, it will only cost money, rarely your life.

Personally, I consider the avoidable damage the “old” technologies caused us during the last hundred years and still cause us permanently today significantly higher than the damage done by the new technology IKT during the last 25 years.
For instance, the technologies of the last century stole our piece. Does any of you still know a single place in Munich where you hear no “technology noise”? Yet the noise pollution is only a truly harmless example compared to the 1.2 million traffic fatalities each year – caused through motorized individualized mobility on a world-wide scale. And it is a fact that we also like to ignore other threats, such as the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere.

In the same way we accepted the limitless noise emissions, we also got used to our (still very limited, regardless of all efforts) transparency. Limited, because even the networking systems used in industry and in the world 4.0 will find it hard to read our thoughts. And because, if we want to survive, we will definitely have to develop into autonomous persons in a self-determined frame.
Maybe the permanent calls for secrecy of data are nothing more than an outcry of protest, because, after all, you have to be against something, don’t you? And you are not courageous enough to actually stand up for the real threats.

But then, do not let us forget:

Only the new technologies provide us with a chance of networking and sharing our ideas with others. Which is how we can fight ignorance, intolerance, dogmata, irrationality and much more of the same.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Monday January 5th, 2015

As Time Goes By …

KettenkarusselI need only look back upon the thirty-one years of my life at InterFace AG to see: many things have changed over the years! On all levels and in all dimensions. Looking at society and technology, or the way knowledge is treated today, what I see is more than a little surprising.

Totally new disciplines became important and made huge progress – and, as I see it, they also changed the world. Along with technology, I am also talking sciences such as psychology, neurology, behavioural science, along with game theory and good old philosophy. Not to mention how values and morals, even the concept of life for the individual person as well as in society and collectively, underwent change.

These developments exacerbated each other, thereby increasing speed in a way that I would no longer call linear. In fact, I considered and consider it more like “geometrical or exponential”.

This is why the following model I discovered a short time ago is one I am in favour of. It is about the words knowledgeable and ignorant, as well as competent and incompetent.

You could assign these four characteristics to a matrix with four quadrants. The top line of the matrix is “incompetence”, the lower line is “competence”. The right column is “knowledge” and the left column is ”ignorance”.

The upper left quadrant would then mean “knowledgeable yet incompetent”.

If you take the real-life example of an adolescent who knows that he cannot drive a car, you get the result that he is “knowledgeable yet incompetent”.

The lower right quadrant means “knowledgeable and competent”.

In our example, the adolescent grows to become a young man and learns to drive a car. Now he knows he can drive a car. And he will drive a car. Consequently, he is “knowledgeable and competent”.

The lower left quadrant represents “ignorant yet competent”.

As the young man grows older, he drives his car a lot. Consequently, he will become very good at driving a car, yet he is no longer actively aware of said competence. Whenever he drives a car, he is “ignorant yet competent”.

The upper left quadrant represents “ignorant and incompetent”.

We already can imagine what the story will be in the upper left hand corner. The man has turned ancient. He certainly should no longer sit behind a wheel, because he is no longer fit to drive. Yet he is not aware of this. Consequently, he will continue to drive with “ignorance and incompetence”.

Well, isn’t that a nice example? Yet there is one disadvantage. It suggests that man is the one who, due to age-inflicted change, mutates from “knowledgeable yet incompetent” via “knowledgeable and competent” and “ignorant yet competent” to “ignorant and incompetent”.

More often than not, however, it is the world or the environment which quickly changes. Whenever you enter a new social system, you will immediately notice that you have to work towards “being able to participate”. You learn the new system and then you become part of it. Except that, even after a phase of being “ignorant yet competent”, you might quickly become “ignorant and incompetent’.

Because the rules and the actual functionality of the system changed so fast and so dramatically that you never even noticed it. That is when you will look stupid and no longer understand the world – in which just a short while ago you felt ever so much at home.

Well, once in a while I, too, feel I am getting caught in a chain carousel that rotates faster and faster all the time, making me feel quite dizzy.

(Translated by EG)


The picture is called “Wellenflug auf dem Roonkarker Mart”. I found it in Wikipedia with the carousel article. It is originally be Wilfried Wittkowsky.

As of now, you can download the video of our last IF Forum presentation in the series ”Galileo Galilei – A Visit of the Present” by Thomas de Padova with the title “The Secret of the World”  on my YouTube-Channel RolandDuerre.

Now those who could not be present during the interesting presentation about Galileo Galilei and his contemporary Johannes Kepler, too, can watch it:



(Translated by EG)

InterFace_Icon_30Jahre_01-94At InterFace AG, 2014 is dedicated to Galileo Galilei.

The three IF Forum presentations all have the motto:
“Cosmos, Humans and The Turn of an Era”.
We will invite Galilei Galileo to “visit us in the present”.

In the first IF Forum, on February, 27th, Jörg Schindler told us about the “Third Turn of an Era”.  On July, 17th, we welcomed Dr. Stefan Gillessen as our guest. He talked about the cosmos with “Big, Bigger, Sharpest”, where we also heard how he and his colleagues do research in this field. Incidentally, many of the presentations are available on the InterFace AG youtube channel.

On October, 23rd, we will have Thomas De Padova with us. His topic is

ThomasdePadova“The Secret of the World”.

Four hundred years ago, two totally different scientists cross the borders of the then known world. Galileo Galilei takes a good look through his telescope in Venice and discovers the Jupiter moons.

He publishes his spectacular findings in »Der Sternenbote«. In Prague, Johannes Kepler cannot stop reading about Galilei’s observations until the end of the small book, because the observations therein fit perfectly with his theory of planetary laws. An exchange of letters between Kepler and Galilei about the new cosmos develops. This is an exciting expedition of human intellectual ideas – and simultaneously it is the Turn Towards Modern Times.

Thomas de Padova
 (* 1965 in Neuwied on the river Rhine) is a German scientific publicist.

De Padova studied physics and astronomy in Bonn and Bologna. Between 1997 and 2005, he was a scientific writer for the “Tagesspiegel”. After 2005, he started working as a freelance scientific author. De Padova lives in Berlin and has been a member of the “Kuratorium of the Magnus-Haus of the Germany Physicists Association” and a member of the program the Program Committee of Urania since 2006. In January and February 2014, he was the “Journalist in Residence” at the Berlin Max-Planck-Institute for Science History. [Text: from Wikipedia]

Thomas De Padova is also the author of the science book of the year “The Secret of the World – Kepler, Galilei and How the Heavens were Measured”, which was selected best science book in the category natural sciences/technology by 20,000 readers in 2010.

The presentation will be on Thursday, October, 23rd, 2014 at 6.30 p.m. – we will welcome guests from 6 p.m. in the seminar zone of our Unterhaching InterFace AG building.

As usual, you can register by sending an E-Mail. As always, we already look forward to exciting discussions and nice conversation!

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Friday August 15th, 2014

Start-up (1) – Failure

As during many summers before, I am currently camping at Porto Ageranos. The campground is situated on the Peloponnesus, on the middle finger, about 10 kilometres south of Gythio, shortly before the mild climate of Mani. From our tent, you have only 10 metres to go before you reach the ocean. The first night was truly great. And since we know the region quite well, we have been feeling really at home from the outset!

I take advantage of the time I spand at this place for relaxing, contemplation and, not least, for making plans. And, of course, I also do a lot of swimming and bike-riding, I eat well and simply spend quality time with my beloved family and friends. And, naturally, I also write some articles (for the IF Blog).
This time around, my main topic is start ups.

I know many people. With some of them, I am good friends. Among them are also quite a few young colleagues. It seems to me that I am actually doing quite well when it comes to getting along with the young generation.

A few years ago, I started getting interested in the foundation of new enterprises. For instance, I am constantly asked to sit in the jury for a business plan contest. As a mentor, I counsel persons and enterprises, sometimes intensely, sometimes sporadically. Consequently, I know a little about what is going on.
Most of the teams I know and acompany are truly great teams. They are industrious and creative and they try to lead their lives independently and to build up an enterprise, investing the utmost personal enthusiasm on many levels based on an exciting idea.

And then they fail.

Some of them fail at the very outset, others as soon as promotion programs, such as EXIST are over, or else after the first financing. More often than not, the period of suffering will continue for some time. Once in a while, they find an “emergency exit”. And only very few of them will be a success – and those mostly in a totally different way than they had originally planned.

Most of those who fail leave behind a huge amount of strength and also money. The only consolation for them is that they learned a lot, in other words: they “failed successfully”. Yet this is not much of a consolation, is it? After all, if they had taken up an alternative life line, for instance through a good job with a medium-sized company, they could probably have learned a lot more for their personal future.

As I see it, this is a gigantic waste of capital, creativity and industriousness (“waste” in the sense of Kaizen). Also, the frustration and disappointment many of the young persons concerned suffer is painful. And I often think that this frequent failure might have been avoidable in many cases.

Because the mass-failures are easily explained. Mostly, the founders work just like the expertise of a past epoch tells them to. And this pattern never really worked very well. Today, it generally does not pan out at all. How are the success patterns of yesterday supposed to work in the world of tomorrow, anyway?
And the very few exceptions – incidentally, they are all due to the accumulation of particularly lucky circumstances – only prove this rule.

Why is failure normal?

The answer is simple: for instance, big concerns, too, constantly try to throw new products onto the market. These concerns have everything you need for a new product idea: capital in masses, a well-known brand, excellent marketing, strong marketing organizations, world-wide access to the markets, great engineers and providers, and much more. And above all: they know their market, because more often than not they have been “learning” and “working towards it” for decades.

And still their new product inventions often fail. If they are lucky, as few as 10 % of such new inventions will become more or less a success on the market. Make your criteria for the definition of “success” a little stricter, and you get an even lower number.

Except how is a young team that has none of these things supposed to compete? Just with their young light-heartedness and creativity? This is nonsense!

One conclusion might be that young founders will only have a real chance on totally new markets. That would mean young founders should shirk (almost) all business ideas around existing technologies and solutions. The current development seems to justify this argument. Well, perhaps I can give a first tentative piece of advice to start-ups:

Be careful if you wish to enter into markets where others already have their standing.

To be sure, great concerns with their organization and processes are their own stumbling block when it comes to creative topics. Their success has the negative side that they will always think in old patterns. They know this and consequently look for innovation outside their own walls. The foundation of “acceleration“ departments and their looking for cooperation with start-ups is their way out of it. After all, this is also the latest idea of “UnternehmerTUM” of Munich Technical University. The same is true for the new first mayor of our state capital Munich, Mr. Reiter.

The magic word “cooperation between concerns and start-ups”, however, will not work, either. Firstly, the old enterprises intensely live the rejection from outside as in: “not invented here“. I witnessed this quite frequently and also made the experience myself in strategic cooperation with big firms – more than once. And I could also name quite a few examples where the results of XXX acceleration or XXX invest failed.

But the “old methods”, too, are only successful in few exceptional cases. Let me exemplify this with almost all “tax-saving models”. For many years now, we have witnessed this not only in sectors such as “film”, “realty”, “shipping”, or “alternative energy”. The huge losses suffered by investors in projects around railway and canal building are also good examples.

Mostly, their failure was not because they fell victim to fraud or untrustworthy businessmen. To be sure, those also happened. But mostly the reason was that the underlying business models and plans were just wrong. Regardless of the fact that they had been made by experts in a “professional” way. Experts who really knew their markets. And regardless of having been controlled critically by other experts, for instance in banking. Mind you, those banking experts were really serious, because, after all, they had a share. Here, too, I could write about very personal experiences: in one case, the Sparkasse München, which I hold in high esteem, lost a few million Euros – in my own case, we are, luckily, only talking something in the middle five-digit range.

But if even projects written by experts and validated by many other experts do not work, how can you then expect a young team of founders without any experience and knowledge of the market to steer their enterprise successfully into a non-predictable future?

Seen under this light, founding a new company is basically a hopeless or at least very courageous adventure. An adventure no sane person should by any rights let himself be drawn into.

However, I think that it is possible to improve the chance of success for a start-up from what feels like 1 : 100 to something that perhaps even comes close to 1 : 1 (success versus failure ratio)..

I know that this is a rather courageous announcement of mine. Consequently, I plan to use my two weeks on a campground at the southernmost end of the Peloponnesus on Mani for writing a few articles about “start-ups” here in my IF Blog. This is both for the start-ups I myself counsel and all others.

RMD (Translated by EG)


I will start with my own experiences as a young entrepreneur in the next instalment. As I see it, you can already learn quite a bit from it.

On July, 17th, we at InterFace AG in Unterhaching hosted a very special IF Forum.  As part of the series “Galilei Galileo – A Visit of the Present”,

Dr. Stefan Gillessen gave us a View into the cosmos.

Dr. Stefan Gillessen is a physicist at Max-Planck-Institute for extra-terrestrial physics (MPE), where he is an exceptionally successful scientist..
Here is his exciting presentation!


(Translated by EG)

gillessenTonight, the second IF Forum Dr. Stefan Gillessen will be held. He will talk “from the cosmos”. His presentation is titled…

“Big, Bigger, Sharpest …”

Click here for the invitation.

As always, the presentation will be in the seminar zone of the Unterhaching InterFace AG building. Guests are welcome from 6 p.m.
We would like to start with the presentation at 18:30 hours sharp.

At the moment, there are still a few vacancies. For all those who cannot come, the presentation will be broadcast live on the internet.InterFace_Icon_Galileo_mit-claim-rund

From around 18.15 hours, you can see the video stream on

In addition, we will do a video recording and publish it on youtube (Kanal InterFace AG).

We look forward to welcoming many guests – both live and on the internet.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Friday October 11th, 2013

“The Wise Animals in the Zoo” or “Academia”

GiraffenOnce in a while, I also meet professors of the faculties business and philosophy. On those occasions, we talk, for instance, about business ethics and business morals. And I get the impression that academia is a nice zoo. Many quite fascinating animals live therein.

They are well tended and fed. Their health is exemplary, because the medical attention they receive is excellent. How their smooth coats shine! When they show their teeth, you see a faultless set. You will immediately notice that they have excellent knowledge and a precise understanding of things. Mostly, they have very agreeable personalities.

Elefantenherde1These animals have plenty to think about. Yet, there is but one glitch: more often than not, their knowledge is very abstract and theoretical. Because these animals sit in the zoo. Mostly, that is where they were born, too. Unfortunately, they never lived in the wilderness.

And in the zoo, they try to find out what life in the wilderness might be like. Of course, they can only make a guess. After all, they live in the zoo.

More often than not, their ideas are right on the mark. Once in a while, their wild guesses cause strange outpourings. And that is when many things start just going wrong.

African_BuffaloRegardless, the animals in the zoo do an important job. They teach us animals living in the wilderness many beautiful theories. We can play with these theories and come up with our own opinions: are they useful or not?

However, we, too, do not really live in the wilderness. Perhaps once in a while you could say we live in a biotope. The cultural world prevails. The natural world is something that no longer exists.

Thinking of the animals in the zoo brings something else to mind, totally associatively:

Die süßesten Früchte fressen nur die großen Tiere (The sweetest fruits are for the big animals only).

Somehow or other, it seems to fit, doesn’t it? Or maybe this is the reason why all the big mammals are usually vegetarian? Perhaps that should be a reason for us to start thinking?

(Translated by EG)

The picture of the giraffe was taken by John Walker (Images of Africa), the elephants by Ikiwaner and the African Buffalo by Stefan Ehrbar.

And since it is so beautiful: Here is Peter Alexander in the year 1952: