Roland Dürre
Wednesday March 20th, 2019

(Deutsch) Das digitale Auto der Zukunft (extrapoliert)

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Klaus Hnilica
Saturday March 16th, 2019

(Deutsch) Teneriffa und seine diebischen Elstern

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre

POWER in Social Systems

In my last article , I gave you my ideas about the three terms FREEDOM, LOVE and POWER..

When I was still powerful 😉

Quasi as a continuation of these ideas, I will now deal with the question:

What is it about enterprises and generally society and POWER?

POWER also plays a huge role in the context of movements such as  #newwork, “democratic enterprise”, and intrinsify.me. POWER is not only a determining factor in enterprises, but also in the political system, where our social coexistence as countries is organized.

Traditionally, POWER always belonged to men without further thought. In our country, it is still the old white men. Women were and still are ignored, except if they act like men. And children are kept small whenever they try to get in a word – because they are worried about their future.

POWER is relevant in churches, clubs, families, relationships, i.e. in all sorts of social systems. It is always the same. Everything is about who is in a position of power and who is not. And if you are in a position of power, you are better off than the others.

Yesterday

Since classical times, there has always been a ruling class that had the power in our cultural spheres. In Medieval Times, we had feudalism and precariat (Prekariat). Even in old Greece, there were citizens and slaves. In our regions, there were masters (land owners, knights, church dignitaries), a few free citizens and serfs in Medieval Times (fiefdom is just a category of slavery). Until the end of the 19th century, fiefdom was quite normal in many countries of Europe if you lived in rural areas – that is where the important food was produced. City air frees you – that is how people started to gain freedom in cities. And then came the revolution and enlightenment with its national wars.

So how did it continue?

Today

Today, we have a middle class. So far? It lies between the very rich and the very poor. The rich become richer and richer and the poor become poorer and poorer. The middle class seems to disappear.

Tomorrow

I imagine that we will have few very rich people. The huge majority will be part of the Precariat. Let us do some research:
 


precariat
[pertaining to the distinctive vocabulary of the educated class] {noun}
Part of the population who, especially due to long phases of joblessness and deficient social security, live in poverty or are directly threatened by poverty and only have limited chances to climb up.


 

You can easily remember the word precariat if you remember what precarious means. Those who belong to the precariat will live in precarious circumstances. Let us take another look at the dictionary: what is the meaning of precarious?
 


precarious
[pertaining to the distinctive vocabulary of the educated class] {adj}
Made up in such a way that you find it hard to come up with the right measures and decisions, not knowing how to get out of a difficult situation.
”a precarious [economic, financial] situation“


 

Those who live precariously will have few rights. They will be suppressed by an oligarchy of parties and associations. As a consequence of the climate catastrophe, along with the collapse of the infra structure and several similar factors, the people living in the precariat will be the absolute majority. They will be ruled by the religion of consumption. This is how a new kind of slavery could arise. It will no longer be based on ownership of people but on supervision and manipulation. A huge majority of persons will probably be governed by a small number of pseudo-democratic feudalists.

For a short century, we actually believed that democracy gave the citizen as the “sovereign” power and made him superior. Now we are surprised to find out that this was just an illusion.

All we can hope now is that it might still be enough for bread and games in the future.

RMD
(Translated by eg)

Roland Dürre
Friday March 15th, 2019

Freedom, Love, Power.

Three very central but also very abstract terms.

Big welcome – with baby bottle (1984).

When I was young, I mostly thought about freedom. It was very important for me. And since I am a little brain Messie, I collected definitions of freedom. I also wrote an article with eight definitions of freedom.

Be not afraid, it does not contain such a thing as “the freedom of car drivers”. However, a beautiful description of freedom is still missing. I want to add it now. It is by the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling (Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, ab 1812 Ritter von Schelling, * 27. Januar 1775 in Leonberg, Herzogtum Württemberg; † 20. August 1854 in Ragaz, Kanton St. Gallen).
 


Lucky is he,
who can be what he is,
who measures his way
and 
his destination
with his own eye.


 
When I grew older, I was fascinated by the term LOVE. I also wrote many things about it, for instance A day of love.
Only the experiences of the last two years brought me to the realization that POWER is the central term in our social life. It influences our social life fundamentally. So now I look for definitions. Here is what I find:
 


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/power


 
As I see it, that is not good enough if you think about our lives in social systems.

I find more in Gerhard Wohland
 


Power is the social consensus that makes activity possible regardless of disagreement. Neither organizations nor enterprises are possible without hierarchically structured power. Romanticized ideas of new work find this connection embarrassing. But secret power is also power – it is only less useful.


 
Wow, that really is something I need to think about. With the exception of the usefulness in the last sentence, I actually agree.

Then I ask friends who provide me with the following two definitions:
 


Power is if you can lie without being punished for it.
and
Power is if you have the right to define things.


 
Well, as you can see, it is quite rewarding to think and read about POWER. That is what I will do. And as soon as I know more, I will again write about it.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Monday March 11th, 2019

Who Owns the Internet … ?

Ob er die Antwort wüsste?
Roman copy of a Greek Plato portrait, probably by Silanion and now displayed in the Academy after Platon’s death. Glyptothek München.

I generally claim that, before you can look for solutions, you need to ask the right questions. Currently, I am wondering – not only in my presentations – about the future of digitalization.

I fear that the internet is threatened on several levels. So I come up with central questions.

Here is a very central question:

Who owns the internet?

I mean this exactly as I write it. My smart phone and my computer, which are both also part of the internet, belong to me. But who owns all the connections and computing centres you need for the network? And who is master over the definitions? Who will decide upon a change in protocols if this becomes necessary due to a change of users? Who is in charge of security? Who is responsible if the infra structure becomes deficient?

Well, I already asked the question several times. Because I do not know the answer. I asked some very knowledgeable people who usually know all about digitalization and related topics. But they, too, could not give me an answer.

But perhaps my readers know the answer?

In that case, maybe you can also answer some of the following questions:

Who owns Wikipedia?

Our huge thesaurus infra structure. It is unique in its independence and freedom. It is also free of advertising. It belongs to no concern and no party. It is designed on an honorary basis and financed by donations. A wonderful example of open source. It is actually something the community could be proud of.

What are we going to do when there are no longer enough Wikipedians left to maintain its growing infra structure? When the technology becomes antiquated and the system breaks down? Who will get or take possession of the Wikipedia empire when it collapses?

Maybe you have more exciting questions? For instance: what will we do when Youtube or other services are terminated?

I look forward to reading your answers.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Sunday March 10th, 2019

Facebook: Enemies of Vaccination Get Less Room .

Under this caption, I read what Heise.de says:


Now, facebook, too, joins in the battle against the growing number of enemies of vaccination. The US portal announced first measures.


And then:


More and more resistance

With this step, facebook follows Pinterest and Google, who have similarly started to cut down the space for vaccination enemies on their platforms. Pinterest no longer shows any hits if you type “vaccination“ or “vaccine“, a short tima ago, Youtube announced that it will cut off the money flow for video channels of vaccination enemies. Based on information of the world health organisation and the US centres for epidemic plague control and prevention, facebook will now start measures against vaccine hoaxes.


This news is an excellent example for modern times. We also want to introduce upload filters in Europe. Facebook, Google and Pinterest profess to know what is better for the world. And they decide who can say what they think and who cannot.

It was not the candle that made me immune against polio but the oral vaccination.

When I think vaccination, I immediately think polio. In my childhood, I saw this cruel illness in many children. And, of course, for me, the oral vaccination against polio was a huge blessing. After all, I knew that this was how many people were protected against the fatal results of the illness.

Consequently, the vaccination against polio was a huge success for me – also for the pharmaceutical concerns.

The thing that was almost as bad when I was young were children suffering from the consequences of Contergan. Initially, this was also a terrible illness. At the time, we did not know that the deformations were caused by a very questionable pharmaceutical product.

This is how I developed a very early mistrust against pharmaceutical concerns and their products. After all, they had shown with Contergan that they did not look too closely when it came to business. I fear that this industry will gladly make money with vaccinations, even if said vaccinations are not exclusively beneficial. This means that, regardless of the fact that I am not a vaccination enemy, I sometimes have my doubts if all vaccinations make sense. Thinking of the flu, the first thing that comes to mind is Tamiflu, of which we know that the most important healing it caused was for the balance sheets of the Swiss pharmaceutical concern Roche.

Every autumn, I ask myself if I should register for the flu vaccination. After all, being now almost seventy, I belong to those who are particularly at risk. However, I always decide against it because I read that the immune systems of older people have a very well working immune memory.

There are vaccinations that I consider extremely necessary and reasonable (hepatitis, polio, yellow fever, …) and there are others that I consider detrimental. And since, also due to the DVSGO (data protection), we have no medical practice that is based on big data, it is rather hard for me to decide.
But I am happy to see that such topics are discussed critically – and I find it a catastrophe if the powerful think they need to act. In fact, looking at the prospect of upload filters makes me want to yell:

Nib Things in the Bud!

Something is wrong with the internet if powerful concerns want to and actually can influence the process of opinion building. And if this becomes the initiative for legislative procedures.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Tuesday March 5th, 2019

After Mardi Gras, There is Ash Wednesday.

 

Property, violence, justice, safety and abstinence …

 

It does not matter if you run, ride a bike, ski or drive a car. If you hit someone, then this is violence. Speed is violence.

 

Stone mask from the pre-ceramic stone age around 7,000 before Christ. One of the world’s oldest masks (Musée Bible et Terre Sainte, Paris)

Today is Mardi Gras. You can wear masks. You can wear costumes. Fool’s freedom means that you can take another role. And you need not stick by all the rules and keep up all the moral laws.

That feels nice. For several weeks, they have now made laws that look arbitrary to me and that I cannot understand. Because now the Great Coalition have changed from the argument mode to the working mode. Since laws mostly are not very good, I preferred the argument mode.
After they took the German Citizenship away for IS fighters, there is an EU-wide attack on the internet. But they also discuss the great liberty of German car drivers, the speed limit. A Swedish (?) producer restricts the cars to 180 km/h. Somehow or other, this is unimaginable in Germany. Basically, I do not even understand why cars that drive faster than 130 km/h are allowed on any streets at all.

Because I am personally against all speed. Both in life and in a car. For instance, I would feel a lot more comfortable if cars were allowed no more than 30 km/h in towns and no more than 70 km/ on highways, along with a maximum of 120 km/h on motorways.

But on the other hand, I am against all sorts of prohibitions. How can I solve this dilemma and still give a good reason for limiting the speed of vehicles? By introducing the factor violence! After all, in our times, the application of violence is a monopoly of the state. That is also true for weapons (let us ignore for the sake of argument that there are many exceptions, even in this country). This means that humans consciously agreed to not use violence and that only the state can use it in very clearly specified situations.

Well, knocking down a pedestrian or cyclist is just as much an act of violence as driving into another car. And that is exactly what people in civilized countries have agreed to forego. That makes it quite simple when it comes to speed limits and limitations for objects of the MIV (Motorisierter Individual Verkehr), part of which are also electrically powered vehicles, such as e-bikes.

What is left in our times that actually moves people? As I see it, the answer is: property, justice, safety and abstinence.

Property.


Does it make sense that legal persons have the same rights to property as actual persons? That ideas – we know they should be free – can become private property? Or that even data are considered private property? 
What about common land? What exactly belongs to the common land and how to treat it? What about the self-possession of persons? Or will we get a new form of fiefdom?

Justice.


Arithmetically, it is impossible, at least that is how it seems ever since Aristotle. But what is suitable? Should society award social credits in order to regulate it? Or should some be expropriated?

Safety.

What is safety. Perhaps protection from violence? That would mean we come full circle. We do not want violence against us. If I am a pedestrian, I do not want to be hit by a car or bike. And so on.

Abstinence.


Everybody knows that, if we want to save the planet, we will not only have to change many of our habits, but also practice abstinence. And what do we do? We fly more, drive bigger and bigger SUVs and eat bigger and bigger portions of meat.

Besides property, justice, violence, safety, power and abstinence, there are many more inter-related topics. They are so complex that the only chance to contain them is a new social consensus.

Tomorrow is again Ash Wednesday. Then the hilarity is over. I already dread the political meetings with their speakers. They will again bark and beat. Both men (CSU) and women (Grüne, SPD). Because this is all about the sovereignty over the regulars’ table. And not about peace and social consensus.

It is really sad – so take off your mask and atone.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Aebby
(Dr. Eberhard Huber)

This is the title of an article Aebby (Dr. Eberhard Huber) published in his projekt (B)LOG. It is a censorious discussion of the current “agility hype“.

For me, “agile“ describes a quality that is excellently described in the agile manifesto. Unfortunately, agile (just like digital and innovative) has now become part of the Business Theatre instituted by the top managers of German Enterprises. They deal with all kinds of things, but they totally neglect the people working in the enterprise and the customers.

The Business Theatre is usually staged by the (top) management. It is a kind of self-portrayal practiced in enterprises and civil offices without any semblance of truth. As a consequence, you often get totally surreal decisions.

For our topic, this means: if agile is fashionable, then they decree the institution of agility. They pretend it is as easy as if you decree that the company cafeteria should get a new layer of paint.

Then they employ a few agile prophets in HR (Human Ressources) who are supposed to not only make the enterprise and its employees innovative, but also agile. And since the agilization of the enterprise must be just as measurable as its innovative potential (and everything else), a stupid counsellor gets the task of developing an agile KPI (Key Performance Indicator. Again and again, it is an exciting but mostly hilarious performance on the stage of the Business Theatre.

  • Well, so be it. With his article, Aebby says what I feel about more than the following three topics:

  • Agile has nothing to do with methods and/or technology.
  • Successful projects have always been agile in the past.
  • Self-organization is only one facet of agile work.

Well, I would like to put three exclamation marks behind every one of these sentences. Let me continue citing Aebby – on sprints:


Here is my favourite citing:
Sprints – that sounds nice and fast.
Sprint after sprint without guaranteed pauses will kill any human body.


All of this is beautifully and correctly expressed. I strongly recommend that you all read the article. In my own words and understanding, agility is something like the art and culture of life. Here are a few additions to Aebby’s article:

Fast sounds nice. But then, today, you have to be fast anyway. And fast has nothing in common with the term Sprint. After all, the agile manifesto was written by software developers, just like SCRUM was invented in software development. And they wanted to develop a better software.

What they meant in SCRUM when they said Sprint was the distance between two integrations. Initially, the developers programmed their modules separately. As soon as the modules had reached a certain level, everything was integrated and a new build was created.

If you had huge projects, the distances between two integration dates was sometimes half a year – often more. If the new build did not work properly, the error had to be found by means of regression if you wanted a running system. That meant you had to reset the entire development step-by-step as far back as the last step. This was an immense effort in work and time. I remember a project where, for more than half a year, we had no running system. Naturally that is fatal.

Consequently, a main reason for introducing short integration times was that you wanted a running system with the current development standard at all times. You never wanted to lose your feet. Consequently, you had to shorten the time between two builds considerably. That is what SPRINT means. It is misleading, because it is not about speed, but about stability. It is not about being fast. More often than not, you reach a goal more efficiently by taking small steps than with big ones.

Agile working certainly does not tolerate working without plan or concept. Mind you, instead of using the word ”planning“, I would prefer to call it a well-thought-through and diligent procedure. Agile is the ability to observe and learn. You absolutely need to be able to always follow what is going on and react to undesired developments with a level-headed reaction.

Sometimes, you do not really know the actual details of innovative projects with totally new functions at the outset. That is especially true if you want to utilize new technologies that might have disruptive effects and thus bring a high degree of research to the project. Then the only way to deal with the development is agile. This was often so in IT. In this case, it would be better to call it an iterative culture of trial and error, instead of agile. It means that you build roust prototypes, then test them, learn from it and improve them.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

P.S.
Aebby’s article was also part of the Blogparade by the Projekt Magazins.

Roland Dürre
Saturday March 2nd, 2019

Turn of an Era: The End of the Digital World ?

What will happen when the digital era comes to an end?

Im Jahre 2019 habe ich nach einem Jahr Pause wieder am Biike-Camp in Sylt teilgenommen.

After one year of abstinence, I again took part in the Sylt Biike-Camp in 2019. The Biike Camp takes place on Sylt annually, along with the traditional Biike-Brennen. It is a huge meeting of entrepreneurs, counsellors and leaders. It is organized by Tedic, the brothers Krickel first founded it around the turn of the millennium.

This time around, the motto was The Turn of an Era. Again, it was more than worth the effort to go there. I was invited to give a presentation on the second day of the event. They had suggested the topic:

”Entrepreneurial Leadership in the Post-Digital World”

I will write down my presentation in the following paragraphs. I started by introducing myself, then I tried to analyse the title in two columns.


 

Personal introduction
Since, on the first day of our meeting, it became clear to me how very much most of us (including myself) are formed by the car, I started by introducing all the cars that I ever drove in my life. In other words: I related my former car and current bike culture. 
🙂 And in the process, I also discovered a few things about myself.
Then I mentioned the computers I use (Mac and Chrome, no Windows).
So I have double mobility – MIV (motorized individualized traffic and on the network). Both tells a lot about the life of a white old man.
And, of course, I also had to speak of my personal history. I told the audience about duerre.de and if-blog.de and mentioned that I consider myself a late founder (I was 34).
With respect to my InterFace history, I referred the listeners to the Wikipedia entry on InterFace AG.


In order to be able to react to the content of the other presentations with the highest possible degree of flexibility, I abstained from using slides with content. Instead, I mostly worked with Wikipedia.

It was my plan to tackle the topic “entrepreneurial leadership in the post-digital world” in a dialectic way. In other words, I wanted to analyse the individual terms post, digital and world (column 1) and entrepreneurial leadership (column 2).


 

I. The post-digital world

(Column 1 – what is the meaning of post, digital, world?)
Before today, I only knew the term post factual. Post digital was news to me. For me, post factual means that we live in the era of totally irresponsible babble, which is part of the new dishonesty (Rupert Lay).

You can even see it if you look at legislation. China is not the only country where legislation is introduced in such a way that it can be interpreted at random. Perhaps this happens on purpose?

Digitalisation has become a matter of course. Everybody talks about it. A short time ago, I read: digitalization is a technology that cannot be turned back. In other words, without digitalization and soon also AI, nothing can be done in the near future.

It seems that we are totally dependent on digitalization, as we depend on electricity and electronics. In the same way, a life as most of us want it would not be possible without digitalization. Every piece of technology contains a huge part of software, there is no technology without any software inside.

If I have discussions with the bee savers in Bavaria about the provocative thesis that “it might already be too late“ to save the planet, then they tell me that, thanks to digitalization, we might actually be able to save the planet. 
🙂 So we have really great expectations when it comes to “digital“.

I like to refer the audience to Wikipedia when it comes to explaining digitalization. You will find an article by Thomas Kofer – at the time he wrote it he was a employee of ZD.B – where he tries to explain the term. He invested many man-years to write the article.

Then I look for the term post digital online. In Wikipedia, you will not find this kind of nonsense. To make up for it, you find something in Accenture. Here is what they say about  post digital:

”The advent of technology identities is leading to a new generation of business offerings.“

Are they really serious? If you click on their link, you find more such BBB (Berater-Bullshit-Bingo). For my presentation, Accenture is definitely not helpful.

Digital and digitalisation are currently buzzwords. They are very famous – and there are no two identical definitions on the market.

So let me investigate the word post. I find that it is “if a composite of adjectives – sometimes also with nouns and verbs – specifies that something happens/ed at a later time“.
That is correct – post is a preposition that specifies adjectives. Well, I understand that much.

Digitalization is said to be irreversible. Because if there is no digitalization, there will also no longer be any technological industry. After all, in all technological products today, you have software, i.e. digitalization – and soon also AI.

Consequently, there can be no post-digital era, because it would mean the end of our technological world. Especially not if the digital world has made itself autonomous as AI. Which is what many expect.


 

On AI

Artificial Intelligence, Deep learning, Big Data are at the top of the current buzz-words list. The world, or at least all those who want to be heard, talks about robots and bots.

So here is my question:
Who of you knows the three letters T, A and Y? 
If you connect them, you get the word and name Tay.

Many in Germany talk about AI, but most of them do not know what it is. Consequently, nobody knows the Tay. As I see it, that is symptomatic for the entire current discussion.
Tay is – or better: was – the twitter bot of Microsoft. Microsoft developed it – and then it was quickly de-activated because of misbehaviour. Both the first and the second version. It was a few years ago.

Today, it looks like Microsoft does not want to be part of AI. They capitulate before Amazon and Google and terminate their system/project Cortana . Because to the great and mighty IT concern Microsoft, AI looks just too big.

Simultaneously, the Free State of Bavaria declares that they want to start an AI offensive. Microsoft gives up because Google and Amazon are too far ahead. And Bavaria wants to make up for it. Just like China. Except – China, unlike Bavaria, will actually succeed.

To illustrate it with an example I tell my audience about the Chinese News Anchor Bot  
Nobody in the audience of AI experts knows it. Well, that comes as a surprise to me.

So much on AI


What exactly could the end of digitalization and AI look like?

Here are a few mental experiments:

The first step towards digitalization was when language was first written down. 
Consequently, “post digital” might mean that, in the future, the majority of the people cannot read or write fluently, but only rudimentarily? As I see it, that is distinctly a possibility. Would that be good or bad? Can there be a good or bad – or are we just full of traditional prejudices?

Because:

Why would anybody want to learn something nobody will need any longer? So: why would we want to learn how to read (and practice it all the time, because otherwise it gets harder and harder) if most of what you want to know is available as an ebook or podcast and the remainder is read to you by a speaking computer? A computer that simultaneously translates everything. The asynchronous and synchronous communication is done via spoken language, anyway (oral messages). That is nice, because spoken language transports more than written language. And then, naturally, language will no longer play a role at all?

If that were to happen, then a modern society can easily forego reading and writing, but it certainly could not forego digitalization.

Then I think about “post digital”. On the level:

– what or who could destroy the internet?
(besides the EU regulation mania that is pushed by the FRG)

Two things come to mind

– Engineers become priests.

Isaac Asimov already introduced the concept in his futuristic novels (for example in the series on Trantor):
The people who maintain the systems no longer understand the machines. They only perform memorized (maintenance) rituals.

I can easily imagine such a concept, because even today, in computer science, that is what programmers do. They do a lot of clicking – and they have no idea what exactly they are doing. The complexity overwhelms us, it is easily possible that the world will lose its know-how.

– The end of Moore’s law.

It is very simple:

IT consists of the three components: computer, connection and storage.

Those are the three relevant IT components. With respect to storage, we have arrived in the nano dimensions, you cannot become any smaller because of the dimension of the atoms. With respect to connections, we now work with the speed of light. You cannot go any faster. I deliberately chose the term computer. Because a modern processor (for instance by Intel) contains so much that I like to use the metaphor of the mega city of New York.

We want to make the computers faster by using the quantum computer. Except that, so far, it does not really work. And it will probably never be able to do much more than decode. But that is good enough for the countries of this world, because basically they only want one thing: monitor us.

That is how the end of Moore’s laws could put a stop to our AI dreams. In the past, the multiplication of resources in small time periods spoiled us. The time has definitely come for this indulgence to be over.

So what is important in the digital world?

As I see it, the first thing that comes to mind is Wikipedia – and there are several reasons for this:

– Wikipedia – the thesaurus of world knowledge.

Wikipedia is great. It is currently free of advertising (with the exception of a few articles they smuggled in about Bayern players’ wives), it is administered on a completely honorary basis and financed by donations, independent of concerns, etc.

That makes it one of the last bastions. We need it every day, because there are no thesauri left. Regardless of some weaknesses, for instance when it comes to the topic of digitalization/IT, Wikipedia is still great.

However, now comes the

BUT:

It is written mostly by old white men, in other words: there are few young persons and only very few women. Wikipedia is like a knowledge infra-structure. As with many infra structures in our world (streets, bridges, railway tracks), the need for maintenance and renovation increases, but the resources decline.

Wikipedia is threatened by ageing and additionally by the copyright (update filter) and lobbyist pressure.

What will happen if Wikipedia breaks down? Who will then take over Wikipedia?
One of the three dominant German media concerns? The Federal Government? EU and UNO might also be candidates. Or the internet giants Google, Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft …
Just imagine advertisements being permitted in Wikipedia. If I were the owner of Wikipedia, I could well imagine other great business models.

– Services such as Youtube, Vimeo, Facebook++, wechat …? 
(I deliberately left out email as a service, because in my opinion nobody needs them any more)
So: What will happen if all these things no longer exist? A short time ago, I read about a murder threat against the youtube boss because of her statement that, as a consequence of copyright legislation (update filter), she may have to terminate the service in the countries concerned!

You should remember: 
regulation mania is detrimental.
For all of us!

Instead you should:

Correct the underlying deficits. That is: you should look for the errors, and then initiate reform. For instance when it comes to copyright legislation.

And let us have less DGSVO …

À propos world:

I am sure you remember: only about half of the world’s population have internet access. We still have two worlds: one with the internet and one without. They are approximately the same size.

But in the internet, there are also two internets (more like a vertical separation). The Chinese one and ours.

Many tourists first notice this as they arrive at Peking airport and want to use gmail for sending greetings home or if they want to chat. It does not work.

Then you will try VPN. But VPN service providers are delivering poor quality or else they are very expensive. Mostly both. So unless you have a VPN of a concern that still works in China, you are not very lucky. Googlemaps does not work at all. It can get difficult. Lost in China. But fear the not: the practical Chinese AI will help.

Translateion will be continued soon.

RMD
(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Monday February 18th, 2019

Love it, change it or leave it!

The Projekt Magazin invited me to enter in this year’s blog parade.

Since I like the organizers of Projekt Magazin, Petra Berleb and Regina Wolf-Berleb very much and since I also love their product, I agreed with pleasure and will write down my ideas here.

The Blogparade topic is:
Our work is now agile/digital/self-organized! 
More success through new freedom in the project, or just much ado about nothing?
I will just copy and paste the questions and ideas from the invitation and then give my own comments.

Here are the questions and my answers:



What flexibility for trying other approaches and consciously choosing new and easier ways do you have in your projects?


During my years as an employee at Siemens and Softlab, I was extremely lucky in that there was a cooperative trust culture in the areas I worked in, which means I had a lot of leeway. And since I usually worked successfully, the freedom grew.
;-). Because if you are a success, you are mostly right. That was in the 1970ies and the early 1980ies.

Except that the situation in the enterprises started to get worse. As I understand it, the reason for this lay in the widespread systemic increase of various trends that complemented each other. For instance when priority was given to the shareholder value  and when there was an increased belief in the introduction of processes. I also mean the use of  Key Performance Indicator systems (KPIs) for enterprise control that increased bureaucracy and the certification of all sorts of processes. More and more Taylorism created silos that paralysed each other.

The goal was to get rationally controlled, perfect and powerful enterprises that were thus brought into a position that gave them the chance to not only survive, but also become number one in the harsh competition. The employees were provided with target agreements, which was based on the assumption that you could motivate people through material promises. What a concept of humanity is that?

The enterprises wanted to be in a position where they can control (manipulate) the market – and eventually the consumer. Today, they look like over-regulated and trained powerful elephants. Creativity, courage and joy have disappeared like the multitude of species in nature. To these enterprises, it comes as a surprise that they are now overtaken and left behind by new enterprises.

As a small programmer, I was not able to change my elephants. In order to prove that shared work is also possible with another philosophy, I had to found my own enterprise.

My first step towards founding an enterprise was trying to find a like-minded partner. That was not easy. After I had found him, Wolf Geldmacher and yours truly founded the InterFace Connection GmbH (today: InterFace AG) in 1984. In the IT sector, it was easy to found an enterprise, partly because we were in the possession of superior knowledge that was very well paid.

The name Connection stood for a group of conspirators who wanted to move together and do something great in an agile way and at eye-level. And I still believe that you have a lot more leeway as an entrepreneur – if the incoming money is more than the outgoing money. And in those days, this was certainly possible in the sector digitalization, even and especially if you did some unconventional things.

 


To what extent do enterprises leave their project leaders, scrum masters and product owners and counsellors enough leeway when it comes to their choice of procedure in project planning, communication and the way they organize the cooperation in the team (self-organization)?


Naturally, this depends very much on the enterprise. Especially huge concerns have problems with this. For a successful medium-size enterprise, it is often something that goes without saying. For instance, some huge enterprises have decided they want more agility and want to achieve this through Change Management. They often invest a lot. More often than not (almost always), the concept fails. If they are lucky, they get biotopes, but those will soon dwindle and disappear.

I get the impression that it is very hard or even impossible to change huge, often non-personalized social systems. Especially, it will not be a success if the initiative comes from above. Personally, I am not sure if you can actually teach the elephant to dance  (Elefanten tanzen lernen cited:  Dr. Marcus Raitner).

 


And what are the successful approaches?


That is very easy: you have to trust that the people in the enterprise can actually do it. You need no experts. Everybody must be competent in their specific trade (in our company, this was programming). But everybody should also be willing and allowed to also deal with the special topics, such as delivery on time, quality, knowledge about the customers, integration, the building, security,… And you want to ask everyone to participate in everything: writing the manual, teaching customers and planning the product. Even ambitious goals. 
And you will want to let people participate when you get the result. You will celebrate successes, but you will also have a party after a downfall, by way of consolation.

 


The underlying question is also whether or not the hype about agile enterprises and the demand to have a culture that puts more the humans into the centre will be taken up and realized in the long term by organisations. Project teams in particular have the chance to initiate change in an enterprise. Can and should they simply work changes? Will anybody appreciate it if they try to break obsolete processes, strict hierarchies and silo-thinking – or will they then be considered saboteurs who bring disorder to an enterprise?


I am trying, both in private life and in projects of my professional life. After all, I want to be happy, don’t I?

What you need is joy at what you do. That includes work. For joy, you need courage. If I am in a situation that I do not love, then I need to change it. And if I can see that this will not be possible, then I need to leave it.

However, I am well aware that the principle “love it, change it, or leave it” is often easier said than done if you are dependent upon someone. The problem is that you are dependent.

 


Apart from this, I am interested in your motivation if you try innovations in your projects. Are you doing it because you get the impression that the old processes are not what we need in the future? Or are you doing it because you want to have a sharper profile as an project manager and entrepreneur? Or is it because it is what your boss and the members of your team want?


For me, this does not need motivation. All we need is openness. And if I attend a Barcamp such as PM-Camp where other people report what innovative things they did and if I like what I hear, then I am keen to try it myself.

RMD
(Translated by EG)