Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

Trying to counter the educational philistines of his epoch, Friedrich Nietzsche wrote the unpopular work “On the usefulness and disadvantages of history”. In this essay, he introduces the term “effects as such”. For Nietzsche, the “effects as such” are the criterion of a monumental history. It is strangely attractive to individuals who can only bear the burden of the here and now if they are allowed to remember that great people with great ideas and equally great creative momentum have lived before. He has in mind all Caesars, Goethes and Newtons. Since our world history was able to come up with such individuals and their great deeds, he thinks a repetition should be possible at any time.
This common way of thinking - as Nietzsche correctly pointed out - suffers from a criminal neglect of the category “cause”. Neglecting the cause promotes the concept of effects as such, assuming that they appear out of nowhere. At least, humans are possessed by the belief that they might make things happen at any time. All we need to do is want them enough.
Effects as such are results freed from their causes. It seems that they can be generated at will. Being a collection of great deeds and events, they must be easy to hold, retrieve like small change and spend at will. Apparently, they have no cause - just a start brought about by enthusiastic individuals who have spontaneously decided to be Great.
Nietzsche also found that the concept of effects as such - uncaused causes - is enormously useful. Many who neglect the free will of humans in history and present times fail to see this. They overlook the fact that people cannot bear to see themselves as meaningless. Human narcissism tells us that we can do anything we really want hard enough. And what we want is not the effect at the end of a causal chain, but the necessary and sufficient requirement for effects as such. Creating effects as such, humans promote the illusion of having a free will.
Immanuel Kant defines freedom as being able to begin something on your own account. Consequently, if something is an effect of this freedom, then it is an effect as such. It has no cause, but was influenced by a “qualitas occulta”, a power the source and strength of which cannot be deduced or determined from existing powers. That is why causal science cannot shed light on it. There is always an aspect of freedom with indefinite dimension, strength and direction to this illusion in human activity.
It is unacceptably humiliating for an individual to be told by a philosophical or natural-science theory that his or her activities are no longer to be understood as effects as such. Such a concept means that the individual has to accept that he or she is not like God.  If, these days, we keep hearing that it is unethical to deny that there is a free will, this is a manifestation of the - mostly unconscious - human wish to be like God.
In his wisdom, Aristotle discovered that a philosophical word suitable for God would be “unmoved mover” or “uncaused cause”. To this day, all concepts of God include that he can make things happen. From the viewpoint of a believing Christian or Moslem, the entire universe is such an effect as such. God created the world by his own free will, not restricted by any restriction or natural law. It has always been part of God’s power over freedom to have been free to refrain from creating anything.
It has always been the gravest possible and most humiliating offence against human narcissism to threaten that they will no longer be like God. The concept of free will is the best way for people to feel that they are, indeed, like God. After all, it enables people to believe that an idea has been made reality exclusively by their decision. In our present world, the concept of God is harder and harder to defend. Living in this enlightened world, people have no place left where they can believe they are like God, except maybe in the concept of free will.  The concept of being like God can only be saved by the idea that an activity is not the result of a chain of sequences and causes.
That is why we should understand that today neither philosophical theologians nor theological philosophers can give up the concept of a free human will in favour of a scientifically indisputable description of how human activities are caused. Progress towards enlightenment can only be expected after scientists have come up with a substitute of equal quality. Unless they give them the chance to still think of themselves as great, even scientists must refrain from telling people what the state of affairs really is.
After all, how is anybody supposed to be courageous and strong enough to do great deeds if he or she is not allowed to feel great? Greatness for humans, however, lies in effects as such: given the same circumstances, they would never have come to be if the unique, uncaused and unforced “I want it” had not made them happen.

KJG (translated by Evelyn Gemkow)

Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

With this contribution I would like to start a series of essays addressing (and thereby putting question marks behind) routines that - for whatever reasons - have become matters of course in everyday life.
Today, let me talk about “concepts”.
I find it remarkable what efforts are regularly made in the service of “concepts”, although, for instance in the IT world, everybody by now agrees that the time for drawing up a concept comprises between 50% and 100% of the actual implementation. (Which, by the way, is not only true for the IT world: Let me just remind you of the money spent on concepts and studies in the field of building projects).
Before going any further, let me define what I mean if I use the term “concept” in this essay.
First and foremost, a concept is a document in which the author writes down certain requirements for future adaptation. Mostly, the persons who are later supposed to apply the concept are not those who have created it. For the time being, let these initial comments suffice.
Assuming that these documents are just as costly as the actual implementation, please allow me to ask: What is their benefit?
Or more aggressively put: Why should I come up with such documents at all?
Without the extra effort it takes to create those documents, I would still have enough money for an entire abortive attempt in the implementation! Taking into consideration that the average learning progress during an abortive attempt is pretty high, it can be assumed that the second implementation will mostly be a success. Besides, looking at the time you normally spend working out concepts, a “concept free” procedure might very well to prove more efficient in terms of work hours, as well.
As a matter of principle, a concept is usually written by experts. After all, we want the result to look “professional”. Like often in life, the prophet is not heard in his home country, which means that external experts are hired for producing or at least playing a major part in the development of a concept.
Maybe I am being naive, but in my personal opinion, the employees working alongside each other in one company know most about each others work or field of expertise. Of course, it is always advisable to look beyond one’s restricted horizon, which is why I would recommend that for a concept development external professionals should indeed be consulted as to ideas and procedures. The actual concept paper, however, should be written exclusively by the employees of the company who are later supposed to apply it. Afterwards, the externals should do the proof-reading, thereby making sure that the employees actually understand the document which describes the concept. The knowledge remains in the company.
Which leads right back to one of the main aims of a concept: communication between the various roles (e.g. architect, developer, evaluator). If the concept has been developed externally, then the responsible party might no longer be available.
Again, let me point out that I consider the fact that a concept is meant for communication is paramount in this discussion. All communication deficits causing misunderstandings minimize the value of a concept to a huge extent.
Have you ever heard the following questions being asked by the person who was given an assignment?

• “What do you need the concept for?”
• “How do you want to further re-use the concept ?”

If so: congratulations!
Did you have an appropriate answer at your fingertips?
Have your answers been taken into consideration during the development phase?
Usually, a concept is used “universally”. As a general rule, the document is generated as “reading material”, often in word format, which means that it cannot be read by machines. Let us compare this with construction plans in machine engineering: Rather than using blueprints that are handed on, we nowadays use CAD files which are directly processed in modern processing centers. The facilities for quality control (measuring stations) are also often directly interpreted by these files.
So when does a concept actually guarantee additional value and thereby consolidate the investment?
The following check list has been started by me with the explicit hope of motivating you, dear reader, for comments. With your co-operation, we might eventually end up a complete and useful check list!
Check list for dealing with a concept:

• Have I been asked how I wish to re-use the concept later?
• Is the concept machine readable in its current version?
• Does the concept follow a model (meta model)?
• Does the concept provide more than two possible applications and have those been adapted to the needs of future users (e.g. architecture, design, implementation, evaluation, communication with experts)?
• Can the concept be iteratively extended (refined)?

If your answer to any of these questions is negative, then maybe you want to reconsider about really wanting/needing that concept…

Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

Sorry, this entry is only available in Deutsch.

Siemens AG is currently often in the media, mostly negatively, in particular as regards the Siemens corruption scandal. This saddens me, since Siemens was my first employer and moulded my views. 

5 years ago, with Marc Borner - a philosophy student from Darmstadt - I produced a lecture about corruption with the title “Das Käufliche des Unkäuflichen” for a seminar at the Wolfgang-Goethe-University and repeated it at various Universities and meetings. I still get reactions to it, so I will be happy to repeat it where there is interest.

Briefly, the (reasoned and substantiated) message was:

• Corruption has existed as long as mankind.
• So corruption can be regarded as normal.
• Under exceptional circumstances corruption can even be ethical or even necessary.
• But since corruption generally damages society it should be combated and limited as far as possible.
• Corruption in many countries, including Germany, significantly exceeds what is acceptable.
• It may be that we have gradually got used to it.
• “Training” in corruption starts in childhood and continues in social systems and at work (see my posting “target-setting” - Zielvereinbarungen, if you understand German). 

Enough for now about corruption: 

When I started at Siemens in 1976, all new employees were greeted in the fine canteen in Hofmannstrasse in Munich by a real live director. His talk covered the social balance of Siemens AG and then described the Siemens corporate strategy in detail.

I summarise his talk:

“Siemens has 25 different divisions. Most make a profit, as one would hope. Two or three have crises. That is inevitable. These divisions will be sanitised as quickly as possible so that they are profitable within a couple of years. It is an illusion to think that all can always make profit. Siemens very rarely gives up a business area.”

“Modern” managers would probably dismiss this as an antiquated principle. But I believe it is a modern and wise company strategy, which has proved right in recent decades too, giving intelligent diversification coupled with synergy.

In 1976 synergy was not a dirty word. It really happened in Siemens. It was not always easy and friendly, but generally worked well. Personally, I know of Siemens products that were particularly good due to influences coming from different divisions.

Siemens was jokingly referred to as “a bank with associated electric business”. Financial health, customer utility, business respectability, solid, sensible cost planning, stability and long-term thinking were epithets associated with Siemens.

Nobody at Siemens then talked about Shareholder Value. Good results were expected. Good return on investment was the natural result of good engineering and a solid centrally integrated sales force. The company profited from a healthy value system. Siemens had a few weaknesses, but prospered while other electro-firms (AEG, Grundig, and Telefunken) failed.

What went wrong?

My explanation is quite simple. Siemens like many other European companies fell into the “Shareholder Value” trap. After more than a century, Siemens’ own successful strategy was sacrificed to the international analysts. Widespread dubious ideas were thoughtlessly adopted and became the new management principles. The following two were particularly damaging:

• A multinational concern does well only when it is number 1 or 2 in the world
• Corporate “styling” by merger or takeover or by selling parts is a good way to solve problems 

“Number 1 or 2”

The belief that a major concern must be Number 1 or 2 gives me toothache. Perhaps there are special cases where this makes sense (e.g. Intel processor chips, or Microsoft operating systems), but I have doubts there too in the long term.

In business history one sees that the number 1 often goes downhill or even disappears completely. And there are many examples of companies ranked 3 to 10 in the world that constantly earn very well. Particularly in Germany there are firms whose good work (and luck as the founders willingly admit) made them number 1 in specialised areas. But when they go onto the stock market, the problems start. BMW is now finding out how hard life is as number 1. (Comment from the translator: I thought GM and Toyota were top).

I fear that the new Siemens strategy of concentrating exclusively on three mega trends is very damaging. The utopian aim to be number 1 or 2 in the world will fail. A multi-culture of 25 divisions with separate business areas seems to me a better form for a long term functioning company, than 3 mono-cultures that must always be number 1 or 2 worldwide.

“Merging and divesting”

I need not write much about mergers. The literature shows that most mergers fail. The desired positive effects very rarely happen. Siemens-Nixdorf, BMW and Daimler are recent German examples. Compaq, HP and DEC also bear this out. The hope is that 1 + 1 will give more than 2, but often 0·5 or less, results. Regarding sell-off, in Germany one thinks of BenQ, Fujitsu-Siemens, Infineon, Quimonda (all dubious Siemens spin-offs), and (soon to come) NSC.

Uncritical foolish adoption of the above two beliefs has damaged Siemens AG more than the currently well publicised corruption. Corruption is one of the moral problems of our time, but should not be overrated. Siemens was perhaps recently a bit more corrupt than other firms, but I do not really believe it. Probably Siemens just hid things less cleverly, (which could be taken as a sign of positive culture).

What could have been done better?

It is easy to criticise. Effective advice is much harder, as I know from my own experiences as a businessman. I believe that lasting success in business only comes when three main requirements are satisfied:

• Costs must be controlled!
• Know-how – the best thing that a company has – must be protected!
• The firm must continuously renew itself, and stay young! 

Here some clarification of these three requirements:

“Costs must be controlled”

Clear control of all costs and economical operating are the first prerequisites for lasting success. This is particularly important while building new business. This used to be a strength of Siemens. Recently it went missing. I cannot really judge whether it was clever to shower Ronaldo and Real Madrid with money, in order to sell mobile telephones in South America. But I am allowed to register my scepticism.

“Protect Know-How”

In my time at Siemens, I was always impressed by its universal know-how. The joke “If only Siemens knew what Siemens knows” was absolutely justified. Regarding IT, I have recounted something about it in my posting “InterFace Stories”. Particularly technology firms live mainly from their know-how. To throw this away is the cardinal sin. I have personally experienced monstrous demolition of know-how in Germany, by Siemens and other firms.

“Stay young!”

This is probably the biggest and hardest demand on “old” companies! Keeping young is many-faceted. Company and working culture belong to it, as do the mental states of young and old employees, and simply the average age of the workers.

It is not easy in an aging society to find enough young people to reduce the average age of a firm. But we need them. They know life and the market. They bring dynamism. They are energetic and want to work in a collaborative environment. They bring a fresh wind to the firm. (Comment from the translator: Roland is trying to get better jobs for his 7 children. He has contributed to keeping Germany young)!

An average age of e.g. 46 (I know of a concrete case) is simply too high for an IT firm or department. As growth has its limits, older employees, who cannot all go into management, must be fitted into suitable alternative employment. Early retirement schemes are not the answer. We need the seniors. Perhaps the seniors must be ready to switch to new (worse paid) activities. This conflicts with the traditional rules of the job market, so new thinking and modest demands are needed.

We seniors must stay on the ball. Certainly we have many qualities that we can use constructively. But that will only function when we welcome change. Our children take things for granted that we do not fully understand. I know IT managers and businessmen, who did not know what a blog or podcast was, when I tried to get them to read my blog. And what that funny youtube or a twitter is good for, they don’t know either. This is not a joke. It is bitter reality.

We seniors and our younger colleagues together must see to it that the firm stays young!

Summary

The current decline of European technology concerns is not caused by corruption however objectionable that is.

Shallow American management slogans have been imported to Germany without due consideration, and healthy multi-cultures replaced by mono-cultures. In the business playpen, directors have played company-monopoly with gusto, busily buying and selling, merging and divesting. Megalomania and presumed omnipotence were their companions. Everything was judged to be successful and the rewards of success were quickly paid out by the players to themselves.

In “Germany Inc.”, the good old German company virtues have been forgotten. The challenges of change have been misunderstood or ignored. Real reform has not happened.

The various themes of the abandoned Siemens divisions were not bad. The main weakness was physical and psychological aging in the company. This was treated with the wrong medicine. Mega trends and dreams of world market leadership are useless. Only bold striving for change can help. Sadly, for some technologies in Germany it is already too late.

RMD mehr »