„Erkennen, was die Welt im Inneren zusammenhält.“
("Recognizing what holds the world together inside.")
Faust by Johann Wolfgang Goethe
What experiences led to my motivation to become co-initiator and author of the websites welträtsel.org and deep-thought.org?
To answer this question meaningfully, three different aspects can be distinguished:
- The enthusiasm for the topics covered by this English website and its German equivalent www.welträtsel.org
- The reasons why I use a systemic approach,
- The willingness to challenge the mainstream and views of the established science where necessary
Thoughts and personal experiences relating to these three aspects, and thus the foundations of my motivation, are presented in three sections below.
1. Enthusiasm for the topics
The website www.deep-thought.org focuses on questions that remain unresolved or have not been satisfactorily answered. One could argue, that this basically applies to any research question. However, from the infinite variety of questions that this general definition allows, we have picked out those that concern fundamental issues. These are the more difficult problems, all of which have the characteristic that, if a better solution than before is found, they will not only bring the world and its people a small step forward, but a big one. This is where my enthusiasm for these topics comes from.
In my youth, I played the guitar, mainly classical guitar, but also as accompaniment to songs like those by Reinhard Mey. In his song “Menschenjunges,” I particularly liked the line “Try to move your world forward a little bit” and it became a kind of motto for me. However, I added my own twist to the statement: “... and if possible, that little bit can be a little bigger!”
However, progress can only be made in areas where there is a problem or deficiency. If the movement forward is supposed to be quite large, then only the unresolved fundamental questions of knowledge remain to be targeted.
At school, I was mainly interested in science. I had excellent teachers and small advanced classes with seven students in physics and 14 in mathematics. Our teachers covered topics that went far beyond the normal curriculum. Even more importantly in physics, with such a small group, we did the experiments ourselves instead of just watching the teacher do them. End of the 70s, Computer science was an elective subject for me at the neighboring high school. Our school didn't get a computer until a year before I graduated.
Even though I switched my focus for future education to economics shortly before graduating from high school for various reasons, my interest in science never left me—even if my further education in this field was less formal and took the form of private reading. What I did not give up, however, was the motto “Try to move your world forward a little bit” I just had to find another way to achieve this goal.
Trying to move your world forward in business ment to start your own company. In the 1980s, there was no startup scene in Germany and therefore no prospect of creating something completely new in this way. But it began to develop, and here too I absorbed everything I could achieve in my environment. Creating something new in the economy through start-ups and innovations became my new expression of my life motto.
2. Systems thinking
2.1 Learning about the underlying theory
After completing my vocational training as a banker, TU Berlin became my first alma mater. Due to its engineering focus, TU Berlin required business administration students to take at least one technical subject. For me, that subject was systems analysis. Systems analysis suited my basic education in natural sciences and my analytical thinking, which was shaped by the natural sciences.
In addition to working at the management consultancy McKinsey & Co., my first employer after graduation, I worked on a dissertation on the topic of “marketing radical or discontinuous innovations” – the term used at the time to describe innovations that represented a major step forward. It was only after the publication of Christensen's “Innovator's Dilemma” that this term was replaced in common usage by the term “disruptive innovations.” While searching for a suitable dissertation topic, I came across a number of sources that considered this topic of marketing these types of innovation to be important but fundamentally unresolved. In my view, this was exactly the right topic for a dissertation, which is supposed to contribute to scientific progress. It never occured to me, that a question, where every other scholar failed might be little bit to much for your first scientific research endevour...
In an internal research project at McKinsey, we asked ourselves why some companies managed to grow at rates of 20% and more over several years. The goal was to translate Brian Arthur's work on increasing returns into management practice in order to make it specifically applicable to McKinsey and its clients. To this end, I spent six months working at the McKinsey office in Boston, where I was able to—or rather, had to—engage intensively with Arthur's “Increasing returns and path dependencies” and with the early findings on complexity theory at the Santa Fe Institute. We published the results of our work in the article “Fast Growth Tigers” in McKinsey Quarterly II/1995. However, the actual internal results were a computer-based system dynamics simulation model I developed, an internal practical guide explaining how to apply our findings, and a series of four case studies: three case studies on companies that had successfully achieved such high growth, and one case study on the Apple Newton, which had already proven to be a huge flop in 1995. The interesting question, especially in this additional case study of a failure, was why Apple had not been able to repeat its earlier successes with the Apple Newton, even though Apple itself had been an example of outstanding growth over a long period of time with the Apple II and Apple Macintosh in its own history.
My own plan for my dissertation was to scientifically expand on the results and concepts I had achieved in Boston. But I hadn't taken my doctoral supervisor into account. The model I had developed on the computer in the US used conventional system dynamics modeling software. I would have much preferred to implement the whole thing as an agent model, but that was simply not possible for me given the state of technology in the mid-1990s. What I didn't know was that my doctoral supervisor had spent the early part of his scientific career in the 1970s condemning systems theory as a scientific approach. However, instead of offering me concrete assistance in my considerations or even providing me with his own publications on the subject, he instructed me to distance myself from it. In order to distance myself from it, however, I first had to gain a better understanding of the fundamentals of systems theory as a whole and therefore study it in depth. This requirement forced me to work my way through a mountain of literature that was only indirectly related to what I wanted to do. Of course, I learned a great deal about the development of systems theory in the process, but it was far removed from my actual topic of interest. At the same time, I also had to try to scientifically distinguish complexity theory, which was developed at the Santa Fe Institute and on whose ideas I wanted to build, from the old approaches of systems theory.
Now, it must be taken into account that neither systems theory nor complexity theory are actually self-contained theories, but rather, at their core, a collection of methodological approaches for investigating other scientific questions. In addition, complexity theory was still in its infancy in the early 1990s. At that time, there was no coherent description of what complexity theory actually is. The only summary literature that attempted to provide an overview were the more popular science-oriented works by Waldrop and Lewin. However, even these were not integrative presentations of what complexity theory actually is, but only more comprehensible overviews of everything that had come together under the common title of “complexity theory.” Even the scientists who were jointly researching “complexity issues” had not managed to place their different methodological approaches on a common theoretical foundation. In fact, no one has been able to do so to this day. The complexity researchers came from a variety of different scientific disciplines. What united them was the fact that they had all encountered phenomena in their respective disciplines that could not be explained using the tools and approaches of their established sciences. Together, however, they realized that these phenomena were very similar to each other and that they could be approximated, at least in comparatively trivial examples, in simulations using the computing capacity available at the time on PCs and workstations. They enjoyed the mutual inspiration and the resulting ideas for their own scientific work. What they did not create, however, was a common foundation for what complexity theory actually is.
That was the situation I found myself in, where I was supposed to draw a line between older systems theory and newer complexity research. All this, mind you, with a professor who strictly rejected one of the two approaches and was completely unfamiliar with the other. It was bound to fail. I failed in my attempt to draw such a distinction and convince my doctoral supervisor. The whole adventure ended with me having to find a new doctoral supervisor. Since all this was happening alongside my day job, I reached a point where I had to put my dream of writing my own scientific paper and obtaining a doctorate on the back burner. Reality caught up with me, and the question of earning money and starting my own family came to the fore. However, my interest remained unbroken, and so I continued to follow developments in scientific literature, especially complexity theory, throughout my many years of professional life.
2.2 Applying theory – systems in economic practice
What actually happened during this “interim period”, however, was that I founded my own companies, some of which were successful and others instructive. As an independent consultant and interim manager, I was able to apply, further develop, and refine the concepts I had developed in supporting start-ups and in business development for industrial sites, especially in the process industry. The greatest success in this regard was that, over a period of 15 years, I succeeded in establishing industrial biotechnology production processes as a second pillar alongside conventional petroleum-based chemistry at chemical sites in central Germany. With the material use of lignocellulose in the raw material cascade, the vision of the bioeconomy was implemented in industrial practice. My efforts were crowned with the selection of the region as a leading-edge cluster by the BMBF in 2012. My role as project and start-up cluster manager ended in 2013, and I handed over my duties as interim manager to a local management team. After the leading-edge cluster funding expired, my successor as cluster manager, Matthias Zscheile, succeeded in attracting a major industrial investment in the bioeconomy to the Leuna site on the basis of previous research activities. This investment uses wood not as a raw material for fiber extraction and paper production, but for the chemical industry on an industrial scale. The transition from petroleum to a new raw material base is a process of change that has been going on for over 25 years and is still far from complete today.
What economic researchers describe in theory as “successful structural change” was something I was able to implement in practice – not alone, but in collaboration with many other participants. This was not about a single product or even a single value chain, but about redesigning an entire value chain network. In the process, you learn a lot about how the economy really works – and how it doesn't! Large integrated sites in the chemical industry are open systems that are more or less complex depending on their size. They can only be restructured if they are understood and comprehended as a system.
In addition to the raw materials themselves, a reliable and cost-effective energy supply is the second essential pillar of any process industry and such a material network system. This is particularly true for the chemical industry, whether based on crude oil or renewable raw materials. Energy supply issues were therefore a key success factor in all discussions about new industrial investments. With the boom in the solar industry at the end of the 2000s, I also had to deal intensively with the effects of renewable energies on the German electricity supply – another complicated technical system that is essential for human life. Relatively quickly, in 2011/12, a simple initial model calculation made it clear that although the integration of renewable energies into the electricity supply would be relatively easy at first, it would begin to cause massive problems by 2020 at the latest. These problems would escalate with the further expansion of renewable energies and, by 2050 at the latest, lead to a system that could no longer be controlled using established conventional approaches. The politically desired and enforced conversion of car drive technology from combustion engines to electric motors, which has been underway since around 2009/10, would potentially exacerbate this problem considerably.
It was also clear that this would require completely different regulatory procedures for the power grid than the centralized control system that had prevailed until then. A system supported by fewer than 200 power plants can be controlled centrally. It is complicated, but not complex. It can be understood, mastered, and controlled using normal systems theory approaches. But this is completely different from a system consisting of millions of solar installations, electric vehicles, and local storage facilities. This is a complex system that can only be described using the theoretical approaches of complexity theory. For this very reason, it was foreseeable that such significant changes in the electricity system would in turn enable or even require completely new business concepts. With investment cycles of 30-40 years and even longer periods for power plants and electricity grids, as well as the shift from a system that can be described in terms of system dynamics to a complex system model, it was equally clear that such a system change would lead to massive disruptions in the energy industry. This raised the question of whether and how this development could be predicted, whether millions of new units could be made to behave in a grid-compliant manner through distributed control, and how electricity customers would react to such a new regulatory approach.
I set out to find partners who were open to this basic idea. Once these had been found, our joint deliberations led to the realization that we needed a simulation model that was capable of replicating and varying the physical reality in the power grid, initially in a small, defined area. At the same time, we needed the ability to map alternative control and business concepts without predetermining them through programming. In addition, the approach had to fit into the new theoretical foundation of complexity theory. Together with our partners, I finally succeeded in 2016 in obtaining funding for a one-year project, which enabled us to produce a proof of principle in an innovative multi-agent simulation. The prerequisite for implementation was, again, that we needed an approach in which the business concepts and markets were not predetermined, but could also develop between the agents. This was not possible with the standard approaches of economics, as these are completely detached from real physics and are also unable to adequately reflect the special features of data products with winner-takes-all markets or psychological factors influencing human decisions. This marked the birth of the business concept model presented on welträtsel.org [or deep-thought.org].
We successfully completed the project by proving that it is indeed possible to keep a power grid stable through purely distributed control in the swarm of participating aggregates. Without central control, without decentralized control, and without spying smart meters! However, one year was not enough to make the model scalable, and we were only able to implement the psychological effects of the participants in a very rudimentary way. Unfortunately, we were then denied continued funding after the successful proof of principle. We tried to market the knowledge we had gained, but met with little interest from the electricity industry. The approach was also not patentable, and publishing it would have meant revealing how it works, which would have meant giving away our knowledge advantage without anything in return. So we were left with the know-how, which in retrospect did not get us anywhere, but was decisive for the motivation behind this website. The experience led to the realization that this “secretive” approach, which only attempts to disclose the know-how to exclusive, paying clients, does not work either. This led to the decision to actually publish the theoretical model that was the basis of the simulation. The only question was how.
3. It's okay to disagree with everyone else
It's okay to swim against the tide! How did I actually come to this realization and attitude that this behavior was not particularly unusual for me? Probably for two reasons:
- I suspect the first reason lies in the home where I grew up: My father was a judge at the social court and thus someone who had made it his profession to form an independent opinion in the conflict of opposing interests, always having to weigh the interests of the group against those of the individual. And that certainly “ rubbed off” on me and my sister in our behavior. We were virtually “trained” to form our own opinions and act accordingly in our parents' home.
- I see the second reason in many different small experiences as a child and teenager, in which I opposed the majority with my own opinion and was successful and found recognition in the group.
However, standing alone and swimming against the tide is exhausting. You won't be part of the “popular” and “cool” clique. However, being steadfast and backing up your opinions with good arguments will gain you acceptance by everyone and, perhaps precisely because of my independence of mind, was repeatedly elected class representative. So even though it wasn't always easy, it led to a sense of achievement for me and taught me that you shouldn't let yourself be discouraged by a loudly voiced opposing opinion. And once you've had that experience, similar situations no longer scare you in the future.
But ultimately, even in this starting position, you seek recognition from others. You may start out with an individual opinion, but even in this position, there is an inherent intent to convince others of your own opinion. However, this can only be achieved through communication and actively representing your own, dissenting opinion.
Conclusion
A person's personality and motivation are ultimately a result of their experiences and their environment. If experiences were good and the environment was positive, people usually want more of the same; if they were bad, people usually want to avoid repeating them. These factors thus directly shape a person's future behavior. Similar experiences are linked together and gradually shape a person's personality through repetition. Of course, individual experiences are not identical repetitions, but always slightly different. However, they are perceived as similar, i.e., they are repetitions with variations. In the perception of the brain as a neural network, however, this leads to a reinforcement effect through generalization and concentration of the connections between the neurons involved. With varying experiences, the same neurons are addressed again, the same synapses are activated, and these are in turn consolidated in their existence. This then establishes behavioral patterns and motivations over time. Among these personal experiences, there are usually some events and experiences that were particularly important for one's own development. One remembers these and thinks about them. This in turn leads to the neurons and synapses involved being reactivated in the context of memory and further consolidated solely through the process of remembering.
It is usually only with hindsight that we recognize which experiences were so significant in our own development. This is evident from the fact that we only remember these events in detail. But that does not change the fact that our own personality was shaped by these special events and that the experiences associated with them have a lasting influence on our own behavior and motivation.
For me and my motivation, these formative experiences were
- The urge to want to move something forward, on a large scale rather than a small one, coupled with a deep desire not to simply settle for the status quo.
- An interest in understanding overall contexts, regardless of existing scientific disciplinary boundaries.
- The realization that reality can be described much better with complex adaptive systems than with system dynamic or even static models.
- The personal experience, willingness, and recognition of the need to stand up against majority opinions if you really want to make a difference.
All of this resulted in my personal motivation to work on a website that imparts conceptual, theoretical knowledge that does not fit into the mainstream but would be lost if one did not make the effort to pass it on.
Yours, Stephan Witt
Comments powered by CComment