The digital ministry’s misconception – and what we really need!

A petition initiated by the Bundesverband Deutsche Startups e.V. is calling on the party leaders of the CDU, CSU and SPD to appoint a digital minister. I think that is well-intentioned. But it is the wrong measure. What we need in politics is more foresight. Further than what we call digitalization today.

(Reading time: 4 minutes)

“Digitization” always works somehow.

Digitalization or digital transformation has become an incredibly elastic term for everything that is new and different nowadays. Many understand it to mean technical aspects, others cultural, others methodological and many all of the above. It is incredibly difficult to get to the heart of the matter and all the easier to write a bit about it. Digitalization is always happening somehow at the moment.

It is therefore not entirely clear what the various stakeholder groups mean when they call for a digital ministry. They probably all mean something slightly different. The text of the petition states:

“Our schools and universities are stuck in the chalk age, the state and administration are working in the same way. There is a lack of effective impetus in the expansion of broadband infrastructure and the economy does not have internationally competitive framework conditions. Innovation is already suffering as a result. We are in danger of being left behind for good, with fatal consequences for jobs, prosperity and social peace.

”
Of course, it is true that if you look at the state with a “digital mindset”, you get the feeling that it is stuck in the last century. However, the fact that the economy would not find internationally competitive framework conditions is probably quite nonsense.

The fact that innovative strength would suffer, well, that can of course always be argued selectively. But anyone who indirectly accuses Germany of having a weak innovative capacity is doing the country an injustice. The Germans simply don’t manage to look cool when they innovate, so to speak. It’s not the same thing. And it’s not enough to compare the number of unicorn start-ups to get an idea of a country’s future competitiveness.

German culture

And the reason why many things in Germany are not progressing as well as we “technology hipsters” would like is because this “German culture” always looks for the fly in the ointment first. This leads to good solutions in engineering, but to a paralyzing perfectionism in strategy and implementation.

And, if I may say so, a lot of time and energy is always spent on clarifying who exactly is responsible. I very much doubt that a digital ministry will change this. On the contrary. In which area has a ministry consistently achieved something sustainable? In transport, for example? The diesel scam and the indirect involvement of the Ministry of Transport send their regards.

We need a ministry for change

Digitalization as we know it today is just the beginning of an era of accelerating change. In five years’ time, we will be laughing at the term digitalization and many people who are not in tech today will be wishing they had stuck to today’s common definition of “digital”.

In terms of policy, the question is how the framework conditions can be adapted on an ongoing basis so that change can be as socially acceptable and permanent as possible. A change of small steps instead of painful big bangs.

Because sticking rigidly to existing structures exacerbates the effects of technology-driven change. I have explained this in detail in the article on “Perpetual Disruption”.

The only logical approach is to socially anticipate change and increase the cadence of renewal. If you stick to maintaining and or defending existing structures, what I have called “disruption debt” becomes ever greater. And that means it becomes more and more difficult for people to make the effort.

So what should be done?

A Ministry for Change should record leading indicators in the various sectors, carry out technology analysis and develop strategies for technology transitions with technology leaders. These strategies should then be implemented in all other areas, especially in legislation. Tax concessions are also a good instrument to promote new strands.

In this way, old technology and methods could be made more difficult rather than more favored. And new approaches would be promoted in a targeted manner without having to resort to subsidies and/or other things that are very difficult to trade.

Professions of the future

I think vocational training has an important role to play. Which professions do we promote? Which do we hinder? There is simply no forward-looking control. Why are we subsidizing driver training? Because we need a lot of drivers at the moment? Will we still need them in ten years’ time? Probably not. So when is the right time to cut these subsidies and put the money into other professions?

As you can see, it’s not easy. And that is precisely why we need a ministry of vision, of change. To steer before the boat runs aground and has to be laboriously pulled back into deep waters. And, if I may make this political comment for once, the challenges in substantive policy are creating less and less room for the kind of party battles we have seen in recent months. It takes everyone at the table and the ability to compromise in order to move forward.

However, there is no need to worry about the actual digitalization, in the sense of digital access and processes, of administrations and the state. The state is also implementing the more economical solutions, albeit always considerably later than the private sector. It will therefore inevitably be digitized. If that’s what you mean by that, take it easy. And patience.