For as long as I can remember, Germany has been talking about "digitalisierung". It’s the perennial topic, not always at the forefront, but certainly the mood music to any and all discussions about the future of Germany. Politicians give speeches on it, business leaders present to packed rooms of other business leaders lamenting its failures, while pseudo-tech bro journalists write scathing assessments of Germany’s incompetent attempts at modernity, often decrying the culture for being the main stumbling block to a glittering vision of #Innovationsland Deutschland.

One problem that I’ve found has been parsing the meaning of the word “digitalisierung”, which translated means “digitisation” but also seems to act as the umbrella term for all technological innovation, and the overall digital transformation. In discussions, digitisation is considered only the first step in the process, one that will eventually open the door to a world of opportunity. However, in some sectors, digitisation is seen as the start and end of the process. This variance in meaning and interpretation is only one of the many stumbling blocks Germany faces as it tries to catch up.

Few would disagree that Germany’s digitalisierung is behind schedule, how far behind depends on who you ask. It could be a few years, it could be decades, and in certain parts of Bavaria it’s possibly a century or two, but whatever the number, all agree Germany is losing a global race to become a European centre of technological change. This gloomy assessment of Germany’s current position is hard to argue with. Even the most passive observers of Germany will know that the continued ubiquity of fax machines is the primary example of German technological backwardness, while so much official communication is still conducted with analog tools, such as pen, paper, and Deutsche Post. 

While it’s almost universally accepted that Germany lags other countries in innovation and digitalisation, there is also broad agreement on what’s holding the country back. Of course, the beast of German bureaucracy is listed among the culprits, but joining the much maligned Beamter class is the high cost of change, fears over security, availability of funding, and unreliable infrastructure. On their own these issues would be problem enough, but collectively they’re believed to be strangling the potential of German companies, from the smallest startup, to the massive industrial giants.

While I don’t doubt that there are some structural issues that make innovation harder, I also wonder what it is that these people really want. If we removed all the barriers that we’re frequently told exist only in Germany, would the country suddenly become a high-tech utopia? Not necessarily. Innovation is hampered just as much by having a free reign, as it is by bureaucracy. How much of the technology we use today was designed as a reaction to constraints, or happened to create something better because of limitations? Studies suggest that there are benefits to be had from structural impediments, which is lucky since Germany has more than just infrastructure to worry about. 

There are those who go much further than simply bemoaning systemic limitations. For these voices, the finger of blame is pointed directly at the German mindset. The argument is made that Germany lost something of itself, a special element, that made it an industrial leader in the 20th century. This sudden lack of vision has led to a refusal to consider alternatives, or worse, active ridicule of anything that might change what’s been done for decades. 

Others point to a dearth of skills, starting in education, but further exasperated by a skills drain to other countries, especially the US. Yet, culture is still cited as a motivation to leave for pastures new. When DW asked angel investor Pascal Zuta why he thought German engineers might prefer to leave for California, he said earnings were a factor, but also went on to say that “the weather is better and the people are friendlier”. While it would be foolhardy to argue that California doesn’t have a meteorological edge, is it really true that friendliness is such an important factor in decision making?

While I’m sure there are many migrants in Germany who might agree with Zuta’s assessment, I doubt that friendliness is a key factor, after all, as Zuta is happy to point out in the same piece, those with the right skills can earn three times as much in the US than they would if they stayed in Germany. I would imagine that’s far more appealing than all the pleases and thank yous in the world. Yet, there is another cultural factor that perhaps ties in with concepts of friendliness, which would certainly appeal to many young IT engineers: how Germany deals with failure.

There isn’t a particularly high tolerance of failure in Germany, nor is it considered poor form to directly blame people for errors. This is seemingly in direct opposition to the gospel of innovation, based heavily on American ideas, a main tenet of which is usually something like “If you’re going to fail, fail fast”. This statement encapsulates a certain level of optimism, the business equivalent of turning a frown upside down. It’s debatable how much cut-through such a concept has in Germany. I remember working in an IT department many years ago, when an aspiring middle manager decided to put posters up with this very quote around the office of his team. When I discussed the concept in a training session, many of the older colleagues dismissed the idea, believing that the quote was ridiculous. In their opinion, if a project was properly planned, it shouldn’t fail, and if it did, it was probably because someone had failed somewhere. The process was fine though, it was the people who were at fault. Although mindsets are notoriously difficult to shift, as older employees retire and younger people come in, it may not be long before the concept of fail-fast is fully internalised. 

A shift in work culture, and the removal of structural barriers may lead to more innovation in the longterm, but Germany still has other issues to contend with that may never be rectified. The federal system of government could pose an intractable problem to the would-be innovator, possibly more than all the others combined. The distinct lack of homogeneity among the 16 Bundeslände creates a different kind of problem, with 16 similar-but-different cultures all operating in tandem. What works in one, doesn’t necessarily work in another. This could be down to a lack of stable infrastructure, a lack of skills, or a lack of political direction, or all three. Innovation is never going to be uniform in Germany, it’s going to have 16 different flavours, and bringing these all together will take a lot of direction and good-will between the states, which is difficult since all seem to be vying to become the centre of German technology. This could ultimately lead to disjointed progress.

Although I don’t disagree that Germany is behind many other countries when it comes to technological innovation, I don’t buy into the doom and gloom narrative that follows most public discussions on the topic. I think Germany has a very good chance of coming out of this period of stasis, but not by removing all barriers, or aping the ideas of others. It needs to come from accepting the particular limitations we have here, as well as the advantages. I don’t think we’ll ever build a “German Silicon Valley”, and why should we? I’d prefer something more sustainable, something more ethical, and ultimately, something that speaks to the culture that built it.

Proofreader: @ScandiTina

Image Credit

Foto von Umberto auf Unsplash

Foto von ThisisEngineering RAEng auf Unsplash

Foto von Sai Kiran Anagani auf Unsplash

Foto von Anas Alshanti auf Unsplash

Foto von Jason Goodman auf Unsplash

Foto von Adrien Olichon