{"id":10671,"date":"2026-03-09T14:04:10","date_gmt":"2026-03-09T13:04:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.der-digitalisierungsberater.de\/the-schnitzel-paradox-in-digitalisation\/"},"modified":"2026-05-04T11:21:53","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T09:21:53","slug":"the-schnitzel-paradox-in-digitalisation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.der-digitalisierungsberater.de\/en\/the-schnitzel-paradox-in-digitalisation\/","title":{"rendered":"The Schnitzel Paradox in Digitalisation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Risk factor: assumptions\u2014why your digitalisation project could fail because of the \u201cSchnitzel Paradox\u201d<\/h2>\n

The paradox of due diligence<\/h2>\n

Imagine you are sitting in a restaurant you are visiting for the first time. Would you blindly trust the chef to match your taste exactly, use only the freshest ingredients, and have mastered their craft perfectly? Probably not. <\/p>\n

Before you spend \u20ac15 on a schnitzel, you check the menu, read reviews, or at least take a critical look at the dishes on the neighbouring tables. You want clues. Indications. Evidence. <\/p>\n

But as soon as those same people decide in the conference room on digitalisation projects, software rollouts, or multi-million-euro IT investments, that healthy scepticism suddenly seems to disappear.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cDoes your schnitzel always taste equally good? No? So you are not willing to make an assumption in favour of a chef you do not even know? Yet in digitalisation projects, people do that all the time.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

That is exactly what the \u201cSchnitzel Paradox\u201d is about:
In private life, we insist on understandable information even for small expenses. But when it comes to strategic decisions with enormous impact, we often rely on assumptions, hearsay, and wishful thinking. <\/p>\n

The problem: If you base decisions on well-meaning assumptions instead of solid facts, you risk not only budget overruns but, in the worst case, the future viability of the entire company.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/div>

Why smart decision-makers fall into this trap<\/h2>\n

Why do even analytically minded and experienced executives keep ending up in this situation?<\/p>\n

The cause usually lies in a dangerous combination of two factors:<\/p>\n

1. Lack of subject-matter knowledge<\/h3>\n

Digitalisation is complex. Technologies, systems, interfaces, processes, and dependencies change rapidly. No one can have deep detailed knowledge in every area. <\/p>\n

The real problem is not the lack of knowledge itself. It only becomes problematic when it is suppressed or glossed over. If you do not openly address a lack of clarity, you build decisions on an unstable foundation. <\/p>\n

2. Overestimating other people\u2019s judgement<\/h3>\n

To compensate for their own uncertainty, people often overvalue others\u2019 assessments: those of service providers, consultants, internal project leads, or fellow executives.<\/p>\n

In practice, this creates a dangerous vacuum of responsibility:
Everyone assumes someone else has already asked the critical questions, assessed the risks, and checked the facts.<\/p>\n

In the end, the decision is not based on verified knowledge, but on a collective illusion:
Someone will know what they are doing.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/div>
\"\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

The trap for smart decision-makers<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/div>

The three most dangerous assumption traps in digitalisation projects<\/h2>\n

In practice, this pattern shows up particularly often in three typical fallacies.<\/h4>\n

1. The reference trap<\/h3>\n

Many companies are convinced that a solution must be good because it is already being used successfully at another company.<\/p>\n

The underlying assumption is: If it works there, it will work for us too.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That is a fallacy.<\/p>\n

Because no company is an exact clone of another. Processes, system landscapes, responsibilities, data quality, corporate culture, and maturity level sometimes differ significantly. What led to success for a reference customer can cause major friction losses for you. <\/p>\n

A reference can be a useful indicator. But it is never proof of transferability. <\/p>\n

2. The competitor trap<\/h3>\n

Out of fear of falling behind, companies often orient themselves on their competitors\u2019 behaviour.<\/p>\n

The assumption behind it: The competitor will have made their decision based on hard facts.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But that is risky too.<\/p>\n

Because as a rule, you do not know how carefully the competitor evaluated things, what internal problems there were, what special solutions were necessary, or whether the project is even considered a success internally.<\/p>\n

If you copy uncritically, you may not be adopting the competitor\u2019s success formula, but their mistakes.<\/p>\n

Or put differently: In doubt, you are copying from someone who did not understand the solution themselves.<\/p>\n

3. The consultant trap<\/h3>\n

External consultants, vendors, and implementation partners are important. They bring market overview, methodological expertise, and experience from other projects. That is precisely their value. <\/p>\n

It becomes dangerous when this external expertise leads your own company to stop thinking critically.<\/p>\n

The implicit assumption is:
The external experts know our operational reality well enough to make the right decisions for us.<\/strong><\/p>\n

But that is rarely the case.<\/p>\n

Consultants know best practices.
However, they do not automatically know your company\u2019s informal routines, long-established special cases, cultural friction, and operational constraints.<\/p>\n

If you buy external knowledge without properly cross-checking internally, you are, figuratively speaking, consuming a \u201cdigital schnitzel\u201d without knowing who is in the kitchen and what ingredients were actually used.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/div>
\"\"<\/div><\/div>
<\/div>

The 3 most important assumption traps<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/div>

Why \u201cexperience\u201d can become a risk factor in digitalisation<\/h2>\n

In decision-making processes, experience is often treated like a seal of approval. Anyone who has been active in the market for many years is automatically considered to have sound judgement. <\/p>\n

But especially in digitalisation, this view is dangerously simplistic.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cJudgement is often based purely on experience\u2014and therefore on assumptions.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In stable, slowly changing environments, experience is a major advantage. In dynamic fields like digitalisation, however, it can also become a trap. <\/p>\n

Because \u201cexperience\u201d often means nothing more than repeatedly applying old patterns of thinking to new problems. Anyone who cites \u201c20 years of experience\u201d is often implicitly defending assumptions that were never properly verified. <\/p>\n

Experience is only valuable if it is continuously tested against reality. Without consistent fact-checking, it quickly becomes routine with a claim to truth. And that is exactly what makes it dangerous. <\/p>\n

In digitalisation projects, experience is therefore not a free pass; it is only an advantage when it is combined with openness, willingness to learn, and systematic verification.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>

<\/div>

The consequences: a black eye or total failure<\/h2>\n

When assumptions replace facts, wrong decisions are not the exception, but the logical consequence.<\/p>\n

The impact usually shows up in two escalation levels:<\/p>\n

The black eye<\/h3>\n

The project does not fail completely, but it becomes a never-ending construction site.<\/p>\n

Typical consequences:<\/p>\n