"Michael, I have a simple question." Silvia Seven, CFO of FastChangeCo, pushes the project status deck aside. "How many projects have redefined what a 'customer' is from scratch in the last two years?" Michael Mueller swallows. He knows the answer. And it's uncomfortable.
Part 3 ended with a question hanging in the room: whether you can actually prove what's in your reports — and who would ever ask. For three parts it was all business application. Now someone from outside is asking. And the argument that wins management over starts right here.
Part 2 ended with a line from Diego: “Time travel runs forward too. Retroactive bookings, planned prices, scenarios for the future.” That's exactly where we pick up now.
The 1st Part finished with a promise: for two timelines to interlock cleanly, their time periods have to be brought into a clear relationship with one another. That mechanism is what we look at now.
There's a question that comes up in every workshop sooner or later: “Do we really need this complexity?” What people mean is bitemporal historization – two timelines instead of one, a few more columns, more logic when loading. It's a fair question.
![„[antifragile data] — podcast logo, launching September 2026"](/images/blogposts/2026/podcast-ankuendigung/AntifragileData_Podcast_Article.webp#joomlaImage://local-images/blogposts/2026/podcast-ankuendigung/AntifragileData_Podcast_Article.webp?width=1500&height=844)
The best conversations at conferences rarely happen on stage. They happen during coffee breaks, at dinner, on the walk to the taxi. That's where people talk openly about what actually worked and what didn't — no slides, no marketing filter. And those conversations are almost never recorded.
"Do we actually still need data modelers if AI can take over?" The question came up after a coaching session. I paused. Not because the question was fundamentally wrong — but because it was the wrong question.
Page 1 of 13