“rETHink has grown into a project for the entire university”

Mr Mesot, the completion of the analysis phase marks one of the first milestones in the rETHink project. How do you feel about that?
When the results of the analysis were presented to us at an Executive Board meeting just over a month ago, I was quite overwhelmed ¨C to begin with, simply by the enormous amount of work undertaken, for which I am extremely grateful. Over the past months, more than 600 ETH members have given serious thought to the way in which we are organised and work together. They have been brutally honest in their analysis of the strengths we need to preserve and where there is need for improvement.

ETH is one of the world¡¯s top universities. What more do you hope to achieve with rETHink?
You¡¯re right: ETH is currently extremely well positioned and has an excellent reputation among its international peers. But inferring from this that nothing needs improvement would not be in keeping with the spirit of our university. If we think about the future of our venerable institution, it¡¯s clear that we need to develop our organisational structure further. The purpose of rETHink is to improve collaboration within our organisation to the point where we once again maximise the energy and flexibility for our core mandate going forward: research, teaching and knowledge transfer.

So what were the results of the analysis?
For rETHink, we decided to look at the organisation from the perspective of the professorship, which is the organisational unit responsible for the core tasks of research and teaching, as well as knowledge and technology transfer. A workstream comprising ETH members from all university groups focused on the tasks and challenges of the professorship, which has always enjoyed a large degree of freedom within the university. The working group concluded that this autonomy is a key success factor ¨C it was described as the ¡°beating heart¡± of ETH, which I think is a very striking image. At the same time, the working group recognised that certain guideposts are needed to ensure that this autonomy can be extended across the entire institution.

Could you give us an example of this?
I¡¯m talking about organisation within the professorship, for example, or the nature of collaboration with other ETH entities. Requirements have become increasingly demanding in recent years: the number of students has grown, putting more pressure on teaching provision. The number of professorships and the amount of interdisciplinary cooperation have also increased, thereby requiring a higher level of coordination. Our researchers are also expected to work more extensively and more closely with industry, attract third-party funding and increasingly present their findings directly to society as well. Teaching, research, technology transfer, communication with the outside world, as well as taking on tasks associated with academic self-administration: the working group recognised that our professors increasingly have too little time for all these tasks. Wherever we identify the need for direct action, we immediately introduce measures, for example, by supporting the university¡¯s key players with their communication skills and offering specialist training as part of the ¡°Communication Academy¡± launching in the Autumn Semester. With rETHink, our aim is to come up with new solutions and further develop our organisation so that everyone has more time to dedicate to the core tasks.

These results hardly come as a surprise.
You¡¯re right there. And they didn¡¯t surprise me either. But the analyses dug a little deeper, of course. And as usually happens during such processes, some initial approaches to solutions were already discussed as well. This produced several ideas which certainly surprised me, for example, sharing more resources, such as rooms, with other professorships. The working group realised that the professorship¡¯s room requirements change over the different phases of their life cycle and more allowances should be made for this in room planning.   

The professorships are one aspect, the organisation of departments another. What findings did the analysis come up with here?
The analyses showed that the issues raised here are actually more fundamental to some extent. For instance, some of our structures and processes lag behind developments. Leadership structures especially are often overstretched. This touches on our dynamic pace of growth: the informal processes that allow rapid coordination and swift decisions seem to have reached their limit. We want to address this and make our processes more efficient, so less time is spent on administration.

And how about the central administrative units?
They are also affected by ETH¡¯s strong growth. The analysis confirmed their high level of competence and motivation, but at the same time many employees feel overburdened. Weaknesses were also identified in cooperation and communication between the various central administrative units, and between the administration and academic departments. The CAUs generally show a very strong interest in the project and also have high expectations for rETHink.

Can you live up to these expectations?
We certainly can¡¯t meet all expectations. For me, rETHink is an ongoing process in which we prioritise and continuously work on themes that are relevant to the university¡¯s future development. Following the conclusion of the analysis phase, the task now is to produce solutions. At the same time, we also need to be able to deal with uncertainties. Expectations and wishes can change over time when you hear other arguments and take on board other perspectives. That¡¯s why it¡¯s important that so many ETH members are involved in the discussion during this phase and that we manage this discussion in an open and responsible manner. This diversity of positions and opinions is precisely our strength ¨C and we want to play to this strength as best we can with rETHink.

What are the next concrete steps for rETHink?
First, allow me to review some of the progress made to date. Over the past two years, ETH has proven that it is capable of developing at quite a dynamic pace. Aside from the rETHink project, we have also drafted a new version of the Ordinance on Doctoral Studies and are currently in the process of updating the Guidelines for Good Scientific Practice. Our onboarding programme for new professors, as well as our ¡°leadership4faculty¡± courses have become a model for many other universities. An incredible amount has been set in motion in recent months, partly thanks to the dynamism of our two new vice presidents. Within rETHink, we have defined three areas of action for each workstream (see the table below) which are due to be addressed by the end of the year. At the start of October we are organising a rETHink meeting with members from all workstreams, providing an opportunity to pool and discuss our results in depth. Towards the end of the year, the first package of proposed solutions will then be submitted to the ETH Executive Board. The main topics are the life cycle of professorships, leadership issues and professorship planning.

You¡¯re talking about proposals?
That¡¯s right. The procedure is for workstreams to draft concrete solutions, which are then discussed in the organisation. The Executive Board makes the final decisions. That¡¯s why in the case of rETHink it¡¯s so important to have a broader selection of people more closely involved in the run-up to the decisions than is usual for conventional business.

When can we expect the first decisions with ramifications that extend beyond the organisational aspects of the professorship?
In addition to the improvements already under way, we expect more solutions in the spring of 2022, such as clarification of the basic understanding of the roles of the three institutional levels, i.e. university, academic department and professorship, and also ¨C following on from this ¨C clarification of the respective tasks, skills and responsibilities. This requires a common understanding of the cooperation between the departments and the central administrative units. A sort of ¡°best practices and minimum standards¡± guide is to be produced by the end of 2022 for the organisation of departments, in other words, their operational and leadership structures.

That¡¯s going to take some time. So when will employees and students notice any effects from rETHink?
That¡¯s a good question, and rather tricky to answer. One thing is definite: not all ETH members will be affected to the same degree. Nor will there be a specific date upon which rETHink is activated at the flick of a switch. After all, a lot has already happened over the past two years, partly instigated directly through rETHink, and partly fast-tracked in response to the project. So there will still be various initiatives to try to get things up and running. Like the ripples created when a stone hits the surface of the water.

There are bound to be new regulations as well. Many people fear there will also be top-heavy bureaucracy ¡­
Executive Board members are well aware of these fears. It is true that rETHink will most probably bring some amendments to ETH regulations, such as the ETH Zurich Organisation Ordinance or the directives. At the same time, I expect we should be able to get rid of one or two existing regulations. I believe it¡¯s important to stress, however, that the main thrust of rETHink will not be directed at written regulations. Our university¡¯s work is shaped much more by informal rules, experiences and expectations, such as how we work together as a team. That¡¯s why we¡¯ve launched the culture discussion, and also why it¡¯s important to have so many ETH members involved in rETHink. This shows that our employees are keen to see ETH move forward and have faith in the rETHink project. They have acted on the initiative originally taken by the Executive Board two years ago and turned it into a project for the entire university. And over the coming months, the project will truly spring to life.

To finish up, more of a personal question: Has rETHink already had an impact on your role as ETH President?
Of course ¨C although the biggest impact has come from an earlier Executive Board decision: there are now seven board members. Our two new colleagues have enhanced our diversity. Their contribution has been very helpful and encouraged us to rethink the way we work together. Thanks also in part to the open discussions surrounding rETHink, we have developed into a formidable team in a very short space of time.