“Prototyping” simply means to try out

Last autumn, the first study trip within the framework of the “Raus aus den vier Wänden” (“Leaving our comfort zone”) Innovedum project was made and it went to Stanford. The aim of the trip was to broaden our horizon in defined subject areas, to question the current methods at ETH and to find inspiration for new projects.

Lino Guzzella, Rector of ETH, representatives of students, scientific staff, professors and Human Resources, employees of the Educational Development and Technology (LET) unit and Drazenka Dragila-Salis, Director of the Building and Constructions Infrastructure Division, among others, embarked on this trip. A blog provided live updates on what was happening at Stanford during the trip. The results of the journey, which now need to be implemented, are set out in a final report (see report in the Intranet news).

When reading the blog and the report, I noticed a certain carefreeness at Stanford University. While ETH Zurich always acts – in line with the true Swiss tradition – in a rational, well-thought-through manner and within calculable risks, Stanford seems to offer a backdrop that permits mistakes. The prototyping mentioned in the final report stands out here in particular.

Instead of planning a project from A to Z, conducting requirement analyses, evaluations and consultations and then finally implementing the project across the campus, the emphasis at Stanford is to prototype, which means that there is always a possibility of something going wrong that nobody had thought about beforehand. A project is implemented timely on a limited scale and with all possible weaknesses. Failed attempts are accepted in this approach and serve to enhance the idea.

Making this prototyping possible at ETH too does not require a lot of money or a major restructuring of the complex system: all it takes is being less reserved about new ideas. New projects would not need to be tested for possible hazards, but simply implemented on a small scale, possibly even on the periphery of activities. If these projects then cause problems, they can be quickly abandoned and possibly tried out again later in a different form.

The damage would be limited compared to a change implemented across ETH as a whole. If the project were successful, it would be simple to expand the change to all of ETH; support from members of ETH is certainly greater given the possibility of prototyping than for projects with an unknown outcome. When weighing up the money invested against the time saved by not having to conduct comparisons and discussions, it can be concluded that prototyping is also competitive from a commercial perspective and could even result in more meaningful results.

This matter cannot be presented as black and white at ETH: in many areas, in particular in teaching, prototyping already exists at ETH today. For instance, pilot projects are often carried out in very different areas that are also evaluated within a practical period of time and result in outstanding changes if successful. Abolishing confirmations of course attendance and the TORQUEs (Tiny, Open-with-Restrictions courses focused on QUality and Effectiveness), which enrich ETH by many experiences, among others, can be referred to as current examples.

From my perspective, however, such prototyping is lacking in the development of the university’s infrastructure. Instead of simply trying out various new seats as individual prototypes and letting the users decide, an evaluation of which are the best is carried out on the basis of a long list of criteria. Instead of simply trying out different payment systems using the ETH card on photocopiers, years are spent finding reasons why it is impossible to pay with the ETH card in cafeterias and student restaurants.

Or the latest example: instead of installing a yellow board with the new signage at Hönggerberg and waiting for feedback, the project was rolled out across the entire Hönggerberg campus (after a very long preparation period). As we all know, the reactions range from “the boards are ugly” to “the street names are too long”. ETH cannot and will not reverse the whole operation. It goes without saying that such reactions make future changes difficult, as they occasionally trigger fear of further failure.

If ETH wants to pull level with Stanford University in this area, precisely this fear must be addressed and the risk associated with any change taken far more often on a smaller scale. I believe that ETH could develop incredible potential if the implementation of ideas of all members of the university were promoted more strongly; innovation comes from trying out, not from planning right down to the most minute detail.

Incidentally, the VSETH can also learn a thing or two in this area: while many small things are just tried out quickly when the motivation is given, large projects at the VSETH often fail due to the same focus on perfection that forms an obstacle for ETH. While ETH at least manages, after years of evaluating, to implement projects, thanks to staff turnover being lower, when a project’s driving person retires from the VSETH, the entire, possibly already thought-through idea often also dies.

For that reason, it is also time for the VSETH to be more active and weigh up the relevant situation less. The fact that a result is not perfect should not stop you, it actually offers the possibility of enhancement for future generations.