rETHink: First steps towards implementation

Ms Poiger, last Friday over 100 ETH members spent the whole day discussing ideas at the “rETHink assembly”. Members of the ETH Executive Board were also present. What was the purpose of the event?

The aim of the event was to bring together the actual rETHink project team comprising over 100 ETH members who have been working in six workstreams over the past months, analysing different aspects of our organisation and identifying areas of action. Areas of action for the three ETH levels - the professorships, academic departments and central administrative units - were presented at a town hall meeting in June (DownloadTown hall meeting slides (PDF, 4.1 MB)vertical_align_bottom). We are now at the start of the implementation phase where discussions between the various workstreams are needed, as the work undertaken by individual workstreams now need to be coordinated more closely.

What exactly did participants focus on?

To start with, all workstreams gave a short summary of their current work and presented some initial ideas for solutions, or paths towards them. Groups comprising members from different workstreams then went on to examine two of these ideas in more detail. Some mixed workshops also reviewed the process to date and current project status. In addition, during breaks and refreshments there was an opportunity for informal chats and getting to know people. Last Friday was the first time many people involved in rETHink had the chance to meet in person, despite having already worked together very closely online over many months. I had the strong impression that the existing six workstreams formed one big rETHink team at the assembly.

What came out of the discussions? What’s the project’s current status?

We’re on track. Although there are some delays and the goals - or rather the dimension - of the changes we are attempting are not quite as concrete as we would like. In addition, we still haven’t managed to introduce the project across the entire ETH community. That’s not just my personal view, by the way, but the conclusion of the workshop discussions. On the positive side, we noted an intensive and productive exchange in the workstreams between members of very different backgrounds. Everyone is listening to one another and developing a common understanding of the university.

Even so, you mentioned earlier that some initial ideas had been put forward for solutions. Could you tell us a little more?

There are two types of solution packages. First, various measures that affect the university’s organisation, processes and governance. There was clear feedback from the recent assembly that the rETHink project should not lead to even more regulations. What we actually need are principles and guidelines for action. In this context, the importance of the discussion about ETH culture was stressed. The second type of solution package goes in the same direction: sharing good ideas. A toolbox is being developed specifically for this purpose, containing a selection of tried-and-tested ideas, concepts and instruments. In other words, some best practice suggestions for various issues concerning professorships and academic departments.

Despite this, some new rules will be unavoidable...

Of course there will be new rules. But we are still able to question existing regulations, simplify them or perhaps even remove them altogether. It’s often a matter of amending or adding to existing regulations, such as for academic profiles. Workstream 2, Professorships, has been working intently on this and has come up with the “Professorship of Practice” profile, amongst other things. In the meantime, this concept has now been taken up by the ETH Board, whose job is to lay the foundation for implementing the concept. The concept is currently in a pre-consultation phase with academic departments and university groups. Consultation on changes needed to the relevant ordinance will follow at the start of 2022.

What is meant by “Professorship of Practice”?

The idea is to sign up high-ranking managers from industry and distinguished experts from healthcare, government, administration or international organisations for a set period so they can contribute their vast range of knowledge and experience to the university’s academic performance.

Are there similar concrete results in other workstreams?

Yes, in Workstream 3 “Support for professors”, for example. In the area of action “Professors as leaders”, members of this workstream have identified various gaps in the support provided to professors in their management responsibilities and have come up with a whole range of suggestions on how these gaps can be filled.

Could you give a few more details on these proposals?

On the one hand there are solution packages with concrete content, such as which topics are helpful for professors, and on the other hand proposals on methods to be adopted, such as how to communicate the necessary knowledge. The content includes topics such as the organisation and structure of a professorship, collaboration within the team, personnel management, time management and conflict management. The purpose of the suggestions for method support is to interest professors in the topic of “leadership” and encourage them to share know-how with each other, for example through additional modules in the existing leadership courses, lunch & learn formats, or peer coaching sessions.

How will the solution packages be implemented?

As soon as concrete solutions are ready, they will be officially handed over to to the regular organisation, either to the responsible member of the Executive Board or the entire Board. I use the term “officially”, because members of the Executive Board are of course already involved in the workstreams and there is a regular exchange of ideas. In the corresponding organisational unit, the proposals are examined again with regard to implementation and, where necessary, reflected upon again in a wider context or even put out to consultation. After that, they can be implemented or referred back to the workstream if new questions or aspects arise.

The examples you mention mainly concern the professors. When will other groups of ETH members notice changes to their daily routine as a result of the rETHink project?

That’s partly because the workstreams did not all start at the same time and are now at different stages. In addition, these initial results can be considered “low-hanging fruit”. Other workstreams are dealing with much more fundamental issues. But I’d also like to warn of false expectations: it won’t simply be the case that ETH changes at a single stroke purely as a result of rETHink. Just think of the area of Vice President for Infrastructure, a post that has already been reorganised in recent months with the involvement of staff, but not as part of the rETHink project. There are also changes that will only evolve gradually. If our managers further improve their leaderships skills, this will have a knock-on effect for the entire group.

Because it affects the group’s collaboration and culture?

Exactly. Even reflection on our organisational structure - whether it be across the entire university or within specific groups - can bring changes in the way we work together. The toolbox I mentioned earlier also serves this purpose. Exchanging ideas on how a specific task is performed at a different location, as well as the realisation that certain interfaces may not be working well in other locations, can also trigger change. One requirement where we may be able to move things along a little with rETHink is the willingness of every ETH member to reflect on their own actions and change them where necessary. In this sense I would like to encourage all ETH members to engage with these voluntary initiatives. After all, we do not want the university’s future development to be dictated solely by rules and regulations.