Focus on the future of the University

The University of Bern is getting fit for the future: in this interview, Rector Christian Leumann and Director of Administration Markus Brönnimann discuss the challenges the University will face in the future and how the “Fit for Future” programme intends to address them.

Interview: Maura Widmer and Christian Degen

Read the original uniAKTUELL article here. (in German)

The “Fit for Future” programme is all about the future of the University of Bern. What do you personally see as the biggest challenges we will face over the next ten years?

Markus Brönnimann: One issue that cannot be solved quickly and will therefore keep us busy for a long time is the growing shortage of space. Finding a sustainable solution for this is key. We also need to provide access to international networks in research and teaching and maintain our attractiveness as an employer. These challenges require lean structures and consistent implementation of Strategy 2030.

Christian Leumann: Digital transformation will be one of the major challenges of the next ten years. This transformation will change essential elements of teaching and research within a relatively short time. In addition, cooperation with other higher education institutions in Switzerland will be necessary in order to hold our own in an international context. The University must also be strongly networked internationally in order to offer solutions at the highest level for global challenges such as digitalisation, climate change and health issues.

Where does the University of Bern stand in this development? Do we need to catch up with other universities?

Leumann: The University of Bern has existed since 1834, and since then we have functioned as a structurally relatively conservative institution. Our organisational form has remained largely the same, while through education and research we have helped our own world and the world around us to evolve. This creates a need for action. However, we are not alone in this. Most universities in the world face similar challenges.

Last summer, the “Syntegration” project was launched with around 40 people from all faculties and university constituencies as well as external participants from administration and politics. The programme is now entering its next phase under the new name “Fit for Future”. What has already happened, and what are the next steps?

Leumann: I would first like to emphasise that we are not acting out of a crisis situation, but out of intrinsic motivation. We considered how we want to position ourselves in relation to current challenges and what we can improve in the future. The fields of action defined in the programme are not new. But for the first time, they are being bundled and viewed as a whole. We now want to find a workable path that is developed together with faculties, institutes, researchers and staff. It is a joint programme, not a decree “from above”.

Brönnimann: Our priority so far has therefore been to organise a programme with clear responsibilities. Last summer, twelve key fields of action of importance for the future of the University were identified, and each has now been assigned a client and project managers. Work is already under way on many topics. With a kick-off meeting with all project managers in May, we want to underline the common goal once again and link the topics together.

“Fit for Future” addresses fields of action such as “digital transformation”, “university structures” and “new workplace concepts” – that does sound like a complete overhaul of the University. Are there already concrete measures or projects in these fields?

Leumann: None of us can know what the University will look like in 50 years. We are in the middle of a development, and the path will be part of the solution. The task now is to find ways of dealing with changing conditions and helping to shape them. Projects already launched in this direction should not be stopped but developed further. This will lead to a number of adjustments over the next few years, such as the design of the workplace of the future, which has already begun. But it is also important that we become aware of, and prepare for, the fact that things will not be the same afterwards as they were before.

Brönnimann: An organisation is most effective when it is simply allowed to do its work. A complete overhaul is therefore neither helpful nor sensible. However, where there is potential for improvement, we should realise it.

Digital transformation is already under way through UniBE’s “Digitalisation Strategy”. What exactly is happening in addition as part of the “Fit for Future” programme?

Brönnimann: Just because something is under way doesn’t mean it is moving fast enough. In other words, we now need to ensure successful implementation. At the academic level, we want to implement the “People in digital transformation” approach. This allows us to make use of the strength of a comprehensive university. The aim is to enable projects in research and teaching that address the topic in a way that achieves international recognition. On the administrative side, we are providing suitable infrastructure. To this end, the Digitalisation Strategy includes measures in 16 fields of action. In the “Fit for Future” programme, we ensure the necessary coordination with the other topics.

Leumann: The Digitalisation Strategy has two aspects. On the one hand, there is the IT architecture side, where we do not act entirely on our own. It also depends, for example, on the interfaces with our partners, such as Inselspital or the canton, each of which has its own IT infrastructure.

The second aspect is the question of how we as people generally embrace digitalisation in teaching, research and operations, and how we can shape it. We face challenges in the field of artificial intelligence and must prepare for how we deal with them. These questions are strategic, have an impact on teaching and research, and are being addressed in “Fit for Future”.

Digital transformation also requires a change in staff behaviour. Are there packages of measures not only to actively empower staff, but also to encourage a change in mindset in the context of digitalisation?

Brönnimann: One of the 16 fields of action of the Digitalisation Strategy is the digital empowerment of staff. In this context, we also want to encourage them to rethink. Digitalisation will also have consequences across hierarchies, because skills are widely distributed and not only found among managers.

Leumann: Digitalisation means cultural change, not only in the working environment but also in private life. Introducing digital transformation and the corresponding change in behaviour at the University will therefore not be a peculiarity of the University alone. Our staff feel the changes on both levels and are prepared for them to varying degrees. That is why we must try to bring them along on this journey and feed the resulting insights into the structural and operational side of the University.

Brönnimann: In summary, digitalisation has three levels. First, there is the infrastructure level: everyone gets a work laptop, and the phone on the desk disappears. Then this infrastructure has to be used – in teaching, in research and in administrative activities. The third level is, in my view, the most important: skills have to be built up. Students and researchers must be empowered to lead digital transformation projects, to view the topic as a field of research and to contribute to society by providing answers that society does not yet have.

According to the results of the workshop “Pain points / where there is sand in the gears”, the field of action “Rethinking university structures” is to be tackled and changed. What exactly does that mean?

Leumann: Take the example of cross-faculty professorships: inter- and transdisciplinarity is becoming increasingly important in world-class research. We already practise this in our strategic research centres. However, we find that outside the centres, transdisciplinarity requires complex cross-faculty coordination. When we hire new professors who work in medicine as well as in physics or computer science because their research focus requires it, we have no “home” for them; instead, they are split between two faculties. But the faculties are structurally independent of each other and work according to their own criteria. This is a challenge for those affected. We need to find good, sustainable solutions so that in future the academic units are not prevented by unnecessary barriers from focusing on teaching and research.

Brönnimann: Another problem is that academia is confronted with a steady increase in administration. If the organisation is highly fragmented, this problem is exacerbated. We need to free up teaching staff and researchers so that they can concentrate on their core activities again. At the same time, we must ensure that we have appropriate structures to lead and develop the University. There is also the question of how positions in academic self-governance should be filled. The focus here is primarily on the term of office, which is probably rather at the lower end today.

Numerous people have already been interviewed as part of the “Rethinking university structures” field of action. Who was included, and are there already initial results?

Brönnimann: Every function at the University was taken into account, from members of the Executive Board to deans, heads of departments and institutes, administrative specialists, people with management support tasks and many more. The interviewees were selected by the programme’s steering committee. All faculties, university constituencies, students and administrative and technical staff are represented on the committee.

Leumann: We are also keen to take a look at other organisations. The first step is to visit other universities in Switzerland and abroad that are currently undergoing, or have completed, a transformation. We don’t want to reinvent the wheel, but to find “best practices” that we can use as a guide.

Speaking of organisations abroad: to what extent will “Fit for Future” take into account the impact of the changing global political landscape on the University’s research, and what measures are being taken to ensure that the University can continue to be successful in this context? And how will further developments, such as UniBE’s participation in the ENLIGHT alliance, be incorporated?

Brönnimann: With regard to research, the field of action “Research in an international context” has been defined. The colleagues working on this topic must therefore give this aspect prominent consideration.

Participation in the European university alliance ENLIGHT was only decided after the workshop last summer. The consequences and opportunities arising from this step must now be incorporated into the programme. ENLIGHT is of great importance, and we are determined to make sure it is included.

Leumann: ENLIGHT is essentially an alliance of universities that focuses on the mobility of students and lecturers and on shaping the teaching of the future. The programme will also increasingly have a research component, as a research-intensive university must align its teaching with its research. In “Fit for Future”, we therefore need to identify the areas in which ENLIGHT plays an important role. If interdisciplinary teaching gains in importance, the university structures will probably also be affected.

One consequence of ENLIGHT could be that in future we no longer offer only classic bachelor’s and master’s programmes as they are designed today, but that there could be personalised degree programmes – probably mainly at master’s level – in which students acquire individually tailored skills. These are no longer limited to individual faculties but contain elements from two or three faculties or from other universities in the ENLIGHT alliance. Basically, these university alliances are real-world laboratories in which the next education reform – let’s call it Bologna 3 – is being prepared. We definitely want to be part of that, so that we are not later presented with a fait accompli.

The twelve fields of action of “Fit for Future” are highly interdependent or interlinked. How do you ensure that different directions are not being pursued?

Brönnimann: The client of “Fit for Future” is the Rector. All those responsible for the individual fields of action are accountable to him. The various measures and projects are implemented with the greatest possible autonomy and at their own appropriate pace. For example, we will probably move more slowly on the shortage of space than on digitalisation. But coordination must take place: twice a year we will report on the programme at the Executive Board retreat, so that coordination across all fields of action can take place. Finally, a programme coordinator with simple but rigorous reporting provides additional momentum for implementation.

The programme has a time frame of two years. Will the programme then be complete?

Brönnimann: It means that after two years we will stop the coordination and reporting measures and look at where further measures are needed to ensure long-term success. The programme will be finished in two years, but the work will not.

Leumann: Over the next few years, there will be a certain “constancy of change”. First, we want to define the problem areas and find options for action. Implementation will then take longer and will probably never be completely finished. We have to think about adjustments and changes all the time. That is why continuous further development and monitoring are being set up.

That sounds like a lot of change over the next few years. To what extent will the programme specifically affect the University’s students and staff? What should they prepare for?

Brönnimann: For students, “Fit for Future” will be reflected in more attractive programmes and teaching formats. But that takes time. All of us staff are affected, but we are also already in the midst of change. For example, the Modern IT Workplace project from the Digitalisation Strategy is changing how teams work and how data is stored and communicated.

Leumann: Staff have always experienced change and fundamental transformation. However, it is important to me to mention that we are not doing this exercise to cut staff. We want to be well positioned and, fundamentally, to position ourselves so that we can continue to live up to our aspiration of being one of the top universities in the world in the future.

If I am interested, can I get directly involved in “Fit for Future” and thus help shape the University?

Leumann: In principle, that is of course possible. But not everyone needs to have a seat on a project directly. People with wishes and ideas can raise them in their immediate working environment, because that environment will have a representative in a project group.

And what is personally important to you in this programme? How do you see the future of the University?

Brönnimann: Looking from the inside out, I think it is important that the University of Bern is and remains a place where people enjoy working, studying, lecturing, teaching, conducting research, providing services or carrying out administrative tasks. If we achieve the goal of the public seeing the University of Bern as an attractive place and employer, we will be well placed to still be here in 50 years’ time.

Leumann: Looking from the outside in, the University has a mandate to contribute to the development of society and prosperity. Current challenges such as global conflicts, climate change and medical care will still exist in 20 years. Artificial intelligence is also a topic with great disruptive potential. We have identified the frameworks of these and other challenges of the coming years. Now we are essentially doing nothing other than creating the best possible conditions in the University’s operations and structures to deal with these issues properly. After all, we don’t want to fail in the face of these challenges just because we didn’t do our homework properly.