The combination we call mens et manus, the “mind and hand” of MIT’s Technology-Enhanced Active Learning project, the projects and experience are what has always characterized education at the MIT.
Being guided by short-term results does not generate innovation. … Creative freedom is the long-term nexus. Therefore, we make sure that there is time for creating. It’s part of our economic model.
—Israel Ruiz
Israel Ruiz is Executive Vice President and Treasurer of MIT—the institution’s Chief Financial Officer—and an officer of the MIT Corporation. He holds a master’s degree from the MIT Sloan School of Management and a degree in industrial engineering from the Polytechnic University of Catalonia. Before joining MIT he worked as an engineer at Hewlett-Packard and at Nissan Automotive.
Adolfo Plasencia:
Israel, thank you for agreeing to this conversation.
Israel Ruiz:
Delighted.
A.P.:
One of the most outstanding characteristics of MIT is its ability to remain at the forefront of disruptive innovation, as well as cutting-edge research and, obviously, excellence in training.
From your viewpoint, and given your experience as MIT’s Financial Director and Treasurer, what are the basic practical mechanisms and the finance and resourcing models, in both the short and the long term, that you need to ensure that continuity?
I.R.:
I believe that the mechanisms themselves are well founded because, when we finance the organization’s operations, which today amount to $3.2 billion a year, of which 50 percent are earmarked for research, what we are doing is ensuring people’s stability. We try to guarantee professors’ and researchers’ stability and through them their work groups’, as in the final analysis it is they who make possible the innovation and disruption you mentioned, and the excellence in education we are renowned for. The essential function of our financial planning, therefore, is to try to ensure and safeguard as much as possible the stability of people and not so much of projects, because projects change and are financed in another way, normally with federal funding. Our funds are mainly aimed at people.
A.P.:
Let’s talk about balancing the growth of your institution. Some time ago, I received a message signed by the provost, Martin Schmidt, and you inviting the MIT community to the debate forums on the extension to the northeast of your campus, in the Kendall Square area, as part of the MIT 2030 framework.1
How is the rate of growth at the MIT thought out, and how do you achieve the correct balance in economic growth?
I.R.:
One of the things we are known for is our twenty-year development plans. We began the 2030 project, curiously enough, during the economic crisis of 2008. That was perfect timing for thinking about the long term, because we weren’t going to build in the short term, were we? So we developed the framework with a twenty-year vision, and now we are building next to Kendall Square, on the East Campus of MIT and the Kendall MBTA area, where we hope to combine physical space and people by adapting the infrastructures of the campus to people’s needs.
How do we ensure economic sustainability? Well, by maintaining the number of professors that we employ. What works well at MIT is a model based and centered on team dynamics. We have around a thousand professors, 1,018, to be precise, and we know that each work team is going to grow at its own pace; that is, when the professor enters, he or she is going to organize and develop a work team together with his or her students. If the professor is successful with his or her team, it will grow until it reaches a predetermined limit. We understand perfectly well how this model operates, although the mechanism is obviously different, depending on whether it involves mathematics, economics, or quantum physics. But we are absolutely clear about the model.
We ensure MIT’s growth by sustaining the rate of professor replacement and by controlling the growth in the number of professors, which, over the last ten years, has been very little, less than 1 percent a year. That’s what our economic stability is based on. We don’t grow more than we can. We don’t contract more people than we can afford. What we do is adapt laboratories, classes, and infrastructures and see where the projects and the professional lives of our professors, researchers, and educators are going. Then we try to adapt the physical model, obviously involving a much longer timescale, to that.
Now we are trying to promote the maximum interchange of innovation between large companies, small companies, associated and unassociated research centers, and the schools and centers of the MIT campus. For example, we are going to set up a five-year project within this framework called the nanofacility of the future, for working with nanomaterials. It is a service center that involves more than seven hundred MIT professors. Of the 1,018 professors at MIT, seven hundred are working on issues related to nanomaterials, and we are going to create the nanofacility for them.
A.P.:
I am also interested in “MIT’s envisioning of the future that does not yet exist.” In the MIT 2030 plan, you try to envision the future development of the institution, its campus, and the broad outlines of its activity over the forthcoming twenty years.
Tim Berners-Lee, who worked at MIT CSAIL in Building 32 of the Ray and Maria Stata Center on the campus, is an example of what I mean. Twenty-five years ago he invented the Web, which is now used by more than two billion people all over the world. That was unimaginable twenty years ago. With your horizon of 2030, could something like that happen again, something of great consequence that does not exist now?
How do you go about tackling that long-term period toward a reality that is as yet unknown, where most things that you’re going to dedicate your time to don’t even exist at the moment?
I.R.:
You’re absolutely right. Let me give you some key ideas. The 2030 plan we don’t in fact call a plan. We call it a “framework,” and it is a working framework. We specifically call it that because a plan with a two-decade vision would almost certainly be a mistake. So, when we are drawing up a working framework, we develop guidelines. We try to define several principles by which we are going to be governed over that period. And those principles obey the vision, the culture, and how MIT imagines that future.
The key idea is flexibility: flexibility of space and of ideas to ensure the existence of spaces that connect people. Tim’s project, which gave rise to the Internet, had a clear connectivity principle: it was intended to connect people. It could not be guaranteed, nor could the current massive use of the Internet be predicted, but it did have that clear principle. And just as that project had it, so do many others. In fact, the social networks of today are another giant example of connectivity.
We are trying to develop buildings and infrastructures that “connect,” that promote connectivity between people. We’re clear about that. Our building work is going to closely accompany all that. Another point on the way we undertake things is that we never commission pharaonic buildings; we build incremental ones that give us room to maneuver.
But first several principles must be drawn up on which everyone agrees. The email you received was precisely to invite people to participate in that process, to give their opinion or to complain about what is wrong, and to tell us what it is they want from those spaces. From there we will embark on a process of synthesis. This is part of our daily routine. Every process that we face we tackle in this way.
A.P.:
Let’s talk about adaptation. Darwin said that it is not the most intelligent who survive in changing conditions but those that best adapt themselves to those changes. The technological revolution of recent decades has brought about almost unbelievable changes. For the last five decades, MIT has continued to be the best university in the world in engineering and technology in all the rankings. This suggests you have adapted very well to changes in technology.
But what mechanism do you employ for adapting to an ever-changing reality, like that of the last half century?
I.R.:
I think we have three mechanisms. Everyone at MIT will tell you something different, but I’ll give you my opinion.
The first mechanism is that, in an institution of cutting-edge education where research is the central part of that education, we receive an influx of new talent on a grand scale every year. It brings in students, who come in their thousands. We have students who have just started university as well as postgraduate students who come with their needs, but also their very up-to-date way of looking at things. The professors have a longer time cycle with a much longer-term view of their careers. When they enter, tension is created with the students, who are perhaps far less expert but who bring with them much fresher and more up-to-date ideas, although perhaps of a short life span. This tension induces ideas and generates adaptation of what interests the professor or what he or she will be interested in in the future. That dialogue is fundamental to our model. And it is also fundamental that the dialogue is on familiar terms, not as father to son but as mentor to student, between two equals.
A.P.:
Peer to peer, you mean?
I.R.:
Exactly, peer to peer. I have always liked that in an institution: that an idea, even though it may be from a freshman, a first-year novice, will always be listened to from the other side of the table. We do, in fact, have many examples of ideas generated by first-year students that have really advanced knowledge in the project group of their professor. It’s one way that a source of adaptation is guaranteed.
The second mechanism is that every year, even during the economic crisis, we contract fifty professors. Of the 1,018 professors that we have, fifty new ones enter every year. After seven years fewer than half remain. That’s how the process of tenure operates in the United States. And those years are the hardest ones in their entire professional career. Their work, merit, and impact are evaluated. Over those years those fifty professors from all over the world inform and adapt their departments to everything concerning the new trends they bring with them.
And the third mechanism, perhaps the most important, is that all this is done in a very chaotic manner; the organization does not interfere. It occurs on an individual basis. The individuals go their own way, stating where it is they want to go, as the department that manages them needs that guideline. Each head of department, who normally has a professional cycle of five years—professors rotate in that post—undergoes an evaluation every two years by a visiting committee. It’s like an advisory council. Every department has one. The committee is renewed every two years and is answerable to the corporation governing MIT.
The main aim of this visiting committee is to assess the state of a department in terms of professors, students, and discipline and to ensure that the department’s future strategic plan is up-to-date and is well adapted to needs and related industries. This is guaranteed by the makeup of those committees, which include academics, industrialists, and corporations. They have no direct relationship with MIT but come to us and, over a few days, give us their critical opinion of how we are operating. We don’t really want to know what we are doing right but what we could be doing, not what we are doing. This provides us with a perfect opportunity every two years to assess how we are currently doing and if we are heading in the right direction.
A.P.:
Something that I think is innate at MIT is exploring new forms of education. It’s part of the institution’s DNA.
In your EmTech España paper, delivered in Valencia, you spoke about MOOCs, the massive open online courses, in which MIT was a pioneer, with its MITX initiative, which it later developed, in collaboration with Harvard University, into the edX initiative.
How did you approach the economic model so that it would be sustainable? How did you do it, bearing in mind that, in a MOOC, dozens and even hundreds of thousands of students have registered? Do you think that MOOCs are just another incremental step, or are they a disruptive innovation that will change the economy and traditional approach to education?
I.R.:
We’re still at the beginning, aren’t we? I think that a priori, MOOCs have the ingredients and possibilities to be a disruptive educational technology, either those that now exist or are yet to be seen. Today we are still at the outset, still setting them up, but I see MOOCs as an opportunity for our mission, which has always been adapted to advancing knowledge, disseminating that knowledge and educating students in areas of science and technology associated with design, architecture, the humanities, and management.
On the one hand, there’s this combination we call mens et manus, the “mind and hand” of MIT’s Technology-Enhanced Active Learning project, with the projects and experience that are typical of education at MIT.2 However, this education is still difficult to achieve online. On the other hand, we believe there is opportunity to experiment and see what can be done online today, and how we can improve access to information and knowledge.
MOOCs today present a unique opportunity to be able to educate more people and better on our campus. They can have much more of an impact on society, and, at the same time, educate many more people throughout the world, on a different level perhaps, and without the attendance element, but with content that we personally believe is really very useful for a lot of people. That was the main reason for creating them.
Moreover, in terms of the economic model, MOOCs could be totally disruptive if they turn out to be massive and more than 100,000 people join in, even if it’s only to learn and not to receive a qualification. The person who is being educated does not necessarily have to pay. Take, for example, a company that wants to educate its engineers who have been working in the same place for ten years, and it is in the engineers’ interest because they are distributed worldwide and the company wants to educate them well and efficiently. This may benefit our processes, as perhaps it will provide us with a sustainable model and in that way provide total access without any restriction to every student in the world.
A.P.:
That would make your campus the entire world.
I.R.:
Yes, the entire planet could be our campus, as far as information and knowledge are concerned, although not in terms of mentorship and apprenticeship, of teamwork and learning certain complex skills. There are some things that can only be done on our physical campus, in contact with the kind of professor we have and participating in the kind of student groups we have. This is always going to be the case. At present, technology still does not allow us to have that degree of interaction, does it? In a sense, that is why you and I are here now undertaking this dialogue. We could have done it on Skype, but it would certainly have been a different type of interview.
A.P.:
That’s true.
I.R.:
We know the economic sustainability of that kind of training is going to be difficult to achieve if we overload the student with great economic expense. That is not going to be our model because we want the widest access possible. There is the possibility that the student pays us if he or she wants a certificate, but there are also other opportunities for people who only want to participate in an educational training platform, and perhaps this MOOC platform is the answer for them.
A.P.:
You have to try. …
I.R.:
Yes, everything has to be tried. This is also part of our DNA, don’t you think?
A.P.:
Trial and error. …
I.R.:
Exactly.
A.P.:
You said in a conference paper that thinking about things in the short term is a mistake. Do you believe that to be so?
I.R.:
Yes. What I mean is not that that thinking in the short term is an error. In fact, thinking in the short term is more than necessary, but one has to think in the short term within a context of a long-term idea. There have to be long-term guidelines.
Being guided by short-term results does not generate either the disruptive innovation or certain other characteristics that we are seeking to pursue. The short term tends to be a much more incremental and less disruptive process, so context is essential. Dealing with the short term and being up-to-date is necessary. You fall apart if don’t handle the short term well.
A.P.:
Yes, but combining it with freedom is very difficult.
How does creative freedom operate at MIT?
I.R.:
That’s a tricky question indeed. I firmly believe that creative freedom is the long-term nexus. One thing we make sure of is that there is time for creating, without limits or intrusions. This has worked well for a number of decades now. We believe in it and continue to operate in that way. It’s part of our economic model.
A.P.:
Another dialogue in this book was conducted with Hal Abelson, one of the most widely respected professors and humanists at MIT. The dialogue is titled “Pillars of MIT: Innovation, Radical Meritocracy, and Open Knowledge.”3 There is a sentence in the description of the MIT 2030 framework that I am interested in, as it echoes Abelson’s definition: you want “to keep the innovation engine running well into the twenty-first century.”
How do you think that Abelson’s definition translates specifically in your day-to-day activities?
Is it perhaps that the driving force that moves MIT is an engine whose fuel is innovation? And if it is, what is that engine like, and how does it work? Is it an “anxious” motor, like a Ferrari, a steady engine, or one that at times idles?
I.R.:
Hal’s a genius at synthesizing things. I think the principles that he describes connect very well with MIT, which, in the final analysis, safeguards people. They are the ones who ensure the principles that Hal defines as the pillars of the institution, although each one of us may express it in a different way. The search for truth, sharing and opening up knowledge—all this forms part of the character of the people who make up our community. We look, of course, for meritocratic value in people, but above all in relation to ideas. Meritocracy and also the best ideas gain through the process of many people collaborating.
I would say that our driving force or engine, as well as being “anxious,” has other, different constants than a good engine. We need an anxious motor to be able to go fast and really innovate in things that may be radically different. We need it to be steady for activities that require a longer-term process.
A.P.:
Innovation would be one of those principles, I imagine.
I.R.:
Innovation is a main ingredient. It may be said that it is the gas for our engine. However, I think that what really drives us is our impact on the world. That may be an innovation, a social advance, or a positive change in the world. That, for me, is a fundamental factor through which the engine and the people of MIT move. Clearly, there is a cause-and-effect relationship between innovating and making an impact.
A.P.:
Another idea from the MIT 2030 framework is that of “an iterative, inclusive and intelligent process.” This reminds me of what the neuroscientist Alvaro Pascual-Leone said in his dialogue about how the human brain operates: the brain is changing itself all the time.4
Does this happen at MIT?
And also, how is it that a huge and complex body like yours behaves as a single “intelligent entity”?
I.R.:
That too is a difficult question, although perhaps it may not seem so at first sight. We start from the assumption that MIT is a community made up of intelligent individuals. That is true, but the product of that community does not automatically have to be that of an “intelligent community.” I’ll give you an example. You could have many ants, each one doing its own thing, and you would have a community. When the ants get together, align themselves and work together, they create architectural structures that are so complex we do not even know exactly how they work. This process of community in which we talk of iterations, the inclusiveness of the process linked to that of your earlier question, to merit, is to a certain extent the secret of leadership on whatever scale. The question is how to direct intelligent bodies, each one innovating and pursuing challenges in its own discipline, and how to channel and galvanize that in order to institutionally achieve and finally fulfill our ten-, twenty-, or thirty-year challenges.
A.P.:
Again, what you said about ants reminds me of another metaphor that is mentioned in the dialogue with the philosopher of science Javier Echeverria.5 It is that of “anthill intelligence.” As he pointed out, there is not enough DNA in each ant to be able to organize the immensity of the whole anthill. It’s a mystery. It is unknown what, but there has to be something that establishes and maintains that order and ensures the intelligent functioning of the entire anthill for the survival of the community. This is one of the mysteries of intelligence that we are trying to reflect on in this book and is directly related to what you have said.
I.R.:
It’s exactly that. It is the same metaphor. The behavior of the intelligent group is something that requires a lot of guidance, discussion, and dialogue. And for that reason, in the end, maintaining ourselves through these principles of discussion, transparency, and dialogue provides us with the most important competitive advantages.
A.P.:
You mean that just as the intelligence of the anthill is a mystery, you also combine pragmatism and mystery?
I.R.:
Yes, pragmatism; and also mystery, it’s true. Obviously, it’s very complex. If I had to really analyze how we move our community, well, all I can tell you is that it involves a lot of work and time, as well as enthusiasm for speaking and listening, sharing, not making senseless decisions, believing. …
A.P.:
And believing in it.
I.R.:
Yes, believing firmly in it, of course.
A.P.:
Thank you very much, Israel. Thanks for your time and ideas.
I.R.:
It’s a pleasure.