Prof. Dr. Hans Weder, President

1. Quality Managementat the University of Zurich Prof. Dr. Hans Weder, President

2. Basis

3. Mission Statement • The University of Zurich ... • is devoted to scientific research and teaching; it also provides services for the benefit of the public; • is committed to academic excellence and strives to achieve the highest international standards; • places high value on the reflection on the consequences of science; • promotes free discourse and cooperation between the various disciplines; • is committed, as the largest university in Switzerland, to the diversity of academic knowledge and pursues the full range of relevant disciplines.

4. Basis • Students at Swiss Universities (WS 2005/06) 25 23.817 20 14.566 15 12.174 12.552 9.957 10.452 9.937 10 6.407 4.661 5 3.595 2.023 1.771 0 BS BE FR GE LS LU NE SG ZH USI EPFL ETHZ

5. Basis • In 1998, the University of Zurich became an autonomous legal entity with a global budget. • Legal Form

6. Basis • science: bottom-up approach •  autonomy is appropriate andeven necessary for a university • self-orientation (internally, externally) • self-management as a principle of ruling and organizing science • Significance of Autonomy

7. leadership competence Basis • Autonomy and Governance

8. Basis • Significance of Quality Assurance • Autonomy • → obligation to self-organization on all levels • → obligation to report on the success of self-organization • evaluation: • success factor in the competition among universities

9. Basis • Instruments of Quality Assurance • competitive allocation of funds (Forschungskredit) • careful recruitment of staff (science and administration) • periodical evaluation of all academic and administrative units • promotion of young researchers • supervision of students, student surveys

10. CompetitiveAllocation of Funds

11. Competitive Allocation of Funds • Fundamentals • excellence should be honoured • Instruments: • quota of third-party funds accepted as an indicator of success • competitive promotion of projects • results of evaluations do not automatically influence allocation of funds

12. Competitive Allocation of Funds • Third-party Funds at UZH (Mio. CHF)

13. Competitive Allocation of Funds • strategic part • promotion of projects set up by more than one university or faculty competitive part • promotion of young researchers • Research Fund („Forschungskredit“)

14. Competitive Allocation of Funds Research Fund 2001-2006: Applications and Grants 300 applications MeF,VSF,MNF 250 200 applications ThF,RWF,WWF,PhF 150 100 grantedMeF,VSF,MNF 50 grantedThF,RWF,WWF,PhF 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

15. Competitive Allocation of Funds Projects of UZH supported bythe Swiss National Science Foundation

16. Appointments

17. Appointments 2000-2005

18. Appointments 2000-2005

19. Appointments 2000-2005 (without SNF)

20. The Evaluation Processat the University of Zurich

21. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Objectives • Assess, assure, and improve the quality of academic work in research, teaching, and services as well as assure the quality of management and administration. • Provide decision aids to support medium and long-term strategic planning. • Report to the public (accountability).

22. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Legal Base (I) • University Law UZH (Universitätsgesetz) • § 4: Die Universität trifft Vorkehrungen zur Sicherung der Qualität von Forschung, Lehre und Dienstleistungen.

23. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Legal Base (II) • University Statutes UZH (Universitätsordnung) • Creation of an Evaluation Office • Regulations for Evaluations • Mission Statement UZH • The University monitors its activities in research, teaching and services, as well as its own management, by means of regular evaluation.

24. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Evaluation Office (I) Board of the University Evaluation Office Senate Extended Executive Board Executive Board of the University

25. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Evaluation Office (II) • Personnel • Director (Professor) 60% • formal affiliation: ETHZ • Managing Director: 100 % • Project Managers: 400 % • Secretary: 80 %

26. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Evaluation Office (III) • Projects • about 115 evaluation projects within six years • continuous planning • Costs • 0,14 % of the University’s budget(including third-party funds)

27. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Procedure (I) • self-evaluation report • experts’ report • comprehensive evaluation report • recommendations to Executive Board • Follow-up • information of the public / Monitoring necessary precondition: scientific approach to evaluation

28. Evaluation Office Executive Board Evaluation Office Follow-up, Agreement on objectives Informed Peer-review Monitoring re-evaluation (6 years after signing agreement on objectives) Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Procedure (II)

29. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Self-evaluation • Retrospective on last five yearsand future perspectives • structure and organization • human, financial, and material resources • management and administration • research and teaching • promotion of young academics/scientists • services • internal quality assurance measures • profile of strengths and weaknesses

30. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Site Visit by Peers Professors Administrative andTechnical Staff Lecturers External Peers Students Postdocs Assistants, Research Associates Ph.D. Students

31. Evaluation at the University of Zurich • Comprehensive Evaluation Report(Evaluation Office) • is based on … • self-evaluation report • experts’ (peers’) report • responses of unit under evaluation • bibliometrical analysis • surveys (students, alumni, academic staff, personnel, customers) • course evaluations

32. Follow-up

33. Follow-up • Objectives • agreementbetween the Executive Board of the university and the evaluated unit on measures to be taken in consideration of the results of the evaluation • implementationof measures by the evaluated unit

34. Follow-up • Procedure • Executive Board proposes measures • Follow-up meeting with the evaluated unit • agreement on objectives • evaluated unit works out concepts • Executive Board approves concepts • implementation • monitoring after 2 years (evaluation office)

35. Follow-up • Third parties (I) • Board of the University • discusses the results of an evaluation • can give hints about measures to take • is informed about the Follow-up meeting and the agreement on objectives

36. Follow-up • Third parties (II) • Faculty • comments on available resources • Dean participates in the Follow-up meeting

37. Follow-up • Focal points of past agreements on objectives • intensify research • focussing • promotion of young researchers • improve internal / external cooperation • clarify structures (Central Services) • formulation of mandates („Leistungsaufträge“, Central Services)

38. Conclusion: • Experience gained withEvaluations at the University of Zurich

39. Conclusion • Strengths • Evaluations find acceptance. They forge identity in the units under evaluation. • They foster communication and transparency – within the university and with strategic and political authorities. • They uncover strengths and weaknesses (and the mere announcement of a pending evaluation can in part contribute to performance improvement). • They are indispensable for structure and development planning.

40. Conclusion • Weaknesses • Evaluation and implementing the results of the evaluation require a lot of work and are time-consuming for all participants. • If human and equipment resources are found to be insufficient, the funds required can not always be secured from the university or the state.

41. Thank you for your attention.