Prof. Dr. Hans Weder, President Quality Management at the University of Zurich

Prof. Dr. Hans Weder, President

Quality Managementat the University of Zurich

Basis

Mission Statement

• 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.

The University of Zurich ...

Basis

9.957

12.174

9.937

14.566

10.452

1.771

3.5954.661

23.817

2.023

6.407

12.552

0

5

10

15

20

25

BS BE FR GE LS LU NE SG ZH USI EPFL ETHZ

Students at Swiss Universities (WS 2005/06)

Basis

In 1998, the University of Zurich became an autonomous legal entity with a global budget.

Legal Form

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

Basis

leadership

competence

Autonomy and Governance

Basis

Autonomy

→ obligation to self-organization on all levels

→ obligation to report on the success of self-organization

Significance of Quality Assurance

evaluation:

success factor in the competition among universities

Basis

• 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

Instruments of Quality Assurance

CompetitiveAllocation of Funds

Competitive Allocation of Funds

• 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

Fundamentals


Third-party Funds at UZH (Mio. CHF)

020406080

100120140160180

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


strategic part promotion of projects set up by more than one

university or faculty

competitive part promotion of young researchers

Research Fund („Forschungskredit“)


Research Fund 2001-2006:Applications and Grants

2001 2002 2003 2004

applications MeF,VSF,MNF

grantedThF,RWF,WWF,PhF

grantedMeF,VSF,MNF

250

200

150

100

50

0

2005 2006

applicationsThF,RWF,WWF,PhF

73

2348

28

72110

42

105

36

108

39

105

82

3227

94

34

121

27

145

38

41

62

28

300


248

123

266

159

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2004 2005

applications

granted

Projects of UZH supported bythe Swiss National Science Foundation

Appointments

Appointments 2000-2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

other

AP SNF

AP tenure track

assistant prof.

associate prof.

full prof.

Appointments 2000-2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

total

female

Germans

from othercountries

Appointments 2000-2005 (without SNF)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

3. list position

2. list position

1. list position

The Evaluation Processat the University of Zurich

Evaluation at the University of Zurich

• 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).

Objectives


University Law UZH (Universitätsgesetz)

§ 4: Die Universität trifft Vorkehrungen zur Sicherung der Qualität von Forschung, Lehre und Dienstleistungen.

Legal Base (I)


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.

Legal Base (II)


Evaluation Office

Board of the University

Extended Executive BoardSenate

Executive Board of the University

Evaluation Office (I)


Evaluation Office (II)

Personnel

• Director (Professor) 60%

formal affiliation: ETHZ

• Managing Director: 100 %

• Project Managers: 400 %

• Secretary: 80 %


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)


• self-evaluation report• experts’ report• comprehensive evaluation report• recommendations to Executive Board• Follow-up• information of the public / Monitoring

Procedure (I)

necessary precondition:scientific approach to evaluation


Procedure (II)

re-evaluation (6 years after signing agreement on objectives)

Informed Peer-review

Evaluation Office

Monitoring

Evaluation Office

Follow-up, Agreement on

objectives

Executive Board


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

Self-evaluation


Site Visit by Peers

External Peers

Administrative andTechnical Staff

Professors

Students

Assistants, Research Associates Ph.D. Students

Postdocs

Lecturers


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

Comprehensive Evaluation Report(Evaluation Office)

Follow-up

Follow-up

• agreement

between the Executive Board of the university

and the evaluated unit on measures to be

taken in consideration of the results of the

evaluation

• implementation

of measures by the evaluated unit

Objectives

• 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)

Procedure

Follow-up

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

Third parties (I)

Follow-up

Faculty• comments on available resources• Dean participates in the Follow-up meeting

Third parties (II)

Follow-up

• intensify research• focussing• promotion of young researchers• improve internal / external cooperation• clarify structures (Central Services)• formulation of mandates („Leistungsaufträge“,

Central Services)

Focal points of past agreements on objectives

Follow-up

Conclusion:

Experience gained withEvaluations at the University of Zurich

Conclusion

• 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.

Strengths

Conclusion

• 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.

Weaknesses

Thank you for your attention.

Documents

Prof. Dr. Hans Weder, President Quality Management at the University of Zurich