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

2. Basis

3. 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...

4. Basis 9.957 12.174 9.937 14.566 10.452 1.771 3.595 4.661 23.817 2.023 6.407 12.552 0 5 10 15 20 25 BSBEFRGELSLUNESGZHUSIEPFLETHZ Students at Swiss Universities (WS 2005/06)

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 and even necessary for a university self-orientation (internally, externally) self-management as a principle of ruling and organizing science Significance of Autonomy

7. Basis leadership competence Autonomy and Governance

8. 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

9. 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

10. Competitive Allocation of Funds

11. 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

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 2001200220032004 applications MeF,VSF,MNF granted ThF,RWF,WWF, PhF granted MeF,VSF,MNF 250 200 150 100 50 0 20052006 applications ThF,RWF,WWF,P hF 300

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

16. Appointments

17. Appointments 2000-2005

19. Appointments 2000-2005 (without SNF)

20. The Evaluation Process at the University of Zurich

21. 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

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

23. Evaluation at the University of Zurich 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)

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

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 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

28. Evaluation at the University of Zurich 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

29. Evaluation at the University of Zurich Retrospective on last five years and 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

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

31. Evaluation at the University of Zurich 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)

32. Follow-up

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

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

37. 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

38. Conclusion: Experience gained with Evaluations at the University of Zurich

39. 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

40. 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

41. Thank you for your attention.