Where should our university be headed?

Mr Luebkeman, what approach did you take to identify the relevant factors that are crucial to ETH's long-term success?
CL: We asked ourselves about the forces that will change the higher education landscape over the long term, and which of these forces will have the greatest impact on ETH Zurich's core activities in the coming years. We identified 60 of these driving forces, which we presented throughout ETH and to the general public, including in an exhibition in the main hall. The Executive Board selected 14 of these drivers that they think will have the greatest significance for ETH Zurich over the next twelve years. The drivers were then discussed across ETH so that we could understand their implications and derive priorities to match.

A thoroughly democratic approach. Were there a lot of responses during the consultation process?
CL: We indeed received hundreds of different types of feedback and were very pleased with how active the participation was – it shows how important people find these priorities. We examined each response individually, and many were well thought out and written with a view of the university as a whole.  These helped us to further refine the priorities. We explicitly see the institutional priorities not as research topics, but as cross-institutional issues that just about everyone in the ETH community can contribute to. 

Can you expand on the idea of cross-institutional issues?
JM: I think this point that Chris mentions here is very important. The institutional priorities concern topics that affect all areas of the university. Let's take the first point, “developing and promoting fundamentals." The first thing we all think of is fundamental research, a cornerstone of our success.   Looking to the future, we also want to remind everyone that it will require a collective effort to communicate the high value of this research to our stakeholders. On top of that we have the ETH values, which bring us together. This is also an area that needs to be maintained and developed.

How should the institutional priorities be integrated into everyday life at ETH?
JM: The document is designed as a management tool that should serve as guidance for internal decision-makers. For instance, for when departments formulate their strategies during routine evaluations, but also for us on the Executive Board when we make strategic decisions for our future direction. We're looking at a timeframe of twelve years or possibly longer.  For each priority, we’ve also established several guiding commitments. In contrast, the development plan is more concrete, laying out some specific plans for the next four-year period.

CL: Two positive examples come to mind. D-USYS integrated the institutional priorities into their departmental strategy even as they were still under development. And when we visited D-ARCH, department head Matthias Kohler demonstrated clear links between his department and the six priorities. In this way, both departments demonstrated how they fit into ETH's broader vision.

If the document is meant to serve as a guideline for strategic decisions, is there a qualitative assessment process to monitor whether these priorities are achieving their intended purpose?
CL: Rather than keeping track of whether decisions align with priorities, we're focusing on collective implementation across ETH. The examples from D-USYS and D-ARCH nicely illustrate how these priorities can have a meaningful impact.

JM: As President, I ultimately share responsibility with the Executive Board for keeping our decisions in line with the priorities that we’ve set out.  Most of the decisions we make have long-term implications. I think the priorities can also help ETH members understand the Executive Board’s decisions, which is why I urge everyone to familiarise themselves with them.