Implementation of the Experts’ Recommendations of the 2010 Intermediate Evaluation

As requested by the evaluation mandate, the ETH Board reports “on the extent to which the experts’ recommendations made in the 2010 intermediate evaluation were implemented. If a recommendation was disregarded, reasons for this should be given.” In its response to the 2010 expert report, the ETH Board has identified 24 recommendations put forward by the committee, some of them, however, being identical in scope and content.

All recommendations have been carefully taken into account by the ETH Board as well as by the ETH Domain institutions concerned, and have been thoroughly examined. Most recommendations have been implemented. In six cases, however, examination of the recom- mendation and the first steps undertaken prompted the ETH Board to decide against further implementation. Appendix 3 presents the relevant information on the follow-up and the status of implementation for each recommendation, including explanations in the case of the recommendations that have been disregarded.

Four recommendations that have not been implemented, however, will be addressed in the present chapter. The numbers attributed to the individual recommendations both in this chapter and in Appendix 3 refer to the numbers structuring the ETH Board’s Response to the Peer Report on the 2010 Intermediate Evaluation.73

Branding (Recommendation 1c)

In the 2010 intermediate evaluation, the peers suggested that the ETH Domain should “strive for a Domain branding for Switzerland while respecting the strong international brands of the partners.” As the ETH Board stated in its response to the Peer Report, a process destined at creating a common brand for the entire ETH Domain had been launched in 2009. After intensive work, including an internal consultation process within the ETH Domain institutions on a concrete proposal of the ETH Board, it was decided to discontinue the branding project in December 2012. As the ETH Board’s final report on the performance period 2008-2011/12 states, the following steps have been undertaken in the meantime:

– In summer 2009, the ETH Board decided to further develop a project that would allow the ETH Domain institutions to maintain their strong individual brands, which will be supplemented by a common by-line referring to the Domain (“endorsed brand model”). – Between 2009 and 2010, a “Communications Framework for the ETH Board and the

ETH Domain” analyzed and documented potential solutions, including the view of stake- holders, politicians and media, and drawing also on the international perception of the ETH Domain.

– As mentioned by the ETH Board in its response to the Peer Report of 2010, five fields of action for reinforced communication were designated, one of which focuses on the development of a common brand.

Retrospective and Outlook

73 _{This document can be found, for instance, on the website of the State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation}

Intermediate Evaluation 2015 Self-Assessment Report of the ETH Board 152

Retrospective and Outlook

– Subsequently, and despite the reservations expressed within some institutions, the ETH Board together with representatives of the ETH Domain institutions has developed a common brand. The brand has been protected internationally.

– During 2012, a formal consultation (as requested by the ETH Act) was held within the ETH Domain. This consultation was also addressed to internal bodies – such as the University Assemblies of ETH Zurich and EPFL or the Internal Appeals Commission – who had not yet been involved in the previously confidential process.

– The consultation revealed that both Federal Institutes of Technology were – for different reasons – opposed to the proposed brand. At its meeting in December 2012, the ETH Board discussed the results of the consultation in detail. Based on the results of the consultation, it acknowledged that no consensus between the diverging needs and positions of the ETH Domain institutions could be reached.

– On these premises, balancing the interests and chances of success, and in light of its current priorities, the ETH Board decided to abandon the ETH Domain branding project.

Nomination of an International Advisory Board (Recommendation 2a)

– As announced in its response to the Peer Report, the ETH Board studied the options for establishing an international advisory board. It considered the possibility of constituting a small board comprising members of existing advisory boards at the individual institutions who are familiar with the ETH Domain.

– However, such international advisory boards and/or research commissions exist at ETH Zurich and EPFL as well as at the Research Institutes and are considered most valuable for the individual development of these institutions.

– After examining this option, the ETH Board therefore came to the conclusion that an advisory board additional to the ETH Board would result in unnecessary and potentially conflicting redundancies.

– Furthermore, the periodic evaluations with international expert panels of entire institutions or their units – as performed by the institutions on a regular basis – were considered to be much better positioned for providing the intended international perspective.

– The institutions are required to bring these evaluations to the attention of the ETH Board, which gives the ETH Board valuable insights into the appraisal of the institutions' activities and strategies with regard to their international positioning.

– Therefore, the nomination of an additional international advisory board has not been pursued by the ETH Board.

Nominating the Chair of the International Advisory Board as a Regular ETH Board Member (Recommendation 4a)

– Closely linked to the considerations presented in recommendation 2a) above, the ETH Board concluded that chairing an advisory board and at the same time acting as a member of the ETH Board would generate a workload that would make such a function unattractive for high-caliber individuals.

– The members of the ETH Board spend at least ten days at regular meetings and six days in the annual dialogs with the institutions of the ETH Domain.

– A (national) Board member who would have to chair the international advisory board would have to spend additional time for this function. If that member were to be an inter- national member, the substantial amount of travel time would put an even larger burden on him or her.

Intermediate Evaluation 2015 Self-Assessment Report of the ETH Board 153

Retrospective and Outlook

– This view has been confirmed by the experience of trying to appoint an international regular member of the ETH Board. The search of such a regular board member had to be terminated as it became clear that potential candidates considered they would have to spend too much time travelling just in order to be able to attend the regular board meetings. – Given the conclusions drawn with regard to the nomination of an international advisory

board and taking into account this experience, the ETH Board has deemed it inappropriate to follow up on the appointment of an international board member (even if this member were not to be considered as the chairman of an international advisory board).

Own and Manage Real Estate and Facilities (Recommendation 4b)

– As stated in its response to the Peer Report, the ETH Board welcomed this recommendation and took up “the issue of working towards the long-term goal of transferring real estate into the ETH Domain in its Action Plan for 2011”. Hence the advantages and disadvantages of a transfer of ownership of real estate were carefully assessed by the ETH Board. In parallel, negotiations with the Swiss Confederation as the owner resulted in substantially improved flexibility in the usage of the Confederation's real estate within the ETH Domain:

– The ETH Board’s competency has been extended, allowing the transfer of up to 20 % of the budget for investments to the “Finanzierungsbeitrag”, i.e. the Confederation's financing contribution covering operating expenses.

– The ETH Board was further granted the option of transferring credit to the following year if needed, plus the possibility of re-investing revenues from real estate sales and applying alternative financing models involving private parties.

– Considering these substantial improvements, the ETH Board decided in December 2011 to put further attempts to transfer ownership of real estate to the ETH Domain on hold. In doing so, it also sought to avoid the significant disadvantage of assuming liability and other potentially costly duties incumbent upon a real estate owner.