After completing my electrical engineering studies in Aachen, I did my doctorate in Munich. Shortly after that, I started my first job at Alstom in Switzerland. I worked there for 13 years – I started in the engineering department and ended up becoming the EMEA sales manager for hydropower plants. After that, I switched to TBF. It was a 180-degree change – in almost every respect. I went from an international environment, where people only spoke English, with specialists for each individual task and a correspondingly hierarchical structure, to a company that puts people first. TBF wasn’t quite as big back then. A lot of work was done using common sense decisions and didn’t call for clearly defined processes. My mindset was still very much shaped by the corporation setting and so I was very process-oriented. But at TBF, the focus was on common sense.

I actually joined TBF to bring structure to the acquisition process. My main task was to structure the commercial aspects such as sales management and key account management, and to establish some basic guidelines in that area. There were then various projects in this context where I was able to apply these skills. One of these projects was the ‘Zurich City university district’, which was essentially already a spatial planning project. So, I came from the strategic and commercial path to spatial planning via the ‘Zurich City university district’. Parallel to all this, I was later able to take over as head of the department for electrical engineering and process automation. So, I have a few different irons in the fire at TBF. 

Something we do very well at TBF is managing projects and bringing some structure to what, on the surface, seems like chaos. Of course, it helps to know what you’re talking about. But interestingly enough, this isn’t even essential. Just the ability to bring order to chaos, in a human way, is very valuable. This is also recognised by our customers, who often reach a point where they no longer see the wood for the trees. Especially in the public sector, resources are usually completely consumed by everyday tasks. Our customers are therefore grateful when we support them as a trusted advisor and help them to keep things moving.

Many of our customers who are having to tackle these kinds of complex projects – mostly in the field of spatial planning – do not come from the technical sector. Being involved in projects that are difficult to understand therefore isn’t part of their daily work. In engineering especially, breaking down complex issues into small individual parts, so that they’re easier to understand, is pretty much exactly what we do. The combination of solid technical expertise with excellent interpersonal skills is what sets many of my colleagues at TBF apart. And, to a large extent, it’s also what defines us. It’s definitely part of the TBF DNA.

Again, this is typical of TBF. Just like almost everything else here, our specialist areas were born of necessity. So we’ve never created a new area because somebody thought: ‘Hey, this is exactly what the market needs right now. Let’s rethink this and build it.’ Instead, we work on numerous projects, through which we develop various skills. We then bundle these skills together to form a new area, for example, ‘spatial planning’. We were actually involved in spatial planning long before we established it as a specialist area. Spatial planning has an impact on all of these ‘social priorities’. Wherever space is needed to realise a project – and that’s usually the case in the infrastructure business – spatial planning measures are required. Being aware of this also helps us to communicate with customers in a different way. So we don’t do things so differently to before, we just do it more consciously. Accordingly, we present issues clearly and use the formal spatial planning tools.

Counter question: why shouldn’t we achieve this balancing act by weighing up the different interests in the form of an evaluation? In the ‘Zurich City university district’ project, for example, we grappled with these very issues. The public sector likes to use a three-pillar sustainability concept of social, economic and environmental sustainability. Balancing all of these aspects is actually the really big challenge. It therefore has to be a question of weighing up interests. In this case, we held workshops with everyone involved in the project to decide which parameters fall under all the defined criteria and how we are planning to measure them. These parameters were then evaluated and the weighting was adjusted so that each of the three pillars was given roughly equal weight. We didn’t start evaluating the projects until we had agreed on weighting and distribution. It’s crucial not to adjust the evaluation based on the project needs, but instead to define the weighting first, and then see how the projects perform against one another. This allows us to quickly identify which projects will be dropped for various reasons and which ones won’t. In the end, this always requires a bit of interpretation, and it’s also especially useful when it comes to explaining why we have decided to expand certain projects.

This is the greatest challenge in spatial planning in general. The current Spatial Planning Act stipulates that space must be used economically. Residential areas – where buildings are actually allowed to be constructed – are strictly defined and can’t just be extended. That means we can only absorb growth by having more people live and work in existing residential areas. And there’s still a lot of potential for that. This could involve adding floors to buildings, for example. Plus, there are still free building zones available within the residential areas. The most important thing, however, and this was decided by the people, is that society has to be willing to support inward-oriented housing development. And that it’s all done at a high standard of quality.

Society in Switzerland is at a level where individuals can accept those kinds of decisions. In the political environment here, it’s customary for these decisions to be made by the people, so it’s nothing new for Swiss citizens. So, from a cultural perspective at least, no changes are needed. Direct democracy is very firmly established in people’s minds, along with everything that goes with it. At the end of the day, however, there is a legal framework, which sometimes only provides limited opportunities for people to have a say. In the case of larger projects that could well face significant opposition, people can take action via the relevant motions, initiatives or referenda. That’s why a participative approach is so important. It’s crucial to involve associations, political parties and many different sections of the population in this. Everyone should have a chance to express their opinion, and these opinions should really be listened to. We should then think about how we can take any objections into account in the planning process. That’s how to secure the necessary acceptance in society.

Sisslerfeld has long been zoned as a ‘working zone’ and may have potential as an area for establishing company sites. This area has a problematic plot structure. It contains many of what Swiss Germans would call ‘Hosenträgerparzellen’, literally ‘trouser braces plots’, so named because they are long and narrow plots of land. Historically, these plots have been good for agriculture, but not for establishing company sites. We’re dealing with 120 plots with over 40 landowners, including communities of heirs. There is a variety of landowners, ranging from the older lady who manages her three fruit trees, to large corporations such as Novartis, Syngenta and DSM, which are looking to expand locally. There is a wide range of stakeholders and the process of finding common ground between them is a very complex one. So, as a first step, the canton thought about why establishing company sites there had never worked out before – and it drew up an analysis. As a second step, the canton thought about what needed to happen in order for companies to successfully establish sites there. The canton then joined forces with the four municipalities and the regional planning association ‘Fricktal Regio’ and reached an agreement. It was decided that this area would be jointly developed, with the cross-border involvement of the town of Bad Säckingen and the Hochrhein Bodensee regional association, until it was ready to build and ready to market. There is actually a great deal of work behind those two terms. ‘Ready to build’ means that an area is fully developed, while ‘ready to market’ means that the area has so much appeal that companies are willing to invest locally. We’re talking about several billion Swiss francs in site establishment potential alone. In order to make the area both ready to build and ready to market, we initiated test planning in the project. As part of this test planning process, four parallel teams thought about how this area could look in 2040. These teams were made up of a range of specialists and were given six months to think about it. They then put their ideas down on paper, developed plans and models and presented the results to the project team in September of last year. Every team had to focus on every area of the project, even though each team had its own specialist area. This also greatly diversified the results. In the assignment, these ideas and concepts were developed as a greenfield project, as the experts didn’t have any direct connection to the region. This also had the advantage of ensuring the project was not dominated by political aspects. As the final step of the test planning, a synthesis team has now begun to develop an overall picture, a combination of the four ideas. This will also take into account local preferences and political circumstances. Then, on the basis of this overall picture, spatial planning tools will be developed, which will be legally binding for the authorities and for the landowners.

These things don’t happen overnight. 20 years is an ambitious goal. It will probably take longer than that. However, we want to start as quickly as possible. Our primary goal is to show the people affected all the potential benefits of the development. And not just the economic benefits. The area should remain an attractive place to live. That’s why the four municipalities are also playing a role in project management, monitoring the project closely and involved in all decisions. At the same time, however, we’re facing a situation in which there is already a working zone established in Sisslerfeld. According to the law, this zone has to be developed otherwise it will no longer be zoned. So if we don’t do anything, companies would still settle there, but without any kind of strategy. Perhaps sites would be established by companies that weren't wanted, or in a manner that wasn’t very appealing. So if standing still isn’t an option, the development should at least be managed in a way that ultimately benefits everyone. Guidelines need to be defined to ensure modest, healthy development. Development that benefits all of society and the entire region. Because it’s bursting with appeal, draws in new, high-earning international citizens or creates well-paid local jobs for future generations. Landowners also stand to benefit from the increasing value of the land. Companies will benefit from good connections to schools and public transport, as well as short distances to two airports including conurbations. Last but not least, the municipalities and the canton will also benefit from higher tax revenue.

I don’t think it’s a question of ‘either/or’. We need both. Before the test planning, we worked together with the cantonal planner to conduct a range of interviews with industries that are producing lots of start-ups, industries that do a great deal of research and development, and asked them: ‘What do you need? How do your innovations come about?’ They all had the same answer: ‘New developments happen in places where people come together.’ We need to create meeting places. The truly new and creative ideas come about in those places where people with different ideas, backgrounds and world views come together. What does that mean for Sisslerfeld? There, too, we need to make sure we have the right combination. Establishing life sciences sites in this area would be a goal, but it’s not essential. It would simply make sense as there’s a lot going on in that industry between Zurich and Basel anyway. However, there will certainly be room in this area for SMEs as well as suppliers to large corporations. Much like a recreational area, Sisslerfeld’s rural charm is also a very important element. The overall balance has to be just right.

Inform, inform, inform. And make sure that everything that’s considered can be understood by the local people. They can still be opposed to a project, but at least they’ll know what they’re talking about. The least effective option is to just go ahead with it and hope that everyone will understand it and give it the nod.