The New Era of Civil Engineering Faculties: Konvalinka and Šuhajda on the Challenges, Responsibility, and Role of Universities in Society
Two newly elected deans of the faculties of civil engineering at CTU in Prague and BUT in Brno are entering a period that will be crucial for the Czech construction industry. From modernizing education and pushing for digitalization to bridging the gap between academia and industry – their roles will have a significant impact far beyond the university environment. Construction is changing, and with it, the expectations of students, companies, and society as a whole.
What vision did you enter the office of dean with, and what do you think a modern faculty of civil engineering should look like in 2035?
Petr Konvalinka: My vision is very simple – to secure and complete the renovation of the faculty’s Building B, and to push through the accreditation of the Civil Engineering study program in a format of 3 years for the Bachelor’s and 2 years for the Master’s degree. The faculty should be managed in a modern way, with a smaller number of larger departments and workplaces. It should be economically more stable, with higher quality across all operations, resilient to external influences, respected in society, more internationalized, and possess an excellent international reputation.
Karel Šuhajda: I entered the office of dean with the vision that the faculty should be perceived in the future as an open, modern, and confident institution—one that is not closed off into itself, but naturally connected with practice, cities, and companies. At the same time, I want to build a faculty where people are not afraid to communicate, cooperate, and come up with new ideas that reflect current social and professional issues.
In 2035, I envision the faculty standing on three pillars: a high-quality technical foundation, digital competencies, and the ability to understand civil engineering in a broader context. A graduate will not just be a "structural designer," but someone who understands data, technology, sustainability, economics, as well as communication with investors and the public.
In my election program, I also used the symbolism of Monte Cassino. Not because of the history itself, but for the idea that great things do not happen chaotically. They require order, cooperation, responsibility, and clearly defined roles. I want the faculty to function as a well-coordinated team where everyone knows what their role is, what they are responsible for, and how their contribution adds to the shared result.
A modern faculty of civil engineering must also be much more flexible than it is today. The world is changing faster than before, and the university/faculty must be able to respond to that.
What does the term Construction 4.0 mean to you personally—is it a technological revolution, or rather a shift in mindset and processes?
Petr Konvalinka: For me personally, the term means a change in approach to both thinking and processes, which have so far been very conservative, often lacking ingenuity, and overly complicated. The construction industry has long needed such an impulse, especially in a situation where there is a shortage of both skilled and unskilled labor, while at the same time, there is a push to build even more intensively.
Karel Šuhajda: Technologies are, of course, important—and not just in construction—but technology alone is not enough. To put it simply, for me, Construction 4.0 is primarily a change in mindset.
Digitalization, BIM, AI, or automation hold immense potential, but real change will only happen when the way we cooperate, share information, and manage projects changes. The construction sector is still very fragmented and often operates conservatively. Yet, it is precisely coordination, working with data, and the integration of professions that determine the quality and efficiency of structures today.
On the other hand, it is important to show that Czech technical universities are already capable of working with highly advanced technologies. At our faculty, specifically at the AdMaS Research Centre, we have built one of the largest laboratories for 3D printing of building structures in Central Europe. We also focus on robotics, the use of robotic systems for building surveys, and the deployment of drones in diagnostics and structural monitoring.
It is precisely projects like the National Centre for Construction 4.0 that help create an environment where universities, companies, and research can truly connect and push the entire construction field forward.
Therefore, technology is not the end goal. It is a tool that can fundamentally improve the entire process, from design to building operation.
Are Czech civil engineering faculties the drivers of innovation today, or are they rather reacting to developments in practice?
Petr Konvalinka: I wish they were the drivers, but it doesn't look that way just yet. Although there is an effort to digitalize, automate… all of these processes, including robotization, take too long in the academic environment. However, with the advancing possibility of using artificial intelligence, there seems to be a significant shift in the speed of introducing innovation and change. But I do sense that companies are starting to understand that through greater cooperation with faculties, they can gain faster access to new technologies and processes.
Karel Šuhajda: I think it is both. In certain areas, faculties are genuinely the source of innovation and research, while in others, they react more to what comes from industry practice or from abroad.
However, we must admit that construction in general is not among the fastest-changing fields. This makes the role of universities all the more important. Faculties should have the courage to open up new topics before they become standard in practice.
I view the efforts to support technology transfer, the cooperation between universities and companies, and the greater emphasis on translating research results into practice very positively. In my view, bridging the gap between academia, industry, and investors will be key for the future.
Sometimes, though, there is a certain mismatch between what is important for university evaluations and what would help the Czech construction industry the most in real operations. In the future, I believe we will need to better balance high-quality science, applied research, and actual benefits for society and industry.
At the same time, it simply won't work without close contact with companies and real-world projects. The university must not lose touch with the reality of the construction market.
How fundamental a transformation should the education of a civil engineer undergo—what definitely shouldn't be missing today?
Petr Konvalinka: Greater interdisciplinary cooperation definitely shouldn't be missing. Narrowly specialized graduates are not as interesting to the construction industry as those who have interdisciplinary experience, know how to work in a team, and possess good theoretical and, above all, professional knowledge, alongside practical or even international experience. Good knowledge of a foreign language, especially English, as well as human resource management skills, should certainly not be lacking either.
Karel Šuhajda: The technical foundation remains crucial. A graduate must understand structures, materials, building physics, or structural mechanics. That won’t change. At the same time, however, I believe that a civil engineer’s education today must be substantially broader and prepare students much better for the real world.
Furthermore, future graduates should be more broadly oriented, language-equipped, and capable of operating in an international environment. Greater independence, the ability to take on responsibility, and knowing how to make decisions even in ambiguous situations are also important.
Teamwork is playing an increasingly major role. Modern construction projects do not come together in isolation today; they are a collaboration across many professions. Therefore, during their studies, students should learn to communicate, debate, and defend their opinions.
At the same time, the use of digital technologies, working with data, BIM, or artificial intelligence tools is becoming a matter of course. But it’s not just about mastering the software. The important part is to understand the principles and know how to use the technologies meaningfully.
And perhaps one thing that is sometimes forgotten—students should also gain a certain courage. The courage to come up with new solutions, not to be afraid of responsibility, and to have the drive to push things forward.
Should digital literacy (BIM, data management, AI) be a mandatory foundation for all civil engineering students?
Petr Konvalinka: Absolutely, yes. Our graduates cannot do without the ability to work with data; today, it is a complete given. Working in BIM will be a standard matter, and so will utilizing artificial intelligence tools.
Karel Šuhajda: Yes, unequivocally. Just as we take a knowledge of structural mechanics or building materials for granted today, in a few years, the ability to work with digital models, data, or artificial intelligence tools will be just as much of a given.
This does not mean that every graduate must be a programmer or a data analyst. But every civil engineer should understand the principles of the digital environment in which they will operate. Today, digital technologies permeate the entire life cycle of a building—from design through construction to facility and infrastructure management.
At the same time, however, it is important to remember that technology is merely a tool. Civil engineering is still built on technical thinking, experience, responsibility, and decision-making skills. Neither AI nor BIM will replace a high-quality engineer, but they can significantly expand their capabilities.
I also believe that schools should teach students not only how to use technology but also how to think about it critically. This way, they can understand its limits, its risks, and where it truly brings value.
Do you see a greater challenge in the digitalization of the field, or in its sustainability and decarbonization?
Petr Konvalinka: I am convinced that the challenge lies in all of these areas. Digitalization is a given, sustainability is a necessity, and decarbonization is a challenge for preserving the future. But we must approach all three areas with humility. Every small step forward is significant and can, in the end, help in perhaps unexpected ways.
Karel Šuhajda: I think these topics can no longer be separated today. Digitalization and sustainability are very closely linked and will increasingly intertwine.
If we want to effectively reduce the energy consumption of buildings, optimize material usage, manage building operations, or lower the carbon footprint, it simply won’t be possible without high-quality data and digital tools. Therefore, digitalization is not a competitor to sustainability, but rather its prerequisite.
At the same time, I perceive that the biggest challenge won't be the technology itself. The biggest challenge will be the shift in mindset. For many decades, construction was primarily set up for performance, cost, and speed of construction. Today, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must focus much more on the long-term quality of the environment, energy performance, the life cycle of structures, or the capacity to adapt to climate change.
Simultaneously, I believe we should guide students and the entire field to think more about the long-term operation of buildings and about the people who will actually use them. Sustainability is not just about materials or energy labels; it is also about whether a building will function well, be easy to maintain, and serve its purpose decades from now.
Sometimes I feel that this aspect is somewhat forgotten with certain modern buildings. Yet, a high-quality and truly sustainable structure must not only be technologically advanced but also practically operable, functional in the long run, and pleasant for its users.
And this is precisely where I see a massive role for universities. Not only to develop new technologies but also to train professionals who will be able to understand these changes in a broader context.
What does the construction industry expect most from your faculty today—and are these expectations being successfully met?
Petr Konvalinka: I think the construction industry primarily expects well-prepared graduates. And, of course, a sufficient number of them. That is a major problem. Although the demographics are currently more favorable in terms of the eighteen-year-old cohort, we face a sharp decline in three to four years. Furthermore, there is a strong reluctance to study demanding technical fields; many high school graduates prefer an easier path to an engineering degree by choosing less rigorous majors than traditional civil, mechanical, or electrical engineering.
So far, we haven't been very successful in meeting the construction companies' expectations regarding the number of graduates. Firms would be willing to hire up to three times as many. Unfortunately, the state is failing in this regard, and the political representation lacks the courage or ability to introduce tuition fees differentiation, or at least positive incentives for studying technical and scientific programs.
Karel Šuhajda: Today, the construction industry expects faculties to deliver graduates who can work independently, adapt quickly, and take on responsibility. Companies also frequently mention that they would need at least twice as many graduates as technical universities currently produce.
Alongside professional knowledge, qualities like diligence, communication skills, teamwork, the courage to make decisions, and the willingness to bear responsibility for those decisions are becoming increasingly important. Employers are very keenly aware of these traits today.
At the same time, we must admit that the student generation itself is changing—their work habits, expectations, and how they think about work and life are shifting. Universities must respond to this and seek new forms of teaching and collaboration with students.
Therefore, at our faculty, we try to react very dynamically to market demands, reflecting them in both the graduate profile and the curriculum itself. It is vital to us that during their studies, students don't just come into contact with theory, but also with real-world practice, companies, and current technologies.
Does the construction sector have a problem with attractiveness for young people? How can that be changed?
Petr Konvalinka: I don't think construction, and architecture in particular, have a problem with attracting young people. In fact, the current surplus of applicants for architecture programs signals that construction is attractive. Of course, this appeal can be further enhanced by highlighting the construction "boom," the career prospects in the field, the prestige of the engineering or architectural profession, and the earnings that graduates can reach in a relatively short time.
However, a problem may arise from an increasing number of students finishing their education with a Bachelor’s degree, being lured by construction firms to enter the workforce, and only completing their Master’s degree after several years of practice—perhaps through part-time study—or not finishing it at all.
Karel Šuhajda: Yes, I do believe that construction faces a certain issue with attractiveness today. And we need to talk about it openly.
Compared to some other fields, construction often involves more demanding working conditions—fieldwork across all seasons, a high level of responsibility, and significant workload pressure. Many professions also require very early start times, which doesn't offer the comfort or flexibility that younger generations are used to today. Home office is, by principle, much more limited in construction than, for example, in the IT sector.
Another issue can be compensation, which often does not correspond to the difficulty and responsibility that construction entails.
On the other hand, I believe that construction has an immense sense of purpose and social significance. It is a field that tangibly reshapes cities, infrastructure, and people's quality of life. And that is precisely what we should be showing the younger generation much more.
Simultaneously, we must modernize the industry—make greater use of digitalization, automation, robotics, or modern technologies that can fundamentally transform parts of the physically demanding labor. If we want to win over young people, we must show them that construction is not an industry of the past, but a highly modern and technologically exciting sector with a major impact on the future of society.
If you could change one systemic thing in the Czech construction industry that would accelerate its modernization the most, what would it be?
Petr Konvalinka: That's a tough question, but likely a significant reduction in the time it takes to secure a building permit—though, of course, not at the expense of lowering the standards of the permitting process. As for the construction itself, it would definitely be prefabrication. In the 1970s and 1980s, we were a powerhouse in prefabrication, but it was executed in a rather unfortunate way through the construction of massive prefab housing estates (paneláky). Today, however, prefabrication could contribute both to higher building quality and greater speed of construction.
Karel Šuhajda: If I had to name one fundamental thing, I would focus on simplifying and accelerating processes across the entire building permit procedure, while also ensuring greater stability in the environment in which construction operates.
The Czech construction sector today often runs into complex legislation, lengthy permitting processes, a massive amount of paperwork, and a certain fragmentation of responsibilities. This slows down not only construction itself but also frequently the introduction of innovations and new technologies.
At the same time, I believe we should give much stronger support to long-term cooperation between the state, universities, and industry. Czech construction has huge potential, but without a stable environment, a solid strategy, and greater support for applied research, modernization will be difficult to push forward.
And perhaps one more important thing—construction needs greater social prestige. Without high-quality people who want to work in the industry and bear responsibility, no modernization will work.
If you had to describe a civil engineer of the year 2035 in a single sentence, what would it be?
Petr Konvalinka: An educated, cultured, communicative, capable, proactive, flexible, creative, morally and ethically oriented, and well-off professional.
Karel Šuhajda: The civil engineer of 2035 will be a technically strong, digitally literate, and broad-thinking professional who can bear responsibility, collaborate across professions, and create sustainable solutions for a rapidly changing world.
