Why did you get involved in this working group?
ECP: In the Direction of Studies, professionalism and maintaining high standards are at the core of everything we do. As we interact with students daily, it is essential that we commit to excellence in our work to ensure the best possible experience for them. Being part of the Quality Assurance Working Group aligned perfectly with this commitment, allowing me to contribute to and reinforce the standards that shape the Graduate Institute.
PAF: In my case, in the Library, I was already responsible for the collection of annual statistics, the inclusion of indicators, and the development of the survey on visits offered to our students at the start of the new academic year in September. This is all part of the quality approach and it was, therefore, natural for me to represent my service in this group.
What do you like about this working group?
ECP: What I appreciate most about this working group is the opportunity to collaborate with colleagues who also share a commitment to excellence. The flexibility of our discussions allows for open and constructive dialogue, ensuring that everyone’s perspectives are valued. Additionally, the group provides valuable insight into the work of various departments — insight I might not otherwise have the opportunity to gain.
PAF: I agree. The diversity of the people involved is a plus. Most departments are represented, as well as the student associations. This multifaceted collaboration is stimulating and reminds me in some ways of the Common Language project I was involved in a few years ago.
What were the main challenges you faced?
ECP: Finding my place within the group and fully understanding our roles and responsibilities took time. Through open discussions and good collaboration, this all became much clearer. Additionally, despite the importance of this working group, it remains relatively invisible to the rest of the Institute, which can sometimes make it challenging to highlight the impact of our work.
PAF: In fact, it was not easy for the organisers to set up a solid structure and define the rhythm of the meetings. You have to understand that this time is taken away from our daily work. But once the foundations were laid, our tasks became more concrete and motivation grew. And it is true that the most difficult part remains making quality attractive to all target groups.
What progress has been made?
PAF: Some inspiring exchanges of experience have taken place between departments. Notably, the Immobilier service conducted its first survey in 2024, gathering valuable data on the quality of life in the Institute’s student residences. Last year, the Human Resources carried out a job‑satisfaction survey, followed by working groups that analysed the results and proposed solutions to address identified weaknesses. We have also compiled an activity report to summarise the actions undertaken throughout the year.
ECP: In my sector, discussions regarding the course evaluations have been progressing, and it’s clear that changes are on the horizon. The Annual Report marks a key milestone in ensuring that our work is recognised, and I hope it will contribute to the broader goals of the Institute.
What have you learnt or developed from this experience?
ECP: I have definitely gained a deeper understanding of the importance of quality assurance within an academic institution such as the Graduate Institute, particularly regarding its implications for the accreditation process. This experience has helped me appreciate how important it is to maintain high standards for the Institute's success and reputation.
PAFF: For me, too, and in terms of teamwork, it has stimulated the search for creative ways of communicating to attract attention and convey key messages.