NEASC Progress Report - October 2011 - Ecole Hôtelière de ...

Institutional Accreditation 

of the 

Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne 

Lausanne, Switzerland 

by the 

New England Association of Schools and Colleges 

Commission on Institutions of Higher Education 

FOcuS AREAS 

Planning and Evaluation: Strategic Planning & Evaluation 

Organisation and Governance: Faculty & Academic Leadership 

The Academic Program: General Education & Assessment of Student Learning 

Faculty: Research & Faculty Scholarship 

Integrity: Grievance 

Progress Report 

Lausanne, 30 september 2011

TAbLE OF cONTENTS 

Institutional characteristics Form 

Introduction 

Institutional Overview 

1. Planning and Evaluation 

1.1 I Strategic planning 

1.2 I Evaluation 

2. Organization and Governance: Faculty & Academic Leadership 

2.1 I The Faculty council in the organizational structure 

2.2 I The role of faculty 

2.3 I Academic Leadership 

3. The Academic Program: General Education & Assessment of Student Learning 

3.1 I General education 

3.2 I Assessment of student learning 

4. Faculty: Research and Faculty Scholarship 

4.1 I Research, Faculty profile and Evaluation of Faculty 

4.2 I Faculty support resources 

5. Integrity: Grievance 

5.1 I Grievance 

Abbreviation list 

List of appendices 

Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne I NEASc Institutional Accreditation - Self Evaluation Progress Report 3 

p. 4 

p. 8 

p. 10 

p. 13 

p. 14 

p. 19 

p. 25 

p. 26 

p. 29 

p. 31 

p. 35 

p. 36 

p. 40 

p. 47 

p. 48 

p. 51 

p. 55 

p. 56 

p. 59 

p. 61

INSTITuTIONAL chARAcTERISTIcS FORm 

This form is to be completed and placed at the beginning of the self-study report, even though this is a progress report: 

Date : 09/30/2011 

1. corporate name of institution: Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne 

2. Date institution was chartered or authorized: 1893 

3. Date institution enrolled first students in degree programs:1998 

4. Date institution awarded first degrees: 2002 

5. Type of control: 

Public 

State 

city 

Other: (Specify) 

4 

Less than one year of work 

At least one but less than two years 

Diploma or certificate programs of at least two but less 

than four years 

Associate degree granting program of at least two years 

Four- or five-year baccalaureate degree granting program 

Private 

Independent, not-for-profit 

Religious Group (Name of church) 

Proprietary 


6. by what agency is the institution legally authorized to provide a program of education beyond high school, and what 

degrees is it authorized to grant?: 

• NEASc => Associate, bachelor, master; 

• Organe d’Accréditation et d’assurance Qualité des hautes écoles suisse (OAQ) – bologna bachelor, consecutive 

master, EmbA, continuing Education 

7. Level of postsecondary offering (check all that apply) 

8. Type of undergraduate programs (check all that apply) 

Occupational training at the crafts/clerical level (certificate 

or diploma) 

Occupational training at the technical or semi-professional 

level (degree) 

Two-year programs designed for full transfer to a baccalaureate 

degree 

Liberal arts and general 

9. The calendar system at the institution is: 

Semester Quarter Trimester Other: 

First professional degree 

Master’s and/or work beyond the first professional degree 

Work beyond the master’s level but not at the doctorate 

level (e.g., Specialist in Education) 

A doctor of philosophy or equivalent degree 

Other doctoral programs 


Teacher preparatory 

Professional 

Other: Four year undergraduate program leading to a 

bachelor of Science in International hospitality management 

10. What constitutes the credit hour load for a full-time equivalent (FTE) student each semester? 

a. undergraduate – bachelor: 18.4 credit hours (Quarter hours) 

b. undergraduate – Diploma: 22.0 credit hours (Semester hours) 

c. Graduate 20.0 credit hours (Semester hours) 

d. Professional Not Applicable (NA)

11. Student population: 

Degree-seeking students: 

12. Number of students (headcount) in non-credit, short-term courses: 

uNDERGRADuATE GRADuATE TOTAL 

Full-time student headcount 1755 30 1785 

Part-time student headcount NA NA NA 

FTE 1755 30 1785 

ExEcuTIvE EDucATION PROGRAmmES 

N° OF ENROLmENTS TO DATE 

(August 2011) 

Winter Programme 2011 66 

Summer programme 2011 107 

corporate management Programme 2011 9 

Spa Programme 4 

Tailor-made Programmes 2011 560 

Total 746 

13. List all programs accredited by a nationally recognized, specialized accrediting agency. 

PROGRAm AGENcy 

NA 

Programs not accredited through uS recognized 

specialized agencies, but through Swiss OAQ (see 

point 6 previous page) 

AccREDITED 

SINcE 

LAST 

REvIEWED 

NExT 

REvIEW 

NA NA NA 

bachelor Suisse Agency: OAQ 2008 2003 2016 

EmbA (mhA) Suisse Agency: OAQ 2013 NA 2013 

14. Off-campus Locations. List all instructional locations other than the main campus. For each site, indicate whether 

the location offers full-degree programs or 50% or more of one or more degree programs. Record the full-time equivalent 

enrollment (FTE) for the most recent year. Add more rows as needed. 

FuLL DEGREE 50%-99% FTE 

A. In-state Locations None NA NA 

b. Out-of-state Locations None NA NA 

15. International Locations: For each overseas instructional location, indicate the name of the program, the location, 

and the headcount of students enrolled for the most recent year. An overseas instructional location is defined as “any 

overseas location of an institution, other than the main campus, at which the institution matriculates students to whom 

it offers any portion of a degree program or offers on-site instruction or instructional support for students enrolled in a 

predominantly or totally on-line program.” Do not include study abroad locations. 

NAmE OF PROGRAm(S) LOcATION hEADcOuNT 

None NA NA 

Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne I NEASc Institutional Accreditation - Self Evaluation Progress Report 5

16. Degrees and certificates offered 50% or more electronically: For each degree or Title IV-eligible certificate, indicate 

the level (certificate, associate’s, baccalaureate, master’s, professional, doctoral), the percentage of credits that may be 

completed on-line, and the FTE of matriculated students for the most recent year. Enter more rows as needed. 

17. Instruction offered through contractual relationships: For each contractual relationship through which instruction 

is offered for a Title IV-eligible degree or certificate, indicate the name of the contractor, the location of instruction, the 

program name, and degree or certificate, and the number of credits that may be completed through the contractual relationship. 

Enter more rows as needed. 

18. List by name and title the chief administrative officers of the institution. 

(See table on the following page.) 

19. Supply a table of organization for the institution. While the organization of any institution will depend on its purpose, 

size and scope of operation, institutional organization usually includes four areas. Although every institution may not 

have a major administrative division for these areas, the following outline may be helpful in charting and describing the 

overall administrative organization 

(See page 11). 

20. Organization of academic affairs, showing a line of responsibility to president for each department, school division, 

library, admissions office, and other units assigned to this area 

(See page 33). 

6 

NAmE OF PROGRAm DEGREE LEvEL % ON-LINE FTE 

None NA NA NA 

NAmE OF cONTRAcTOR LOcATION NAmE OF PROGRAm DEGREE OR cERTIFIcATE #OF cREDITS 

None NA NA NA NA

chIEF INSTITuTIONAL OFFIcERS 

FuNCTION OR OFFICE Name Exact Title 

Year of 

Appointment 

chair board of Trustees marco Torriani President, board of Governors 2001 

President/cEO michel Rochat General Director 2010 

Executive vice President Samuel Salvisberg Deputy Director to the General Director 2000 

Chief Academic Officer Fabien Fresnel Learning & Research Director 2011 

Deans of Schools and colleges 

Arlette Walther DhR Program Director 2000 

Samad Laaroussi bachelor Program Director 2011 

Jean-François Reinhard AP coordinator 2011 

christina Tavares AP coordinator 2011 

hillary murphy Professor / mhA co-Director 2011 

Ines Ghorbal Professor / mhA co-Director 2011 

Chief Financial Officer christian michelet Finance Director 1999 

Chief Student Services Officer Emeline Weber Student Services manager 2011 

Planning (operational) carole hughes Planning & Administration manager 2011 

Institutional Research Stephen Raub Deputy Dean 2011 

Learning & Research projects Pierre Ihmle Deputy Dean 2011 

Assessment Gwenaël Iynedjian Quality Director 2006 

Quality - Accreditations Gwenaël Iynedjian Quality Director 2006 

Development Ray Iunius business Development & marketing Director 2011 

Library Luisa Rossi manager Library 2001 

Chief information Officer maxime medina IT Director ad-interim 2011 

continuing Education yateendra Sinh cEO – Lausanne hospitality consulting 2003 

Grants/Research Steffen Raub Deputy Dean - 

Admissions Lucila Perez-molo Admisssions & Recruitment Director 2007 

Registrar Lucila Perez-molo Admissions and Recruitment Director - 

Financial Aid Damien Dellea Senior Academic counselor 2011 

Public Relations Annick barbezat communication manager 2008 

Alumni Association matthew crudgington Alumni Network manager 2010 


INTRODucTION 

Message from the Director 

As the list of the School’s Chief Institutional Officers shows, the management team which has been responsible for EHL 

since spring 2011 is in large measure newly recruited, and brings with it a new vision, attuned to the educational market 

and to the Swiss universities of Applied Sciences network. before taking up my own position in June 2010, I myself had 

been a member of the board of Governors since 2002, and so was informed of developments, yet on arrivaI I was still 

thrilled to feel the buzz of the School’s energy and creativity. Since then there has also been some turnover in the faculty, 

in particular as a result of the rationalization of our course offerings and the reorganization of the Learning department, 

under the Academic and Research Director. There, too, major developments are under way, with the prospect of adding 

the possibility of a PhD program, in cooperation with another university institution, to the bachelor, Diploma and master 

programs. 

The student body also continues to evolve and to grow, with no loss of quality. EhL currently has a head-count of (1800), 

from some 90 countries, and in uncertain economic times demand shows no signs of slackening, even from parts of the 

world where the global downturn is most marked. The School is gearing up to cope with so many applications, and in 2013 

will return to having two intakes per year for the bachelor program, in February and September, so as to spread the load. 

by 2020, all being well, we believe that total enrollment could reach 3’000, with facilities to match. 

Internationally, in particular through our network of certified schools in different continents, the EHL brand, like Swiss 

watches or the Swiss Army knife, continues to exemplify five-star quality: with each successive class of graduates, the 

likelihood that a hotel “under Swiss management” will be run through our diaspora of alumni seems to increase. The 

stream of eminent visitors who find their way to Le Chalet-à-Gobet from foreign embassies, ministries of education and 

tourist offices, like the local Swiss public who come on Open Days, all point to a sustained, indeed a still higher, level of 

interest, not least from those with an eye on a growth industry that in many countries still appears to be almost immune 

to recession. 

Otherwise, the most conspicuous changes in the School are those to its infrastructure, already superb, with the construction 

of new offices, of modular design, a greatly extended auditorium, or Aula, and an enlarged Food Court restaurant, 

both opened a month ago. New, state-of-the-art kitchens and more, cutting-edge IT are now operational, with new access 

roads and other improvements in the pipeline. 

It would be idle to pretend that in the last year such rapid changes have made for plain sailing. under similar circumstances, 

a certain amount of strain and stress is inevitable, whatever the institution. The School’s long-standing deficit 

in internal communication – now, I truly believe, in the process of being resolved – did incur a cost in human terms, in 

motivation, which with greater sensitivity might perhaps have been avoided or mitigated. Fortunately the start of an exciting 

academic year has largely got everyone back on track. 

In terms of our compliance with NEASc Standards and with the recommendations made by the previous visiting Team, 

however, certain Focus Areas have fallen short, despite our best efforts, as this Report plainly shows. There are a variety 

of reasons for this, including the difficult situation which the new management inherited. The School nonetheless 

continues to place great value on the commission’s guidelines and indeed intends to make more explicit use of NEASc 

Standards than hitherto. 2012 will no doubt be a busy year, but I have every confidence that the new organization now in 

place has the potential for high achievement and will deliver the goods. 

We know from past experience that our visitors in November will bring with them sound advice and penetrating insights. 

We shall treat these as a precious resource, for in due course they will translate into components of the School’s development 

program, as we hope to show in the self-study due in 2013. In sum, we eagerly look forward to making the Team’s 

acquaintance. If in the meantime we can help in any way, for example by providing more information, we shall naturally 

be delighted to do so. 

michel Rochat 

8

Self Study Process 

The process of preparing the present Focused Report was launched in early 2010 and coordinated by the Quality Director 

who started to centralize all issues and actions linked to accreditation at that date. A small working group was created 

to review the status of the NEASc accreditation and requirements. This group was composed of EhL quality director, and 

external quality assurance experts. 

The focus areas highlighted by the cIhE in its letter of 30 June 2009 were presented to the general Director in August 2010 

and a synthesis presented to the cDIR in December 2010. 

Early in January 2011, a project group was created to manage the self evaluation process and project groups were also 

created for each focus area: 

Project manager 

Quality Director – Gwenael Iynedjian 

Project group 

Quality Director, Gwenael Iynedjian; External experts: xavier Realini, marion Amez-Droz; Drafting and editing: Rosemarie 

André, merrick Fall; Logistics: Odile Tornare 

Project Steering Committee 

School management committee (cDIR), Gwenael Iynedjian, xavier Realini 

Project sub-groups: 

• Strategic Planning: cDIR, xavier Realini 

• Evaluation: xavier Realini, Gwenael Iynedjian, marion Amez-Droz 

• Governance – Faculty: members of Faculty committee (cFAc), two other faculty members, Project Group 

• Governance – Academic Leadership: Academic & Research Director, Deputy Dean, Project Group 

• The Academic Program - General Education: Director of bachelor of Science in International hospitality management 

(bSc) program, Project Group 

• The Academic Program – Assessment of Student Learning: Director of bSc program, Project Group 

• Research – Deputy Director of Learning and Research, Head of Academic Support, Scientific Committee, 

• Project Group 

• Grievance – Director of human Resources, mediation committee, Project Group 

In April 2010 the outline of the Report in terms of Focus Areas was approved by cIhE, and formal drafting began in may 

2011. 

Work for each subject area was divided into three aspects: description of the current situation, assessment of the current 

situation and projection for future developments. 

Drafts were written on an interactive basis and reviewed by each project group; the final version was reviewed by the 

faculty group as well as the cDIR and formally approved on 9 September 2011 by the cDIR. 

Informal and formal communication about the content areas and the process was conducted in the first part of 2011 with 

the Faculty council as well as with the Student council. Several announcements and presentations about the accreditation 

visit were made in August and September 2011. 


INSTITuTIONAL OvERvIEW 

In her letter of June 30, 2009 to Director General Ruud Reuland, upon accepting the School’s 5-year Interim Report, cIhE 

chair Elsa m. Nunez outlined a number of areas to be addressed in a further Progress Report for submission in Fall 2011. 

This report, wrote the chair, should emphasize EhL’s progress in: 

• “articulating action plans and monitoring progress in achieving the vision developed in Strategy 2012; 

• continuing to support faculty in exercising a substantive voice in the design and evaluation of academic programs, 

faculty selection and development; 

• clarifying how both academic and administrative leadership will be assured as part of succession planning; 

• developing and implementing program evaluation and revision processes based on regular assessment of student 

learning, included in general education; 

• Providing a regularized process to handle complaints and grievances.” 1 

The present report responds to these concerns, Standard by Standard, in the chapters which follow. Each is divided, 

where applicable, into the usual pattern of Description, Assessment and Projection. 

First, however, it is gratifying to be able to report that EhL continues to thrive, both in terms of student enrollment and 

financially, and that the development of its infrastructure, already excellent, is ongoing. 

Like the School’s Focused Report of February 2006, EhL’s Interim, 5th-year Report of September 2008 was dominated by 

the need to manage rapid institutional change, in particular from the old to the new bachelor programs. The Introduction 

stated: “…the pace of development and change of the School has indeed not slackened”, and the report went on to 

comment (p.33) that “The educational landscape in Switzerland can evolve rapidly, which requires institutions to stay on 

their toes.” This proved to be a prescient remark, for in 2010 the same could be said: while its mission remains the same, 

EhL is seeing further sweeping changes, not only in its leadership, at different levels, and its orientation within the local 

academic scene but also in its approach and even its philosophy. 

Legal and political context 

Such developments have proved indispensable if the School’s strategy is to be properly implemented and its objectives 

met. The change is driven by the prospect of the new Swiss Federal legislation on higher education (Loi sur l’Aide aux 

hautes Ecoles, LAhE), expected by 2016, which will align teaching and research in institutions such as EhL more closely 

with the practice of full universities. The effects of the new law will be little short of revolutionary. At present higher education 

in Switzerland is divided into four separate categories; the two Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, of Zurich and 

Lausanne; the traditional universities, such as Lausanne and Geneva; the universities of Applied Sciences (hES/hautes 

Ecoles Spécialisées), of which EhL is one; and universities of Teacher Education (hEP/hautes Ecoles Pédagogiques). 

Each category has its own characteristics, modalities and regulations, but is also subject to the 26 sets of cantonal legislations. 

This often results in a maze of overlapping constituencies, procedures, prerogatives and constraints. The objective 

of the federal authorities is now to simplify and rationalize these regulations as well as put in place a more effective 

system of coordination in order to obtain better control of the governance of higher education. There will be common 

objectives, implemented together. 

To be eligible for funding, all institutions must be accredited – using standards based on the European Association for 

Quality Assurance in higher Education (ENQA) model - by the Swiss centre for Accreditation and Quality Assurance 

(OAQ). In this context, EhL’s special status, with its global reach, will of course be preserved, though exactly how and to 

what extent remains to be seen. 

EHL now faces a level playing field. If it wants to preserve its traditional position in the forefront of progress, the School 

must be ready. In some areas, indeed, such as the development of master’s programs and research, the current objective 

is to align EhL with the best practices of other institutions of higher education. 

1. NEASc Letter – 30 june 2009 

10

New leadership 

In early 2010, General Director Ruud Reuland announced that after eight years at the helm he would stand down in June. 

In his place, the board of Governors appointed one of its own members, mr. michel Rochat, who had been responsible for 

oversight of all hES institutions in the state administration of the canton de vaud. As often occurs with new leadership, 

he brought with him a new vision of the School’s development. 

Key achievements 

Strategic planning 

The strategic planning process initiated during Fall 2010 resulted in a strategic plan for 2012-2020 which was validated 

by the board of Governors on 19-20 August 2011 – see strategic planning process part 1.1. 

The new strategic plan is focused on two main priorities, to finalize the transition in the School’s strategic positioning 

from professional to higher education, and to increase the number of students. 

Internal restructuring 

To achieve its objectives, the General Director and cDIR set in train a series of adjustments, resulting in a new organizational 

chart (see Appendix bellow), which was presented to the staff during spring 2010. The management committee 

(cDIR), reporting to the board of Governors, now consists of: the General Director, mr. michel Rochat; the Learning and 

Research Director, mr. Fabien Fresnel; the Director of Development & marketing, mr. Ray Iunius; the Director of Operations 

and Administration, mr. Remi Walbaum; and the Director of Finance, mr. christian michelet. The major changes 

were made to the Learning department and are described under Standard 3.3 on Academic Leadership. 

The main objectives of this new organization are to bring faculty to the center of the institution, develop operations according 

to the highest professional standards, and reinforce the interface with the hospitality industry and the alumni 

network. 

Executive Assistant 

Odile Tornare 

Stefania Siconolfi 

Operations and 

administration Direction 

Rémi Walbaum 

Learning & Research 

Direction 

Fabien Fresnel 

General Director 

Michel Rochat 

Business development & 

Marketing Direction 

Ray Iunius 

Deputy to General 

Director 

Samuel Salvisberg 

Human Resources 

Direction 

Chris Mason 

Finance Direction 

Christian Michelet 


Key challenges 

The Visiting Team will find a School which faces a key milestone in its development within higher education. The allembracing 

task is to complete the shift from a professional school model, with long hours of instruction in the classroom, 

towards a model comparable to a fully-developed institution of higher education. Actions are to be taken on several different 

fronts: strategic planning, internal organization and processes, research and continuous training, and program 

assessment. 

In sum, addressing these issues constitutes an important challenge for the School community, students, faculty, and 

staff, with a considerable impact on the strategic positioning and image of EhL. 

Appendices 

• NEASc Letter (30 June 2009) 

• Projet de Loi fédérale sur l’aide aux hautes écoles et la coordination dans le domaine suisse des hautes écoles 

(LAhE) (29 may 2009) 

• Accreditation of the universities of applied sciences : Quality standards for institutional accreditation : Points of reference 

(march 2011) 

12

1. PLANNING AND EvALuATION 


1.1 I STRATEGIc PLANNING 

STANDARDS 

Standard 2.3 

“The institution plans beyond a short-term horizon, including strategic planning that involves realistic analyses of internal 

and external opportunities and constrains. It plans for and responds to fi nancial and other contingencies, establishes 

feasible priorities, and develops a realistic course of action to achieve identifi ed objectives. Institutional decision making, 

particularly the allocation of resources, is consistent with planning priorities.” 

Standard 2.4 

“The institution has a demonstrable record of success in implementing the results of its planning.” 1 

FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSION 

Report from the visiting team January, 2009 

(…) “We understand that, as the institution continues to implement its strategic plan, Strategy 2012, steps are under way 

to articulate objectives and action plans which will enable the institution to monitor its progress in achieving the goals 

of the plan. We look forward to learning about EhL’s progress with this aspect of its planning process as part of the Fall 

2011 report. 

The process described in the interim report and confi rmed through discussions on campus refl ects several effective 

characteristics. The strategic plan presents a rational assessment of the environment in which the school operates, including 

recent shifts within the hotel industry and increasing competition from related sectors. The fi nancial condition of 

the school has continued to improve since the 2003 review and, concurrent with the planning process, allows for adequate 

marshaling of resources to allow for implementation of selected strategies. A series of key performance indicators developed 

in partnership with an external consultant offer promise as the school improves its capacity to monitor progress 

toward the achievement of its strategic goals. however, the nascent status of this aspect of the planning effort makes it 

premature to draw conclusions about its effectiveness. 

There is also evidence that an important gap in the planning process is being remedied. currently, there is a disconnect 

between the high level strategic axes identifi ed above and the specifi c nature of performance indicators. The school is in 

the process of refi ning a series of objectives that will form the basis of an action plan for pursuing the strategic axes. Once 

fi nalized, these objectives will provide a better strategic area. This additional layer of clarity will allow for a substantive 

review of the performance indicators to ensure that they are adequately aligned with strategic directions and institutional 

objectives.” 2 

(…) “Interestingly, the development of the strategic planning document was not characterized by the same sense of faculty 

or campus engagement and infl uence, despite occurring after the commissions were underway. Instead, it appeared 

to be the product of the General Director in consultations with the cF. While the General Director has explained that the 

document was informed by the background work of the commission for the program design, it is still striking in its lack 

of the participatory process expected of institutional planning processes in contemporary colleges and universities.” 3 

(…) “Communication within the school community needs immediate focus, strategic thinking, and attention. Ineffective 

internal communication was a common thread of frustration and acknowledged shortcoming across the various 

groups on campus. It is clear from the array of high quality publications, creation of the International Advisory board, 

and relationships with the industry, for example, that the school has a long-standing strength in external relations. The 

current defi ciency in internal communications argues for organizational or structural attention to this gap which left unaddressed, 

may undermine the school’s considerable effort in program innovation and faculty, student, and staff morale. 

much as external communication has dedicated staff oversight, the school may wish to designate internal communication 

as an explicit part of an administrative portfolio. In this way, communication would be centralized and coordinated, 

rather than viewed as an afterthought or less pressing priority among Program Directors and others immersed in the 

operational details of their initiatives. Such centralization would allow for a more strategic orientation toward the tone, 

1. NEASc Standards - 07.01.2011 

2. NEASc-cIhE Team Report 2009, pages 6 & 7 

3. NEASc-cIhE Team Report 2009, page 7 

14

timing, and content of messages about important initiatives at the school. 

In summary, EHL has the opportunity to strengthen communication and information fl ow and to provide regular and 

transparent opportunities for faculty and others to exert infl uence and contribute input (as distinguished from decisionmaking 

authority). These enhancements may improve faculty acceptance, support, and understanding of the overall 

institutional strategic vision through greater participation in the development of the school’s road map for the future. 

This, we believe, is crucial in EhL maintaining the momentum it has built up and in building on the foundations it has laid 

through considerable hard work for continued development.” 1 

CIHE letter of 30 June 2009 

(…) “That the School submits a report for consideration in the Fall 2011 that gives emphasis to the institution progress in: 

Articulating action plans and monitoring progress in achieving the vision developed in Strategy 2012.” 2 

The chapter related to the strategic planning is organized into four parts: 

• Description of strategic planning 

• Assessment of strategic planning 

• Projections regarding strategic planning 

• Appendices. 

1.1.1 I DEScRIPTION OF STRATEGIc PLANNING 

The description of strategic planning includes two parts: 

• Strategic planning 2008-2012 

• Strategic planning 2012-2020. 

Strategic planning 2008-2012 

To recapitulate, since 2007 the School’s strategic plan has rested on the pursuit of six strategic axes, consisting, fi rst, of 

three mission-related aspirations: 

• maintaining a leadership position in hotel management development 

• Providing fi rst-rate training programs, which combine the arts and science of hospitality 

• Fostering knowledge creation and innovation. 

To these are added three commitments needed to achieve them, namely to securing appropriate: 

• human resources 

• Infrastructure 

• Financial resources. 

Strategic plans run through a 4-year cycle (1st January 2008 to 31st December 2011). At the time of this writing, the 

plan for 2008-2012 is entering its fi nal phase. The Focused Report of 2008 presented the process of Key Performance 

Indicators (KPIs) for each axis, as a quality assurance tool. Since then, each strategic axe was broken down into more 

specifi c strategic objectives and for each of them, KPIs were defi ned/identifi ed (see Appendix n°1.1.1.2). This has been in 

operation for three years starting with the assessment of 2008, across the full range of School activity, and used for the 

preparation of a balanced Scorecard (see below), to monitor implementation of the plan. 

The evaluation of 2010 KPIs led to the following conclusions, which were included in the strategic plan for 2012-2020. 


2. cIhE : Letter - June 30 2009, page 1 


2011 KPIs results by strategic axis 

The School also carried out a self-evaluation according to Swiss Federal quality assurance standards for higher education. 

The following table presents the results in summary form. It is important to note that only strategic axes 2 and 3 

fall within the scope of such standards and performance indicators. 

Assessment of EHL Strategy 2012 according to Swiss Federal Higher Education standards 

16 

Strategic Axis 1 

EhL is internationally recognized as a leading developer of talent and leadership for the hospitality sector 

Results are according to objectives and stable. 


EHL delivers first-level academic programs, balanced between the arts and sciences of hospitality management 

Indicators show decreasing results in the following areas: 

• Perceived programs’ quality 

• Programs do not fully conform to accreditation standards, in particular European Quality Assurance Standards 

• There is a loss in balance between the arts and the sciences – a strong reduction of the “applied arts” component 

in the bachelor program, both in the number of credit hours and in the quality of the content. 


by its constant encouragement for innovation and applied research, EhL acts as a knowledge source at the highest 

level 

• Indicators show a slight decrease in performance of this aspect 

• current indicators should be reviewed to include best practice assessment methodologies for research and consulting. 


EhL is an exemplary employer, and counts on motivated and professional employees who promote EhL’s objectives 

and values 

Indicators show a decrease in the level of employee commitment through the period. 


The School’s infrastructures are adapted to the needs of the School, and support its strategic development 

Indicators show stable results. 


EHL benefits from a degree of financial stability which supports its strategic development 

Indicators show stable results. 


EHL delivers first-level academic programs, balanced between the arts and sciences of hospitality management 

higher education standards and Federal requirements are partially implemented: 

• confusion between Preparatory year (AP) and bSc programs 

• No consecutive master following the bachelor program 

• The present bachelor program does not fully comply with such standards 

• Restricted offering of bachelor orientations 

• No certified continuing education (CAS, DAS, MAS 1 ) 

• EmbA accreditation outside Swiss Federal deadlines. 


by its constant encouragement of innovation and applied research, EhL acts as a knowledge source at the highest 

level 

higher education standards and Federal requirements are partially implemented: 

• Research Institutes are still at the development stage 

• Limited external research funding 

• 20% of the faculty have a PhD (insufficient) 

• There is some confusion between “Research” and “Consulting” activities. 

1. See abbreviation list

Strategic planning 2012-2020 

Planning process 

In October 2010, under the new School management, work began on the School’s strategic development plan for the 

period 2012-2020. In reality, this is the strategic plan 2012-2016 with a horizon extended to 2020 to provide longer-term 

projections. The strategic plan 2012–2020 is developed in three main phases (see Appendices n°1.1.2.1): 

Phase 1 focused on the “Guiding Principles for the Development of EHL”, a preparatory document, which was approved 

by the board of Governors on 14 December 2010. 

The objective of Phase 2 was to develop the intended strategic plan for 2012-2020, which was approved by the board of 

Governors on 19-20 August 2011. The cDIR appointed mr. R. Iunius, Director of Development and marketing, as Project 

Manager, assisted by an external consultant. Draft documents defining EHL’s identity and its mission developed by the 

project team were discussed and approved by the cDIR. These documents were based on: the macro-competences defined 

in Phase 1, the data derived from the KPIs, and environmental analysis. 

Phase 3 will end in December 2011. Its main objective is to obtain feedback from faculty members and staff on implementation 

issues. 

Participatory process 

Owing to the importance of the changes in the School’s strategic orientation and the complete review of its mode of 

operation, which are necessary to develop it into a true institution of higher education, the strategic planning process in 

Phases 1 and 2 was carried out by the senior management. The internal EhL community is involved in Phase 3. 

Communication actions 

Successive accreditation reports and the feedback received underscore the fact that internal communication, as opposed 

to external communication in which EhL is strong, is a long-standing issue. In recent years, the problem was also highlighted 

by the Staff and Student Engagement Survey reports of 2007 and 2011. 

In this perspective, in order to complement the regular School information sessions and address the conspicuous malaise 

brought about by successive organizational changes, in may 2011 the management held a series of discussion and 

formal forums to clarify some of the issues, to create a dialogue with faculty, students and staff, and to discuss future 

policy. 

Three discussion forums covered the following topics: 

• 5 may 2011: Global issues - EhL work climate, strategy, governance, reasons for and feasibility of the new organizational 

structure 

• 16 may 2011: hR issues – Application and appointment policies, ethical issues in human resources, individual cases, 

costs of restructuring 

• 17 May 2011: Academic issues – Academic vision of EHL, specific academic issues, relations with the HES-SO. 

In addition, formal information sessions were held with faculty as follows: 

• 31.03.11: Information session on the start of the academic year 2011-2012 

• 06.05.11: Information session on the objectives of the Academic & Research Department 

• 22.08.11: Information session for the faculty during the pedagogical week. 

In parallel, two discussion sessions were also held in may and June 2011 with the student body by the newly-appointed 

Academic and Research Director, Dr. Fabien Fresnel, at which he presented the new organizational structure, followed 

by open questions. 


1.1.2 I ASSESSmENT OF STRATEGIc PLANNING 

The 2008-2012 strategic planning cycle introduced evidence-based planning with the KPIs process, however, the results 

of these evaluations were not systematically translated into actions plans. In addition, there is still a gap between the 

vision developed in the six axes and the KPIs. 

The implementation of the strategic plan 2012-2020 is expected to solve some strategic process issues: 

• The strategic plan will be broken down into annual development plans associated with the relevant indicators 

• Internal participation and communication will be reinforced during Stage 3 and will be annually reinforced during 

annual operational activities 

• The new management/quality system will provide regular inputs into the planning process with strategic intelligence 

and evaluation data. The objectives are to reinforce evidence-based decision- making processes and encourage 

proactive initiatives in this fi eld. 

1.1.3 I PROJEcTIONS FOR STRATEGIc PLANNING 

1.1.4 I APPENDIcES 

1.1.1 Strategic planning 2008-2012 

1.1.1.1 EhL Strategy 2012 (November 2006) 

1.1.1.2 Relevé des indicateurs clés de performance pour le comité de Direction (April 2011) 


1.1.2.1 Planning process 

Lignes directrices du développement (December 2010) 

Stratégie EhL 2020 (September 2011) 

macro compétences (2011) 

1.1.2.2 communication actions 

Learning : 

Rentrée 2011 (march 2011) 

Enseignement et recherche : objectifs et développements (may 2011) 

Département de l’enseignement et de la recherche : [séance à la faculté dans le 

cadre de l’ouverture de la semaine de développement de la faculté] (August 2011) 

Students : 

Q&A session : bSc Students (may 2011) 

KPIs SEE ALSO Appendices1.2.1.1 Quality Offi ce Annual Reports 

Balanced Scorecard SEE Appendices 1.2.1.1 Quality Offi ce Annual Reports 

18 

The following developments are planned for the period 2012-2016: 

• Defi ne the fi rst annual development plan (2012) based on the strategic plan for 2012-2020: Fall 2011 

• Ensure proactive communication and participation of internal stakeholders: Fall 2011 

• Implement the new broad-based management system with systematic collection and analysis of data: 2012.

1.2 I EvALuATION 

STANDARDS 

Standard 2.2 

“Institutional research is suffi cient to support planning and evaluation. The institution systematically collects and uses 

data necessary to support its planning efforts and to enhance institutional effectiveness” 

Standard 2.5 

“The institution regularly and systematically evaluates the achievement of its mission and purposes, giving primary focus 

to the realization of its educational objectives. Its system of evaluation is designed to provide relevant and trustworthy 

information to support institutional improvement, with an emphasis on the academic program. The institution’s evaluation 

efforts are effective for addressing its unique circumstances. These efforts use both quantitative and qualitative 

methods.” 

Standard 2.6 

“The institution has a system of periodic review of academic and other programs that includes the use of external perspectives.” 

Standard 2.7 

“Based on verifi able information, the institution understands what its students have gained as a result of their education 

and has useful evidence about the success of its recent graduates. This information is used for planning and resource 

allocation and to inform the public about the institution.” 1 


Report from the visiting Team January, 2009 

“In addition, staff identifi ed the inadequacy of analytical tools to support the planning process in the areas of forecasting 

and modeling. Attention to this area is essential to ensure a successful transition (in terms of the change in the timetable 

and curriculum of the bachelor’s program), effective modeling, and subsequent adjustments. This not only entails software 

selection and training, but the development of a more robust decision support culture. The transition has signifi cant 

implications for administrative systems related to registration, course scheduling, staffi ng plans and workload, etc. In 

addition, we note that EhL is working toward enhancements in extracting data from the system to facilitate analysis of 

program review and improvement purposes.” 

The chapter related to Evaluation is structured into four parts: 

• Description of evaluation 

• Assessment of evaluation 

• Projections about evaluation 




1.2.1 I DEScRIPTION OF EvALuATION 

The description of evaluation includes four parts: 

• Key performance indicators 

• Surveys 

• business process analysis 

• Project management Services. 

Key performance indicators 

Since 2009, the Quality Offi ce has produced an Annual Report on its operation. 2009 and 2010 reports were organized 

according to the “Balanced Scorecard” model: Client Performance, Internal Stakeholder Performance, Process Performance 

and Financial Performance. In 2011, the analysis of the KPIs was organized by strategic axis and included 

in the strategic planning process. 1 

Surveys 

During the 2008–2011 period, the School continued to gather stakeholders’ feedback through various surveys, wishing 

to internalize and optimize the process. The objectives of the surveys were to improve the quality of delivery of internal 

services and of the academic programs 2 . major sectoral surveys are described below. This list excludes surveys dealing 

with minor subjects such as sport or the intranet. 

Survey of Service Centre (October 2010) and IT services survey (June 2011) 

These were sectoral surveys which in the case of the former produced a very positive result. Results of the latter are 

expected in September 2011. 

The purpose of this survey was to evaluate IT service by students and EhL staff. It also served as a pilot project to implement 

systematic evaluation of EhL Services based on Servqual methodology. The results of this survey were communicated 

to the EhL community in July 2011 and improvements implemented in September 2011. The main areas 

identifi ed for improvement were: 

• Reliability: a need for greater precision in problem-solving 

• Responsiveness: The IT service is overworked and clients often wait too long before their problem is addressed. 

The model used in the IT survey will be expanded to other sectoral surveys in the future, in order to allow internal 

benchmarks (horizontal and historical). In conjunction with the implementation of a continuous feedback tool, this 

should allow operational management to improve EhL services and communicate better with its internal stakeholders. 

Staff engagement Survey (March 2010) 

The latest Staff Engagement Survey was administered to the whole School community by an external consulting company 

(Qualintra, Geneva) in order to ensure confi dentiality and to give everyone the opportunity to express themselves 

freely. In future, all other surveys will be developed internally. 

Survey model: 

1. See table part 1.1.1 

2. The evaluation of the delivery of academic programs is developed in Part 5: Assessment of student learning 

20 

My work at EHL: 

Confi dence, job motivation, focus on excellence 

Working Together 

Managerial effectiveness: 

managerial Responsibility, management, coaching & performance 

Working conditions 

Compensation & benefi ts

The principal results of the survey were as follows: 

The survey showed a slight decrease in the level of commitment of faculty and staff during the 2007- 2010 period (global 

results went from 6.8 to 6.6 out of a 1 to 10 scale.) Although improvements were perceived in the “working together” 

(+0.3) and “working conditions” (+0.3) scores, both “my work at EHL” (0.3) and “managerial effectiveness” (0.6) showed a 

signifi cant curve downwards. 

Department managers created Action Plans, with external expertise (Qualintra) and were followed up by the human Resources 

department. The main objectives were: 

• to make the strategy of the School more visible than hitherto, to be fi nalized by August 2011 

• in order to improve internal and external communication, to appoint a head of communication as from 15 August 

2011, with the development of an overall communication plan scheduled for the 4th quarter of 2011 

• to increase management effectiveness, through two sessions of leadership training with Em Lyon (France) during the 

fi rst half of 2011. 

Broad Student Survey (May 2011) 

The purpose of this survey was to measure the general degree of satisfaction of the student body with the School’s performance 

(quality of teaching, the Service centre, Finance, IT, infrastructure, campus life and communication.) 

Survey model: 

Satisfaction - Loyalty 

Teaching 

Communication 

Service Center 

IT Services 

Infrastructure 

Campus Life 

The outcome of this survey was communicated to the EhL community in July 2011, with the following recommendations: 

• Prioritize communication actions 

• Secure billing processes 

• Improve certain elements of the infrastructure (e.g. the Food court) – Summer 2011 

• Take greater account of student feedback 

• Improve the level of the English of certain faculty members 

• Improve the academic level of certain courses. 

Some improvements were implemented during the summer 2011 (new printers, Food court); other actions will be taken 

during the 2011-2012 year. 

Business process analysis 

The analysis and improvement of EhL’s business processes is subject to ongoing review. It is achieved through the Quality, 

Controlling and Project Management offi ces. The main milestones reached in recent years have been the following: 

• Creation of a methodology and template for the analysis of EHL processes (2009) – Quality-Controlling-PMO offi ces 

• broad risk analysis on EhL macro-processes (2009-2010) with an inventory of the risk management actions taken. 

This analysis led to the review of the food security processes and the improvement of the hazard Analysis and critical 


Control Points HACCP methodology at EHL (2010) – Quality offi ce 

• Review and optimization of fi nancial processes (2010); review and design of fi nance operational procedures – Quality- 

Controlling offi ces 

• Integration of EHL process methodology into EHL projects with training of the project managers (2010) – PMO offi ce 

• The fi nancial oversight and monitoring exercised by the Controlling section of Finance is a further aspect of the 

School’s process monitoring. Controlling participates fi rst in the identifi cation of the requirements for monitoring and 

the selection of the process performance indicators, and provides the methodology and documentation to be used; it 

also provides any training which may be needed. Its fi nancial analysis of the results shown by the indicators feed into 

the continuous updating of the Dashboard and the corrective actions judged to be necessary. The section produces 

a monthly “Flash Report” (See Appendix n°1.2.3.5) of the different processes at work (e.g. billing, purchasing, salaries…) 

and records the actions taken. Whereas at the strategic level the KPIs measure to what extent the strategy has 

been achieved, the Flash Report KPI intervenes at the operational level, and only in relation to the fi nancial objectives. 

It is complemented by the quarterly balanced sheet and budgetary review, and by risk assessment. The resulting 

fi nancial structure is a fi nely-tuned instrument and represents an asset for the School. 

Project management services 

The Project Management Offi ce (PMO) now occupies a key role in the School’s operation. Its task is to support the decision-making 

process by assisting in the management of a portfolio of in-house projects, e.g. in modeling them and 

defi ning the criteria they must meet, such as a clear link with EHL’s overall strategy and the School’s development. In 

2011 the PMO is monitoring some 40 projects, a total expected to double to 80 by 2013. The Offi ce tracks decisions made 

in each project with the senior management on a monthly basis, and monitors a fi nancial reporting process with the Finance 

department, through a “Dashboard”, quarterly. The PMO’s second task, scarcely less time-consuming, is to train 

operational project managers in how to create a model and in the procedures used. 

1.2.2 I ASSESSmENT OF EvALuATION 

The procedures for evaluation listed above are in place and allow for regular information-gathering in a large number of 

different fi elds. They provide evidence of the importance given to systematic evaluation which is at the heart of a culture 

of best practice at EhL. 

Overall, these measurement tools have a number of limitations. Although a considerable amount of information was and 

can be collected on the institutional performance, their actual added value for decision-making processes and implementation 

of projects remains insuffi cient. This appears to indicate a lack of an effective link between evaluation processes 

and the decision-making processes. In addition, these procedures are not effectively coordinated from a thematic 

and methodological perspective, and the resources are often used in a decentralized, piecemeal manner. 

Paradoxically, EhL has not yet developed an effective integrated system of evaluation, this is spite of the fact that there is 

a consensus in the School about the importance of conducting regular evaluations in the various departments and that 

considerable means have been allocated to that end. 

Our intention is to develop an integrated management system which favors a more transversal approach to an analysis of 

the institutional environment and to an internal evaluation which reinforces the management’s performance. 

1.2.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT EvALuATION 

22 


• Establish an integrated management system at institutional level to ensure a transversal approach to evaluation (see 

Appendix 1.2.5): 

• create a corpus of institutional performance indicators, linked with the new strategy, to assess the whole of its missions 

and services 

• Conduct the evaluation of the School’s delivery by means of a unifi ed and standardized questionnaire 

• Designate decision-making bodies to each type of evaluation and ensure an appropriate follow-up of these procedures 

• Implement a strategic business intelligence system.


1.2.1 Key Performance Indicators 

1.2.1.1 Quality Office Annual Reports 

2008 

2009 

1.2.2 Surveys 

1.2.2.1 Survey of Service centre (October 2010) 

1.2.2.2 IT services Survey (June 2011) 

1.2.2.3 Staff engagement Survey (march 2010) 

1.2.2.4 broad Student Survey (may 2011) 

1.2.3 business Process analysis 

1.2.3.1 methodology and template for analysis of EhL processes (march 2011) 

1.2.3.2 broad risk analysis on EhL macro-processes (June 2010) 

1.2.3.3 Financial processes (September 2010) 

1.2.3.4 EhL process methodology (march 2011) 

1.2.3.5 Flash Report (Financial oversight and monitoring) 

1.2.4 Project management Services 

1.2.4.1 Dashboard 

1.2.5 Système de management. 


2. ORGANIzATION AND 

GOvERNANCE: FACuLTY & 

ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP 


2.1 I ThE FAcuLTy cOuNcIL IN ThE ORGANIZATIONAL 

STRucTuRE 

STANDARDS 

Standard 3.1 

“The authority, responsibilities, and relationships among the governing board, administration, faculty, and staff are clearly 

described in the institution’s by-laws, or an equivalent document, and in a table of organization that displays the working 

order of the institution. The board, administration, staff, and faculty understand and fulfi ll their respective roles as set 

forth in the institution’s offi cial documents and are provided with the appropriate information to undertake their respective 

roles. The institution’s organizational structure, decision-making processes, and policies are clear and consistent 

with its mission and support institutional effectiveness. The institution’s system of governance involves the participation 

of all appropriate constituencies and includes regular communication among them.” 1 



(…) “The EHL fi ve year report indicates that the role of the CF in strategic planning and monitoring the implementation of 

the strategic plan has become more focused and that the board is more institutionally engaged because of this. What has 

not yet evolved is more engagement of the board with the broader EhL community, especially the faculty. The institution 

should fi nd constructive ways for members of the CF to interact with the faculty, as a more engaged board will be able to 

do more effective evaluation and planning and be more fulsome advocates for the contributions that faculty make to the 

strengths of EhL. This need not be seen to be a call for constant interaction – far from it: an annual event focusing on 

some key academic activity or innovation would suffi ce. 2 ” 

(…)“Faculty Governance 

As recommended in the 2006 report, the role of the Faculty Council has been more fi rmly established with the adoption of 

its Statutes. The council has been successful over the past two years in forging a presence and a role in giving the faculty 

more voice on campus. For example, members of the council worked to establish a more visible role for faculty throughout 

the faculty hiring process. Nevertheless, the Faculty council still seems to be treated as an afterthought in that the 

Council is not mentioned on the organizational chart nor is it offi cially cited as part of the governance structure, and it was 

not utilized as a possible vehicle for communication with Faculty by the Program Directors as the new curriculum was 

developed. It might also be said the Faculty Council are still fi nding their ways with the faculty as they explore with them 

what the faculty’s expectations for the council are. We therefore believe that the council should continue to work toward 

establishing a more visible presence on campus, clarifying their role in so doing. While we note that two members of the 

Faculty council are now part of the Learning management team, members of the administration might make broader use 

of Faculty council members, possibly using council members in conjunction with other groups on campus in planning 

for faculty growth and change. 3 ” 

(…)“We would encourage further efforts – and real progress – in terms of internal communication and greater faculty 

involvement, and in terms of closer contact between the faculty and the cF – not on a regula basis, but perhaps once a 

year, so that cF members become better known to the faculty and so that they can represent EhL to their peers. 4 ” 


(…)“2. continuing to support faculty in exercising a substantive voice in the design and evaluation of academic programs, 

faculty selection and development, and other matters as appropriate ; 5 ” 

(…) “As stated above, we are pleased to note the increasing clarity of the role of faculty through the faculty Council and 

its increased visibility and role in the faculty hiring process. however, we are concerned that the Faculty council is not 

represented in offi cial descriptions of governance structures nor was it signifi cantly involved in the development of the 

EhL strategy 2012.” 

1. commission on Institutions of higher Education, New England Association of Schools and colleges -07.01.2011 




5. cIhE : Letter - June 30 2009, page 1 

26

The chapter related to the Faculty council (cFAc) in the organizational structure is divided into four parts: 

• Presentation of the Faculty council (cFAc) in the organizational structure 

• Evaluation of the Faculty council (cFAc) in the organizational structure 

• Development of the Faculty council (cFAc) in the organizational structure 


2.1.1 I DEScRIPTION OF ThE FAcuLTy cOuNcIL (cFAc) IN 

ThE ORGANIZATIONAL STRucTuRE 

The description of the Faculty council in the organizational structure includes three parts: 

• Implementation of cFAc 

• Role of cFAc 

• cFAc contributions. 

Implementation of CFAC 

On 19 October 2010, the faculty as a whole accepted a new set of statutes defined by former members of CFAC together 

with the Learning and Research Director ad-interim to govern the operation of the Faculty council, or conseil de Faculté 

(cFAc). This vote was followed by new cFAc elections in November 2010, which is now composed of 19 members. These 

statutes (see Appendix 2.1.1), however, were not signed by the management committee. 

Role of CFAC 

According to these statutes, cFAc Functions include the following rights and duties: 

to information, regarding 

• the vision and mission of the School 

• its strategy and structure 

• the financial results and the budget 

• All major decisions concerning the School as a whole (buildings, alliances/cooperation agreements, etc.) 

to be consulted, regarding 

• equipment and the use of space (allocation of offices and classrooms etc) 

• working conditions of faculty and academic assistants (workloads, holidays, sabbatical leave, policy regarding conferences 

and congresses etc) 

• the appointment of Program Directors 

• Personnel policy over the recruitment of faculty and researchers. 

to share in decisions, regarding 

• decisions concerning the procedure for evaluating faculty members 

• the definition of priorities in continuous training 

• the recruitment, appointment and termination of faculty members 

• the conditions for the organization of examinations 

• the creation of academic institutes 

• decisions concerning the status of faculty (classifications, criteria for promotion etc) 

• decisions concerning shared governance in the Learning department 

• All decisions affecting its rights. 

CFAC Contributions 

• Recruitment of DER 

• creation of the course evaluation questionnaire 

• NEASc Report 

• Future faculty classification 

• Future faculty evaluation policy. 


2.1.2 I ASSESSmENT OF ThE FAcuLTy cOuNcIL (cFAc) IN 

ThE ORGANIZATIONAL STRucTuRE 

The School is keenly aware of the recommendation made by cIhE that in future the cFAc must be more actively and more 

deeply involved in those organizational functions which properly pertain to it. It recognizes that there is still much room 

for improvement in the three areas mentioned in the transitional statutes: information-sharing, consultation, and joint 

decision making. 

As of August 2011, of the eight areas listed for shared decisions, the cFAc had in practice only been consulted over one, 

namely the organization of student evaluation, as well as the present report for NEASc. 

The CFAC statutes defi ned in October 2010 are being tested in a transitory stage. They are to be reviewed during Fall 2011 

and will be validated by the board of Governors by the end of 2011. 

The new cFAc likely to emerge from the current process is expected to be reduced to a handful of members, who will be 

given signifi cantly more release time than at present to carry out their duties effectively. In practice, a body of 19 members 

– based on the model of a large university – proves to be far too complex for joint decision-making or even consultation in 

the School’s context. The need is for a lean, effi cient CFAC which can respond promptly as needs arise. 

2.1.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT ThE FAcuLTy cOuNcIL (cFAc) 

IN ThE ORGANIZATIONAL STRucTuRE 


2.1.1 Règlement du conseil de Faculté (cFAc) de 2010. 

28 

The following developments are planned for the 2012-2013 period: 

• validate cFAc statutes by 31 December 2011 

• Include cFAc in major EhL processes more systematically.

2.2 I ThE ROLE OF FAcuLTy 

STANDARDS 

Standard 3.1 

“ Faculty exercise an important role in assuring the academic integrity of the institution’s educational programs. Faculty 

have a substantive voice in matters of educational programs, faculty personnel, and other aspects of institutional policy 

that relate to their areas of responsibility and expertise.” 1 


(…) “Also, we concur with the team that while there has been signifi cant progress in delineating the roles and responsibilities 

of the Program Directors and Academic Sector heads, these distinctions are not readily perceived or understood 

by the faculty. That said, we are pleased to learn of the institution’s commitment to further development of the role of 

faculty in the institution. Through the report and visit in 2011, we look forward to learning how EhL continues to develop 

and implement a role for the faculty consistent with the Commission’s standards on Organization and Governance (…) ” 2 

The chapter related to the role faculty is structured into four parts: 

• Description of the role of faculty 

• Assessment of the role of faculty 

• Projections about the role of faculty 


2.2.1 I DEScRIPTION OF ThE ROLE OF FAcuLTy 

The description of the role of faculty includes fi ve parts: 

• Strategic planning process 

• Organization and development of studies 

• Implementation of Research Institutes 

• Recruitment of professors 

• Revision of professors’ status and evaluation. 

Strategic planning process 

Following the approval of the Strategic Plan 2012-2020 by the board of Governors, the cDIR plans to organize an internal 

consultation of the faculty and staff during the autumn 2011. The objective is to improve the conditions needed for a successful 

implementation of the strategy. The cFAc, in particular, will be asked to help reinforce communication between 

the management and the faculty. 

Organization and development of studies 

Since 2010, the Faculty has been involved in the process of program review as shown below: 

Review of DHR 

Arlette Walther, christophe Laurent 

Review of AP 

Prisca cédileau, yves Racine, Nasroo Ajani, Anne-marie cornaz, Pierre Ligron, René Roger, christina Tavares, Françoise 

Thomas-Pahud 


2. cIhE : Letter – June 30 2009, page 2 


Implementation of Research Institutes 

Three institutes were at the planning stage at the start of the 2011-2012 academic year. They are headed by faculty members 

and professors are free to join an institute based on their interest and their teaching and research priorities. 

A Scientifi c Committee consisting of seven professors is in charge of all aspects regarding the promotion of research and 

providing support to faculty members who wish to engage in research. 

Recruitment of professors 

Faculty members are regularly involved in the recruitment process for new professors in their own domains. The appointment 

procedure for the Academic and Research Director (DER), for example, the cFAc appointed faculty members 

to participate in the process. 

Revision of the status of faculty members and their evaluation 

A project for the review the hierarchical ranking of faculty and their current status, together with more effi cient allocation 

of their teaching time, will be launched in September 2011. This will be followed by a complete revision of the process for 

the evaluation of faculty performance. 

2.2.2 I ASSESSmENT OF ThE ROLE OF FAcuLTy 

The role of faculty in the development of strategy, teaching and research, of human resources, and of the functioning of 

the learning is still limited. 

In these processes, there is a clear a distinction between the strategic or global, conceptual level, for which responsibility 

lies with the cDIR, the DER, the Deputy Deans and the Program Directors, and the level of consultation and implementation 

where responsibility lies with the Faculty. 

Our intention is to consolidate the role of the faculty in steering processes with the implementation of the management 

system. 

2.2.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT ThE ROLE OF FAcuLTy 


2.2.1 Projet « Révision programme AP 2012 » : Synthèse du brainstorming (June 2011). 

30 


• Gradually to increase the numbers of research institutes and their contribution to the life of the faculty 

• Restart Program commissions 

• Redefi ne roles and responsibilities in key learning processes including the role of faculty 

• Reinforce faculty participation based on the new hierarchy, in close cooperation with the cFAc.

2.3 I AcADEmIc LEADERShIP 

STANDARDS 

Standard 3.1 

“The authority, responsibilities, and relationships among the governing board, administration, faculty, and staff are clearly 

described in the institution’s by-laws, or an equivalent document, and in a table of organization that displays the working 

order of the institution. The board, administration, staff, and faculty understand and fulfi ll their respective roles as set 

forth in the institution’s offi cial documents and are provided with the appropriate information to undertake their respective 

roles. The institution’s organizational structure, decision-making processes, and policies are clear and consistent 

with its mission and support institutional effectiveness. The institution’s system of governance involves the participation 

of all appropriate constituencies and includes regular communication among them.” 

Standard 3.6 

“The board appoints and periodically reviews the performance of the chief executive offi cer whose full-time or major 

responsibility is to the institution.” 

Standard 3.7 

“The board delegates to the chief executive offi cer and, as appropriate, to others the requisite authority and autonomy to 

manage the institution compatible with the board’s intentions and the institutional mission. In exercising their fi duciary 

responsibility, the governing board and senior offi cers identify, assess, and manage risks and ensure regulatory compliance.” 

Standard 3.8 

“The chief executive offi cer through an appropriate administrative structure effectively manages the institution so as 

to fulfi ll its purposes and objectives and establishes the means to assess the effectiveness of the institution. The chief 

executive offi cer manages and allocates resources in keeping with institutional purpose and objectives and assesses the 

effectiveness of the institution. In accordance with established institutional mechanisms and procedures, the chief executive 

offi cer and the administration consult with faculty, students, other administrators and staff, and are appropriately 

responsive to their concerns, needs, and initiatives.” 

Standard 3.10 

“The institution’s academic leadership is directly responsible to the chief executive offi cer, and in concert with the faculty 

is responsible for the quality of the academic program. The institution’s organization and governance structure assure 

the integrity and quality of academic programming however and wherever offered. Off-campus, continuing education, distance 

education, international, evening, and week-end programs are clearly integrated and incorporated into the policy 

formation, and academic oversight, and evaluation system of the institution.” 

Standard 4.2 

“Through its system of academic administration and faculty participation, the institution demonstrates an effective system 

of academic oversight, assuring the quality of the academic program wherever and however it is offered.” 1 



(…) “As did previous NEASC reports, we express our concern about this shared role, especially as this is atypical of US institutions 

(given that the Commissions expectations of free standing institutions abroad that it accredits will offer “American 

style education”). Now that the major academic planning, reorganization and curricular change has been completed, 

the General Director might consider adding an Academic Dean or Director to the Administration to carry through with 

the changes. This might free up the General Director to play a larger external role, especially if the institution is going 

to expand its fund-raising efforts. Any such appointment would need to be made with succession planning in mind, of 

course. ” 2 

(…) “Further consideration could usefully be given to the current dual role of the General Director, with succession planning 

and external fund raising in mind. In addition, further clarifi cation of roles of the Program Directors and RSAs, and 




of the Faculty council, are recommended. 1 ” 


(…) “2. clarifying how both academic and administrative leadership will be assured as part of succession planning; 2 ” 

(…) “Given that the General Director plans to address succession planning, it appears timely for the institution to reconsider 

the expansive role of this position, particularly in terms of the demands in providing both administrative and academic 

leadership. Our standards on Organization and Governance and The Academic Program note among other things, 

the role of the governing board in appointing the chief executive offi cer, and that the institution’s academic leadership is 

directly responsible to the chief executive offi cer.” 3 

The chapter related to the role of the Academic and Research Director is structured into four parts: 

• Description of academic leadership 

• Assessment of academic leadership 

• Projections about academic leadership 


2.3.1 I DEScRIPTION OF AcADEmIc LEADERShIP 

The description of academic leadership includes two parts: 

• Internal Governance of Learning and Research 

• Role of the Learning and Research Director. 

Internal Governance of Learning and Research 

Since the arrival of the new General Director in the summer of 2010, far-reaching changes have been introduced to the 

Learning Department, which meet the essential provisions of Standard 3.8. EhL now has an Academic and Research 

Director in his own right. The overall objective has been to bring all the functions related to the department under a single 

oversight, in order to: 

• Take closer control of the value chain and the value creation process 

• Simplify the system and make it more transparent 

• Place greater emphasis on the students themselves 

• Enhance the research function. 

The Dean is assisted by two Associate Deans, both nominated to their respective positions in the summer 2011. Dr Steffen 

Raub is Associate Dean for Research and Academic Affairs. he oversees the overall research program of the School 

with regard to its content, quality and the number of publications. he is currently involved in structuring the program 

into Institutes. he also manages academic services, such as the Library and the faculty development program. Dr Pierre 

Ihmle, Associate Dean for Projects and Administrative Affairs, also oversees the activities of the Admissions & Recruitment 

team, of the Academic Planning team and of the Student Relations offi ce, which were detached from their previous 

status within Student Services. 

The directors of the teaching programs are Dr Samad Laaroussi, for the bachelor’s, Dr hillary murphy and Dr Ines Ghorbal 

for the master’s, and ms Arlette Walther for the Diploma program. They report to the Dean. Starting in October 2011, the 

Dean will hold regular sessions with his management team to deal with the operational affairs of his department. 


2. cIhE: Letter – 30 June 2009, page 1 


32

R&D 

Deputy Dean, Research 

and academic affairs 

Scientific 

Council 

S. Raub 

Academic 

support 

R-M Andrey 

Faculty 

Institutes 

& Chairs 

Learning & Research 

Director 

Admisnitrative 

Support 

V. Blanc 

I. O’Callaghan 

M. Dupraz 

F. Markovsky 

S. Thomas 

Faculty 

Council 

Faculty 

F. Fresnel 

Academic 

programs' 

Directors & 

Coordinators 

Quality & 

Accreditations 

G. Iynedjian 

Study 

Counselling 

D. Dellea 

Student 

Council 

Student 

relations Office 

A. Charrin 

Admissions and 

Recruitment 

L. Perez Mollo 

Deputy Dean, Projects and 

administrative affairs 

P. Ihmle 

Planning & and 

Admisnitration of Studies 

C. Hughes 

Role of the Academic and Research Director 

The Academic and Research Director (French acronym: DER) was appointed by the board of Governors on the recommendation 

of a search committee chaired by the General Director and including two faculty members. The DER’s primary 

mission is to ensure a high level of teaching and academic performance and innovation and to create favorable conditions 

for teaching and research which are commensurate with the mission of the School. he will review, on an annual basis, 

starting in 2012, faculty’s performance and the academic program. he is in close relations with the cFAc. In coordination 

with the cFAc, he proposes and implements improvements in the academic program. 

Dr Fabien Fresnel has been Academic and Research Director since April 2011. he reports to EhL’s General Director, and 

is a member of cDIR. The cDIR meets weekly to discuss strategic and operational issues. The cDIR organizes strategyoriented 

daily sessions, once or twice per year, to review achievements and work on the strategic plan of the school. The 

DER is regularly invited to present to the School’s board of Governors. The last such session was held on Aug 19-20, 2011. 

The DER upholds academic interests within the management committee. he makes recommendations for strategic approaches 

and developments, as well as partnerships with other academic institutions. he appoints, inspires and guides 

program directors (who are responsible for the proper operation of courses and examinations), as well as the director of 

support services for teaching and research, and the directors of the institutes (who report to him as regards their objectives, 

plans and budgets.) He deals with faculty on a daily basis and has the right of final decision of the admission and 

promotion of students, as well as grievances and proposals arising out of them. 


2.3.2 I ASSESSmENT OF AcADEmIc LEADERShIP 

The recent hiring of the Academic and Research Director complies with NEASc standards regarding academic leadership. 

In addition, the appointment of the two deputies to the DER further strengthens the central position of the Learning 

Department in the institution. 

The resulting changes made in the organizational chart for the Learning Department aimed at putting the Faculty and all 

activities related to teaching and learning at the core of the School’s activities. This process implied a redefi nition of the 

roles of other departments, in order to lend support to the academic mission of EhL. 

2.3.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT AcADEmIc LEADERShIP 


2.3.1 Job descriptions 

2.3.1.1 Academic and Research Director 

2.3.1.2 Deputy Director of Learning and Research 

2.3.1.3 head of academic support 

34 

The following development is planned for the period 2012-2013: 

• To develop the management/quality system of academic processes, in order to reinforce academic leadership.

3. THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM: 

GENERAL EDuCATION & ASSESSMENT 

OF STuDENT LEARNING 


3.1 I GENERAL EDucATION 

STANDARDS 

Standard 4.16 

“The general education requirement is coherent and substantive. It embodies the institution’s defi nition of an educated 

person and prepares students for the world in which they will live. The requirement informs the design of all general 

education courses, and provides criteria for its evaluation, including the assessment of what students learn.” 

Standard 4.17 

“The general education requirement in each undergraduate program ensures adequate breadth for all degree-seeking 

students by showing a balanced regard for what are traditionally referred to as the arts and humanities, the sciences 

including mathematics, and the social sciences. General education requirements include offerings that focus on the 

subject matter and methodologies of these three primary domains of knowledge as well as on their relationships to one 

another.” 

Standard 4.18 

“The institution ensures that all undergraduate students complete at least the equivalent of forty semester hours in a 

bachelor’s degree program, or the equivalent of twenty semester hours in an associate’s degree program in general 

education.” 

Standard 4.19 

“Graduates successfully completing an undergraduate program demonstrate competence in written and oral communication 

in English; the ability for scientifi c and quantitative reasoning, for critical analysis and logical thinking; and the 

capability for continuing learning, including the skills of information literacy. They also demonstrate knowledge and understanding 

of scientifi c, historical, and social phenomena, and a knowledge and appreciation of the aesthetic and ethical 

dimensions of humankind.” 1 


Report of the visiting Team, January 2009 

(…) “Current assessment planning is squarely focused within the programs and emphasizes professional knowledge, 

attitudes and skills. General education outcomes are less well defi ned and little planning has occurred for assessment 

of student achievement in this arena. Prior to the 2013 comprehensive visit, EhL should devote additional attention to 

assessment in general education. 2 ” 


(…) “4. developing and implementing program evaluation and revision processes based on regular assessment of student 

learning, included in general education;” 3 

(…) “As part of the redesign of its educational programs, we understand that EHL has established a process for defi ning 

student learning goals, mapping best practices, and assessing student learning across institution, we concur with the 

visiting team that the institution’s defi nition of learning outcomes and its means of assessing student learning are not 

well developed in the area of general education, particularly in the natural sciences. We look forward to learning about 

the institution’s success as it completes its assessment, and makes improvements on the basis of the data gathered.” 4 

The chapter related to general education courses is structured into four parts: 

• Description of general education 

• Assessment of general education 

• Projections about general education 



2. NEASc team Report 2009, page 12 


4. cIhE: Letter – 30 June 2009, page 3 and 4 

36

3.1.1 I DEScRIPTION OF GENERAL EDucATION 

The description of general education includes three parts: 

• Reminder about EhL’s particular context 

• General education in the bachelor program 

• General education competencies. 

Reminder about EHL’s particular context 

After previous accreditation reports, there is no need to repeat here the very different perspective on general education, 

as compared with the uS, which prevails in Europe and on which the School’s curricula have traditionally been based. 

EhL has always met NEASc’s requirement in terms of the proportion of courses in the total program devoted to GE and 

the corresponding credits. In defining the content General Education, however, the School benchmarked its work against 

the practice of two uS universities, the university of connecticut (accredited by NEASc) and the university of Stanford 

university (by WASc). 

General Education in the Bachelor program 

The definition of general education used by the School is based on Standards 4.17 and 4.19. 

General Education thus appears both in compulsory core courses, and also in Electives: 

• In the Preparatory year, GE appears in the modules devoted to Foreign cultures & Languages, Written & Oral communication, 

Scientific & Quantitative Reasoning 

• In year 1, GE appears in course components of 3 content areas; Arts& humanities, Social sciences and Sciences & 

Technologies 

• In Year 2, it appears only marginally, also in two Sciences & Technologies as well as in Scientific & Quantitative reasoning 

• In year 3, students are exposed to GE in the diploma work, which is worth 13 uS quarter credits as well as in Electives. 

The long-standing problem of matching uS and EcTS credits has been resolved by taking into account contact hours, 

personal study and internships for quarter credits and semester credits, for both mandatory and elective courses. Overall 

(see Table below), out of a total for the bachelor’s degree as a whole of 196.5 uQ credits, General Education accounts for 

79.5 credits, i.e. 40.5%. 

In Electives, students can choose the variety of competencies they are going to acquire, but their choice is narrow, and in 

the interests of a balanced education is deliberately restricted so as to ensure that they spread across different categories 

and always include core competences. 

General Education Courses in the Bachelor Program 

English Section 

uS QuARTER cREDITS 

Preparatory year core courses 18.5 

year 1 core courses 16.0 



Total General Education core courses 52.0 

General Education Elective courses (min. per student) 27.5 

Total credits in General Education 79.5 

Total credits in bachelor’s of Sciences Degree 196.5 

Proportion of General Education courses 40.5% 


General education competencies 

In their content, courses are divided into three levels (basic, Intermediate, Advanced), and at the same time into four 

content areas (Foreign cultures & Languages, Arts & humanities, Social Sciences, Sciences & technology) and two 

competencies (Written & oral Communication, Scientific & Quantitative reasoning). The following table illustrates the 

organization of general education courses as well as the amount of credits allocated for each content area or competency 

in the English language section of the bachelor of Sciences on International hospitality management (bSc) 1 . 

General Education Competencies and Content Areas 

English Section 

The “Nutrition: From Science To Life” course, of Advanced level, is an example of a General Education elective in the natural 

sciences, for second- and third-year students: 40 hours, over a 10-week period, for 4.0 uQ and 6.0 EcTS credits. Introduced 

in 2009, the course is clearly focused on competencies rather than knowledge. The general ones are as follows: 

• “Differentiate the principle physiological function of all major nutrients and their role in human 

• health and disease 

• create healthy solutions for competitive client experiences 

• Generate quantitative and qualitative measures to formulate nutrition intervention solutions.” 

For the practitioner, it requires assessment, for example, of the client’s needs and nutritional analysis (e.g. «modify the 

menu given below for (a) a person suffering from diabetes (b) a member of a women’s rowing club»). It also requires the 

ability to calculate the percentage of carbohydrates for clients of varying heights and weights, and critical thinking in order 

to critically evaluate food advertisements. Other dimensions appear in, for example, the impact of food choices and 

the industry on the environment and on health. 

There are two evaluations in the course: the mid-term evaluation which covers the basic science (40% of the final grade) 

and the final evaluation (45%) for the project in which it is applied. The remaining 15% of the grade comes from the weekly 

exercises, in which the student uploads the answers on moodle. The professor can make a clear assessment of what and 

how much the student is learning. 

3.1.2 I ASSESSmENT OF GENERAL EDucATION 

General education courses represent more than one-third of the bachelor program. In addition, EhL has started to organize 

GE courses into content areas and competencies. 

however, as many general education courses are provided through electives, there might be a lack of balance between 

competencies acquired from one student to another. In addition, in the area of natural sciences, Nutrition is an elective. 

Furthermore, Learning Outcomes in terms of content areas and competencies should be better defined and developed. 

In the coming months, undergraduate programs’ review plans will include General Education requirements. 

1. See appendix n°3.1.2.1 : Detailed table 

38 

cOmPETENcIES & cONTENT AREAS mAxImum uQ PER AREA mINImum uQ PER STuDENT 

Written and Oral communication 23.5 11.5 

Foreign cultures & Languages 45.0 8.0 

Arts & humanities 16.0 12.0 

Social Sciences 20.0 12.0 

Sciences & Technologies 27.5 19.5 

Scientific & Quantitative Reasoning 20.5 16.5 

Total 79.5

3.1.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT GENERAL EDucATION 


• Increase coherence between the desired competencies to be achieved in general education and the student 

learning outcomes at course level. 

• Revise AP and bSc in compliance with NEASc general educational requirements 


3.1.2 courses description 

3.1.2.1 General education course distribution in the bSc 

3.1.2.2 General education courses by competencies 


3.2 I ASSESSmENT OF STuDENT LEARNING 

STANDARDS 

Standard 4.48 

“The institution implements and provides support for systematic and broad-based assessment of what and how students 

are learning through their academic program and experiences outside the classroom. This approach is based on clear 

statements of what students are expected to gain, achieve, demonstrate, or know by the time they complete their academic 

program. The approach provides useful information that helps the institution to improve the experience provided 

for students, as well as to assure that the level of student achievement is appropriate for the degree awarded.” 

Standard 4.49 

“ The institution’s approach to understanding student learning focuses on the course, program, and institutional level. 

Data and other evidence generated through this approach are considered at the appropriate level of focus, with the results 

being a demonstrable factor in improving the learning opportunities and results for students.” 

Standard 4.50 

“Expectations for student learning refl ect both the mission and character of the institution and general expectations of 

the larger academic community for the level of degree awarded and the fi eld of study. These expectations include statements 

that are consistent with the institution’s mission in preparing students for further study and employment, as appropriate. 

(See also 1.4 and 2.7)” 

Standard 4.51 

“The institution’s approach to understanding what and how students are learning and using the results for improvement 

has the support of the institution’s academic and institutional leadership and the systematic involvement of faculty. (See 

also 3.12)” 

Standard 4.52 

“The institution’s system of periodic review of academic programs includes a focus on understanding what and how students 

learn as a result of the program. (See also 2.6, 4.9 and 4.10)” 

Standard 4.53 

“The institution ensures that students have systematic, substantial, and sequential opportunities to learn important skills 

and understandings and actively engage in important problems of their discipline or profession and that they are provided 

with regular and constructive feedback designed to help them improve their achievement (4.49).” 

Standard 4.54 

“ The institution uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods and direct and indirect measures to understand the 

experiences and learning outcomes of its students, and includes external perspectives. The institution devotes appropriate 

attention to ensuring that its methods of understanding student learning are trustworthy and provide information 

useful in the continuing improvement of programs and services for students.” 1 



(…) “As such, the curriculum design provides a structure in which the assessment of student learning outcomes may occur. 

That said, a systematic and broad-based approach to the assessment of student learning is not yet in place at EhL. 

While direct assessment of student performance have not yet been developed. The evaluation methods, projects and 

courses that have been planned have the potential to serve as valuable and substantive sources of data about student 

achievement. The faculty needs to consider how to use the regular rhythms of faculty work to gather relevant information 

that can then be aggregated to support further analysis of the unit, module, or program. Technological solutions to 

support this process and allow effi cient gathering of already existing information will be important considerations in this 

complex environment. 

Each academic program has developed a comprehensive plan for assessment of its effectiveness. These plans include 

multiple data sources in both direct and indirect evidence of student learning in a very general sense. Specifi c sources of 

data and methods of collecting and analyzing data are not yet determined, nor have they been implemented (in part be- 


40

cause the programs are in their fi rst semester of implementation). Program Directors are aware that the methodological 

issues have not yet been solved and intend to direct mote attention to them once the hurdles of new program implementation 

are passed. 

Again, EhL’s history of working with industry and with their alumni will provide a strong foundation on which to build the 

required external review component of periodic program review. In fact, externally juried projects and experiences are 

common practice in EhL programs. here as well, the institution needs to develop systems for capturing this feedback in 

an effi cient and effective way to inform systematic assessment of student achievement. 1 ” 

(…) “EHL (…) should consider revision of its KPIs for this axis so that they have greater potential to provide useful information 

to help the institution understand what and how students are learning and assure that the level of student achievement 

is appropriate for the degree awarded. 2 ” 

(…) In summary, EHL has, in the past several years, laid a strong foundation on which it may base its activities related to 

assessment of student learning outcomes and program effectiveness. Over the next few years the school needs to take 

the next step in implementing a systematic and broad-based assessment program. The plans must be converted into action 

and the institution must wrestle with the thorny issue of data collection and analysis. It appears that there is a culture 

that will support use of data once gathered, for program improvement. however, while there is acknowledgment of the 

need to take this step, it is not entirely clear that the institution currently knows how it might take that step. Additional 

professional development or consultative support might be needed to move forward in this area. 

Assessment of Learning Outcomes is an early work in progress and signifi cant steps must be taken to make this a reality. 3 


(…) “4. developing and implementing program evaluation and revision processes based on regular assessment of student 

learning, included in general education;” 4 

(…) “The institution implements and supports a systematic and brad-based approach to the assessment of student learning 

focused on educational improvement through understanding what and how students are learning… (4.44).” 5 

The chapter related to the assessment of student learning is organized into four parts: 

• Description of the assessment of student learning 

• Evaluation of the assessment of student learning 

• Projections about the assessment of student learning 


3.2.1 I DEScRIPTION OF ThE ASSESSmENT OF STuDENT 

LEARNING 

The description of the assessment of student learning includes three parts: 

• Evaluation of program portfolio 

• Evaluation of program delivery 

• broad-based assessment methods. 

Although this Focus Area was not identifi ed by the Commission as requiring improvement in this Report, it will be necessary 

to improve it for the next, comprehensive evaluation in 2013. 

Part 1.2 on “Evaluation” describes the different actions the School has undertaken at strategic and operational levels. 

The present part of the report focuses on evaluation action regarding the academic programs. 







Evaluation of program portfolio 

A systematic evaluation of all the academic programs of the School has been conducted since 2010 with the aim of reinforcing 

their compliance with both American and European standards, as well as their competitive positioning on the 

educational market in hospitality management. This systemic evaluation completes the results obtained from the strategic 

evaluation. 

Bachelor of Science Degree 

Preparatory year for the bachelor program (AP) 

The internal evaluation of the AP program in the light of the requirements of Swiss Federal standards has led to a thorough-going 

curriculum review, to be completed during the academic year 2012-2013. The objectives are to reinforce the 

practical and professional aspects of the program and to switch to a semester-based year with two annual intakes (see 

Appendices 3.2.1.1). 

bachelor program (bSc) 

This program will be evaluated against American and European standards in 2012, and current markets needs resulting 

in the implementation of a revised program for the 2013-2014 student intake. 

The main objective is to reposition the Bachelor Program in EHL’s portfolio including new European “Consecutive Masters” 

and executive programs. 

DHR Program 

An analysis of the feasibility of transforming the current DhR program into an ES School Diploma has led to a negative 

conclusion (see Appendix 3.2.1.2). Therefore, a revision of the DhR program will be undertaken in conjunction with the 

Preparatory year program revision starting in 2012, to be completed by the start of the 2013-2014 academic year. 

The main objectives are to reposition it in light of the bSc and the master programs. 

MHA Program 

In the light of EhL’s commitment to adhere to hES-SO standards, the current mhA will be revised to meet the criteria for 

an EmbA by the start of the 2012-2013 academic year (OAQ/AmbA standards). 

Evaluation of program delivery 

Academic Programs: surveys and evaluations 

Evaluation of the Perception of Program Quality (December 2009 - 15 January 2010) (See Appendix n°3.2.2.1) 

A survey of program quality was carried out in December 2009-January 2010, using feedback from current students, EhL 

faculty and recent alumni. It was designed according to a model defi ned to measure program quality indicators and the 

achievement of student learning outcomes. 

Survey model (indicators): 

42 

Global 

Evaluation 

model 

Questions common to all programs Questions specific to each program 

Teaching Methods 

Student Expectations and Quality 

Continuous Improvement 

Means and Supports 

Faculty 

alignment with 

EHL teaching 

philosophy 

Course Content 

relevance 

Student Learning 

Outcomes for each 

program 

Practical and Academic Knowledge 

Interpersonal Competencies and Innovation 

Student Assessment 

Service Excellence 

Hospitality Processes 

Functional Management 

Strategic Management 

Leadership 

Interpersonal Competencies

This brought to light a number of needs which were addressed during the Learning and Teaching Development (LTD) 

Faculty Training Week in August 2010. In particular, a signifi cant difference came to light in the perception of the quality 

of evaluation in exams: in the bachelor program, whereas faculty rated their own grading at 7.3, the student index was 5.9 

(but in the DHR program: faculty 6.1 vs. students 5.9). Actions taken as a result are listed under “Assessment of Student 

Learning.” 

mhA Exit Survey (August 2011) 

In August 2011, the School performed its fi rst program exit survey, based on a benchmark of best practices. The model 

of questionnaire used will serve as a model for other programs (see Appendix n°3.2.2.2). 


course evaluations (at the end of each term) 

In 2009-2010, the questionnaire used for course evaluations was reviewed, based on a benchmark of best practices (see 

Appendix n°3.2.2.3). 

A number of courses are always evaluated at the end of each term. Faculty members may voluntarily request an evaluation 

of their courses, but the students may also do so through the Student council if they feel the need arises. The results 

of the evaluation are communicated only to the faculty member concerned, confi dentially. In 2010-2011, two evaluations 

were requested by students, resulting in one case in the replacement of the professor. 


Course Satisfaction 

Satisfaction about the Academic Program 

Satisfaction about the ambiance, quality of interactions 

Loyalty 

Obstacles to academic progress 

Course Organization 

Professor’s ability to engage and challenge students intelelctually 

Course Assignments/evaluations 

Professor’s interaction with students 

Professor’s organization/clarity 

Internship evaluations (on-going) 

Every year, the School receives feedback from the 300+ students who go out on internships in the industry, from their 

employers and from internships visits reports carried out by staff members. The whole process is not fully integrated 

at this time with the rest of the survey analysis, and the data is not analyzed systematically. In 2012, plans include the 

improvement of the quality of the data gathered to better evaluate internship satisfaction, both from the student’s and the 


employer’s points of view, as well as to improve the use made of the data. 

Broad-based assessment methods 

In 2010, NEASc provided Institutions of higher Education with four possible methodologies to be used to measure student 

achievement and success. Among the four, the School has decided to complete an Inventory (E1) of how programs 

assess student learning and use the results. Although the other alternatives were also interesting and could represent 

further progress of EHL in this area, we thought that the “inventory” alternative would introduce a systematic approach 

to program evaluation and improvement, while also incorporating already existing assessment methods (KPIs, internal 

statistics, surveys, etc) 

Assessment of student learning in General Education is an integrated part of this alternative. 

3.2.2 I EvALuATION OF ThE ASSESSmENT OF STuDENT 

LEARNING 

The surveys listed above are in place and allow for regular information-gathering in a large number of different fi elds. 

They provide evidence of the importance given to systematic data collection. 

Overall, however, these measurement tools have a number of limitations. Although a considerable amount of information 

has been and can be collected on stakeholder feedback, their actual added value for decision-making processes and 

implementation of projects remains insuffi cient. This appears to indicate a lack of an effective link between the surveys 

and decision-making processes. In addition, these surveys are not effectively coordinated from a thematic and methodological 

perspective, and the resources are not always used in an integrated manner. 

Indeed, EhL has not yet developed an effective, integrated system for assessing student learning. Data collection is not 

centralized and performance indicators do not refl ect best practices. Additionally, environmental scanning and market 

research need to be systematically included in the evaluation process. 

Our intention is to develop a broad-based assessment system for measuring student achievement and success which 

favors a more effective approach to the review and improvement of academic programs. 

It is noteworthy that both the revision of the programs and the creation of a new consecutive master as planned will continue 

to comply with uS standards, as well as with the requirements the hES-SO and European standards. 

3.2.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT ThE ASSESSmENT OF STuDENT 

LEARNING 


3.2.1 Evaluation of program portfolio 

3.2.1.1 AP Assessment (bOS program) 

Protocole de décisions d’évaluation interne de l’AP (June 2011) 

Rapport d’évaluation interne de l’AP (June 2011) 

Grille d’evaluation interne n°1 : AP - conditions cadre (may 2011) 

Grille d’évaluation interne n°2 : AP – documentation Plan d’études (may 2011) 

44 


• Implement the inventory (E1) assessment method 

• Implement a global survey policy.

3.2.1.2 DhR Assessment 

Transformation du DhR en Diplôme ES : rapport d’évaluation interne [and 2 appendices] 

(February 2011) 

3.2.1.3 mhA Assessment 

Grille d’evaluation interne n°1 : mhA – Standards d’accréditation OAQ (may 2011) 

Grille d’évaluation interne n°2 : mhA – documentation Plan d’études (may 2011) 

3.2.2 Evaluation of program delivery 

3.2.2.1 Evaluation de la qualité perçue des programmes académiques : résultat de l’enquête du 15 décembre 2009 

au 15 janvier 2010 (may 2010) 

3.2.2.2 mhA exit Survey (2011) 

3.2.2.3 modèle de questionnaire d’évaluation de l’enseignement (September 2011). 


4. FACuLTY: RESEARCH AND 

FACuLTY SCHOLARSHIP 


4.1 I RESEARch, FAcuLTy PROFILE AND EvALuATION OF 

FAcuLTy 

STANDARDS 

Standard 5.22 

“Where compatible with the institution’s purposes and refl ective of the level of degrees offered, research is undertaken by 

faculty and students directed toward the creation, revision, or application of knowledge. Physical, technological, and administrative 

resources together with academic services are adequate to support the institution’s commitment to research 

and creative activity. Faculty workloads refl ect this commitment. Policies and procedures related to research, including 

ethical considerations, are established and clearly communicated throughout the institution. Faculty exercise a substantive 

role in the development and administration of research policies and practices.” 

Standard 5.11 

“Faculty are demonstrably effective in carrying out their assigned responsibilities. The institution employs effective procedures 

for the regular evaluation of faculty appointments, performance, and retention. The evaluative criteria refl ect 

the mission and purposes of the institution and the importance it attaches to the various responsibilities of faculty, e.g., 

teaching, advising, assessment, scholarship, creative activities, research, and professional and community service. The 

institution has equitable and broad-based procedures for such evaluation applying to both full- and part-time faculty, in 

which its expectations are stated clearly and weighted appropriately for use in the evaluative process.” 1 


Report from the visiting Team, January 2009 

(…) “One of the axes of the strategic plan includes the expansion of research done by EHL faculty members. While there 

are mechanisms in place that might accomplish this, including a commitment to hire more faculty with PhD degrees, we 

are not sure that there is yet an agreed upon understanding of what is meant by research and what mechanisms can best 

address this commitment to expanding research. We encourage faculty and administrators to develop a clearer understanding 

of the direction that they would like to see this component take: what research is appropriate for EhL moving 

forward, what outlets will be targeted, and what is the appropriate balance between fundamental and applied research, 

for example. 2 ” 


(…) “The commission is pleased to note that EHL’s strategic plan recognizes the importance of faculty scholarship and 

that the institution has articulated plans for how to accomplish this, including a commitment to hire more faculty with 

Ph.D. degrees. We encourage faculty and administrators to develop a clearer understanding of how EhL’s commitment 

to research will be implemented; for example, to determine an appropriate balance between fundamental and applied 

research. We look forward to learning, in Fall 2011, of the institution’s success in clarifying its expectations for faculty 

scholarship and implementing these as part of its faculty hiring and evaluation processes and its decision-making regarding 

library and information resources. 3 ” 

The chapter related to research is organized into four parts: 

• Description of research 

• Assessment of research. 

• Projections of research 


1. NEASc Standards for accreditation - 07.01.2011 

2. NEASc Team Report 2009, page 10 

3. cIhE: Letter – June 30, pages 4 and 5 

48

4.1.1 I DEScRIPTION OF RESEARch, FAcuLTy PROFILE, 

EvALuATION OF FAcuLTy 

The description of research includes three parts: 

• The HES profile of EHL 

• Profile of research at EHL 

• Academic Research Institutes. 

HES profile of EHL 

For all Swiss institutions having hES status, research is an essential mission, and must support the academic programs. 

Profile of research at EHL 

Owing to the nature of the School’s subject-matter, namely hospitality management, in its case the usual distinction between 

applied and fundamental research scarcely applies. In such a field, unlike physics, no research is “fundamental”. 

To take an example: if it can be shown that a change in the behavior of the staff in a hotel, achieved through training, 

brings about a measurable improvement in client satisfaction, that is not so much “fundamental” or “applied” research 

as to the creation of transferable knowledge. EhL’s research concept is therefore based on knowledge creation. This can 

in principle be combined with consulting; EhL’s research must be read in hotels, not only in other universities. 

All research projects undertaken in the School are naturally overseen by the Academic and Research Director, with the 

assistance of his Deputy Dean and with the approval of the Scientific Committee, comprised of faculty members who 

themselves undertake research projects. The Committee was established during the summer of 2011. Its task is to define 

the research agenda, i.e. first to identify the types of research for which EHL may wish to be known and then to encourage 

faculty to undertake such a project. 

In 2011, seven faculty members have been engaged in research projects funded externally (by the hES-SO) covering the 

following general areas: client relationship management; value creation between suppliers and clients in Food & beverage 

in Switzerland; Property management Systems in hotels; the role of Social media in hotel buyer behavior; wine as lucrative 

investment; and proactive work behavior. (See Appendix n°4.1.1) One faculty member occupies a Research chair 

in Food & beverage to study innovation in the industry, while another has developed an IxT benchmark Report jointly 

financed by Starwood and the Rezidor/Radisson Hotels Group. Three other faculty members are engaged on research 

projects without external funding. 

Academic Research Institutes 

In the short to medium-term, the School’s research policy is to create research Institutes within the Learning Department, 

which are based on university models, also with continuing education and consulting functions. Three of these 

were launched at the start of the academic year 2011-2012: 

Innovation in Food Service Operations and Management Institute 

head: Pr. christine Demen meier 

Institute of Hospitality Performance Metrics 

head: Pr. hillary murphy 

Institute for Wine Economics and Management (working title) 

head: Pr. Philippe masset 

The task of the research institutes to promote contacts with the industry, to foster collaboration and the exchange of ideas 

between faculty members and to enhance research output, both in quantity and quality. They are led by faculty members 

of PhDs and experience in research. They have been deliberately opened up to faculty members with limited research 

experience in order to allow the latter to benefit from their introduction into the research process. Ultimately, this should 

lead to a broadening of the research base among the faculty. 


4.1.2 I ASSESSmENT OF RESEARch, FAcuLTy PROFILE AND 

ThE EvALuATION OF FAcuLTy 

While EHL is currently in the early stages of redefi ning its research function, there are a number of noteworthy developments. 

Within the reorganization of the Learning Department, the former “Lausanne Hospitality Research” (LHR) unit 

has been dissolved, as in practice it had several unfortunate side-effects. First, the dominant topic of research at EhL 

tended to be too “top down”, with a lot of time spent on the identifi cation of “strategic axes” of research, a relatively heavy 

bureaucracy and little emphasis on faculty initiative and independence. Second, when LhR employed at least one fulltime 

researcher and conducted its own research, with little input from faculty, it generated the perception that “research 

was carried out in the research department”, so providing a simple excuse for many faculty members not to get involved 

in it. Now that LhR has gone, resources can be allocated more productively and a cultural change can hopefully take 

place. 

The creation of the position of an Associate Dean for Research and Academic Affairs (Dr Steffen Raub) indicates a renewed 

emphasis on research as a central activity for EHL faculty members. On his appointment Dr Raub fi rst prepared 

a presentation to faculty, stating that while the School was not currently a major player in research, EhL would in future 

encourage it. The task is to defi ne the strategic objectives for research, levels of productivity and the kind of output expected. 

This should be focused on publications in hospitality-specifi c academic journals and practitioner-related outlets. 

management systems for goal-setting and performance evaluation in terms of research will be put in place in the near 

future. 

As from October 1st, Dr Raub will have a full-time Project Assistant. His fi rst task will be to create a coherent system 

of research output evaluation; also, to compile journal rankings in hospitality and discipline-specifi c journals, with the 

objective of having a coherent system in place by the end of 2011. At the same time, the Associate Dean is conducting 

individual discussions with all faculty involved in research to review their recent production and set objectives for the next 

two years. A further task is to prepare the infrastructure necessary for EhL to host two major academic conferences dealing 

with research by 2013, EurochRIE and I-chLAR. 

4.1.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT RESEARch 


4.1.1 Liste des projets de recherche en cours (2011) 

4.1.2 Future of research at EhL (August 2011) 

Job’s descriptions SEE Appendices 2.3.1 

Standards OAQ SEE Appendices Institutional Overview 

50 

The following developments is planned in the 2012-2013 period: 

• Implement a voluntary research strategy as described above, which includes the creation of research institutes and 

ensures their development, reinforces faculty support resources, assesses research output, and plans research 

events.

4.2 I FAcuLTy SuPPORT RESOuRcES 

STANDARDS 

“ The institution provides suffi cient and appropriate library and information resources. The institution provides adequate 

access to these resources and demonstrates their effectiveness in fulfi lling its mission. The institution provides instructional 

and information technology suffi cient to support its teaching and learning environment.” 

Standard 7.5 

“Through ownership or guaranteed access, the institution makes available the library and information resources necessary 

for the fulfi llment of its mission and purposes. These resources are suffi cient in quality, level, diversity, quantity, and 

currency to support and enrich the institution’s academic offerings. They support the academic and research program 

and the intellectual and cultural development of students, faculty, and staff. 1 ” 



(…) “There are some excellent services evolving to support faculty in both their teaching and research roles. The IT function 

is running apace to transform old, in-house software applications to more modern modules that can be purchased, 

modifi ed and updated as needed. New building projects will create new spaces for teaching, and perhaps allow the restoration 

of more enclosed offi ce spaces for faculty. The Director of LHR has just developed an extensive strategy and action 

plan for a greatly expanded support structure for faculty research, and faculty members seem to appreciate the library 

facilities available for teaching. We are not sure that there are current plans for library changes to meet the needs that 

will grow with the new curricula changes, and/or the greater emphasis on research, but we anticipate that the librarian 

will develop these plans as implementation takes place.” 2 

The chapter related to faculty support resources is organized into four parts: 

• Description of faculty support resources 

• Assessment of faculty support resources 

• Projections about faculty support resources 


4.2.1 I DEScRIPTION OF FAcuLTy SuPPORT RESOuRcES 

The description of faculty support resources includes six parts: 

• Reorganization of faculty support resources 

• Technical support for research 

• Library 

• Strategic intelligence unit 

• IT / Offi ce Automation Unit 

• Learning and Teaching Development (LTD). 

Reorganization of faculty support resources 

The process of bringing together a number of services to support the faculty and students in their activities linked to 

teaching, research, and learning under the umbrella of Academic Support Services was launched in November 2010. 

however, owing to the change of Academic and Research Director in march 2011 and the subsequent organizational 

changes linked to the creation of a new department of Learning, the Academic Support Services will become fully operational 

in September 2011. 

Its mission is to plan, organize, and develop the various activities and resources so as to meet the current and future 

needs of faculty and students in a more integrated manner, and to position this group of services so as to enhance the 

quality of teaching, research, and learning at EhL. 


2. NEASc Team Report 2009, page 10 


The Academic Support service comes under the purview of the Deputy Academic Director for Research and Academic 

affairs and works closely with the Scientific Committee which approves research projects. 

It includes the following units and functions (other than the Writing centre which caters exclusively for students): 

Technical support for research 

This service includes quantitative and analytical tools (such as SPSS, “Mr. Interview”, and Data Stream). These have been 

increased to cover the growing research needs of Faculty. 

The Library 

The Library provides a broad range of paper and digital resources through its network of 80 libraries, as well as training 

on how to use databases effectively. 

Strategic Intelligence unit 

The Strategic Intelligence unit is an internet knowledge management tool which supports faculty in gathering, organizing, 

and monitoring specific data for research projects and course development. 

IT / Office Automation Centre (“Centre de Bureautique”) 

The IT/Office Automation Centre which is still under development provides training in the use of the Moodle platform, as 

well as MSOffice, as required. 

Learning and Teaching Development (LTD) 

LTD provides pedagogical expertise, through ongoing workshops and personal coaching, to help faculty develop their 

teaching competencies and to facilitate the acquisition of the HES teaching qualification. Overall, LTD aims at promoting 

a teaching and learning culture based on best practice and innovation. 

4.2.2 I ASSESSmENT OF FAcuLTy SuPPORT RESOuRcES 

In the broader context of the recent institutional changes, the services attached to Academic Support were reviewed and 

strengthened in order to meet the immediate needs of faculty and students. Longer-term objectives were established to 

promote cooperation between the different services and more effective communication with the faculty, thus enhancing 

the quality of the support provided. 

Since 2011, the Library has been studying the concept of Information Literacy and how to integrate these skills in the 

services they provide to the faculty. Indeed, Swiss universities and institutions of higher education have adopted common 

standards for information literacy and are now beginning to offer workshops or short courses based on them. The Library 

plans to do the same during the period 2012-2014. 

It is hoped that as a form of scientific support, the Library will occupy a more central function in providing information 

resources for faculty research. 

Regarding LTD (Learning and Teaching Development), it is considered essential to continue to work with program directors 

during the current revisions of the curricula. However, there is insufficient staffing at present to address all the 

needs, with only a single remaining faculty member in the unit. 

Finally, IT/»bureautique» also needs more resources to deliver the current and future technological support needed for 

the faculty to fulfil its teaching and research missions. 

52

4.2.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT FAcuLTy SuPPORT RESOuRcES 


• create better synergies between the competencies of the various services 

• Expand resources for research support 

• Raise awareness of the impact of IcT (Information and communication Technologies) on teaching and 

learning, and the future possibility of developing online courses 

• Provide information literacy workshops. 


4.2.1 Academic Support Services (August 2011) 


5. INTEGRITY: GRIEvANCE 


5.1 I GRIEvANcE 

Standards 

“The institution subscribes to and advocates high ethical standards in the management of its affairs and in all of its dealing 

with students, prospective students, faculty, staff, its governing board, external agencies and organizations, and the 

general public. Through its policies and practices, the institution endeavors to exemplify the values it articulates in its 

mission and related statements.” 

Standard 11.8 

“The institution has established and publicizes clear policies ensuring institutional integrity. Included among them are 

appropriate policies and procedures for the fair resolution of grievances brought by faculty, staff, or students.” 1 



(…) “While the work of the Committee on Contact and Mediation is better defi ned than it appears to have been in 2006; and 

the committee has handled a number of cases including many involving faculty, it does not seem to us, or to the faculty 

or the committee itself that this structure provides or is intended to be a substitute for a regularized grievance procedure, 

especially when faculty have a grievance involving the administration. Faculty and administrators should continue 

to work together to create an appropriate structure that would meet NEASc expectations.” 2 

(…) “Continued attention could usefully be paid to the on-going development of a grievance procedure and to clarifying 

still further the processes for hiring and terminating faculty.” 3 


(…) “5. Providing a regularized process to handle complaints and grievances;” 4 

(…) “The Commission is pleased to learn that the work of the committee on Contract and Mediation appears to be better 

defi ned and utilized by faculty and others. However, this structure does not appear to be a suffi cient substitute for a 

regularized grievance procedure, especially when faculty have a grievance involving the administration. The commission 

is fully supportive of mediation as a useful process to assist parties in reaching agreement and understands EhL’s goal 

of not encouraging a litigious culture. Nevertheless, there are times when the parties do not agree and when a judgment 

must be rendered by an impartial person of body. We urge faculty and administrators to continue to working on 

the creation of an appropriate grievance structure for those cases in which mediation is not successful or appropriate, 

and we look forward to learning about the School’s success on this matter as part of the nest report as informed by the 

standards on Integrity.” 5 

The chapter related to grievance is organized into four parts: 

• Description of grievance 

• Assessment of grievance 

• Projections about grievance 


5.1.1 I DEScRIPTION OF GRIEvANcE 

The description of grievance includes three parts: 

• historical perspective 

• Grievance procedure 

• Student grievances. 


2. NEASc- cIhE Team report 2009, page 10 

3. NEASc- cIhE Team report 2009, page 13 



56

Historical perspective 

Hitherto, conflicts between a staff member and the School have been dealt with by the Contact and Mediation Committee. 

The original name of this body was “Grievance and Mediation Committee”, and already in 2003 the School reported that it 

“…(planned) to have an official procedure in place in 2004.” Yet in 2008 EHL’s Interim, 5th Year Accreditation Report quoted 

the “Contact and Mediation Committee” as saying that a specific procedure for grievances was not felt to be needed at 

EHL. In practice, the work of the Committee has had to address a number of conflicts between employees and the management 

or between different employees referred to it. 

At EhL the issue of grievance is indeed one of long standing. As explained on previous occasions, the School has not 

hitherto found it necessary to have a separate procedure to address grievances, for cultural and legal reasons. Such a 

procedure relates to the balance of social protection between the employer and the employee, as defined by the law, and 

the relative weighting given to each. As in the case of owner and tenant, the law affords different levels of protection to 

the two opposing parties in different countries. The united States is the classic example of a very liberal environment, 

where the employer has most rights on his side and can fire the employee easily; a grievance policy, which protects the 

employee, helps to restore a proper balance between the two sides. In France, on the other hand, where the trade unions 

are strong, the balance of rights lies with the employee and it is notoriously difficult for an employer to restructure and 

reduce the workforce. 

In Switzerland the level of legal protection between the parties is considered to be equitably balanced, or perhaps slightly 

in favor of the employer. To introduce a grievance policy in favor of the employee therefore introduces a new factor into the 

equation, and may tip the balance firmly on the side of the employee. 

It is true; however, that Switzerland is now seeing the beginnings of a litigation culture, characterized by the refusal of 

dialogue and more frequent recourse to the law. The School recognizes that genuine, serious grievances can arise, that 

they may not always be resolved through dialogue, and that an appropriate way to address this is needed. Accordingly, in 

spring 2011 a draft procedure, drawing on best practice elsewhere, was prepared by the human Resources department 

in cooperation with the mediation and the cDIR. It has been approved by the General Director and a representative of the 

board of Governors and will be published on the EhL intranet by the end of September 2011. 

Grievance procedure 

The new procedure requires the revival of the Staff committee, essentially a link between senior management and staff, 

which in serious cases of grievance will be able to act on behalf of the plaintiff, as would a trade union in a unionized 

context. 

The need for a neutral body able to give a final ruling on each issue will be met by an ad hoc Arbitration Commission, an 

internal body based on the Appeals commission already existing for students. Its membership will be tailored to the requirements 

of each case, and must be acceptable to both parties. It will always include a member of the Staff committee 

and an external legal expert. It will not include any member of the management or the board of Governors, although the 

management or its representative may make a submission to the commission. 

In future, therefore, conflicts will be dealt with in one of two ways: 

(i) Interpersonal conflicts: in these cases the Contact and Mediation Commission is the competent body, as at present. 

With the exception of the chair, its members are no longer given release time from their regular duties; they come up for 

re-election in late 2011. 

(ii) Grievances per se, involving legal aspects, will come before the Arbitration commission, with expert participation and 

advice. The most common issues may involve contracts, allegedly excessive workload and unclear job descriptions, which 

can affect the respective responsibilities of staff members. The total appears to increase at times when restructuring is 

in the air and staff feels insecure: under current circumstances some 1-5 cases are expected per year. 

The successive steps of the procedure to be adopted follow a standard pattern, and are the following: 

Step 1 - Informal discussion 

Many conflicts will normally be resolved at this stage. During the initial discussion between the aggrieved party and his/ 

her supervisor, the latter will investigate the concern raised thoroughly, to establish whether or not a violation of the 

School’s policy and procedures has occurred, will document the case, and will give a thoughtful response. 


Step 2 - Formal, documented meetings 

If a formal grievance is nonetheless fi led, the employee puts the facts in writing, for a meeting with the representative of 

the management, such as the respective head of Department, the Director of human Resources if necessary, the Academic 

Director or his Deputy, and a member of the Staff committee. The supervisor then gives a written response to the 

employee if a resolution is identifi ed. 

Step 3 – Contact and Mediation Commission 

If no satisfactory solution has occurred, the issue is referred to the contact and mediation commission, which, acting 

confi dentially, will try to fi nd a solution acceptable to all parties, with verbal and written recommendations. 

Step 4 – Final Appeal to the Arbitration Commission 

This is the last resort. By accepting it, both sides agree that the ruling given will be fi nal and binding. 

Student grievances 

In parallel to procedures for staff, there is procedure for confl icts involving students, some of which are comparable to 

grievances, to an Appeals Commission. As a fi rst step, plans call for the training of “EHL Ambassadors”, who normally 

act as campus guides for visitors, in confl ict resolution. 

Students, too, now seem more prepared than hitherto to envisage legal action; in recent years the campus has seen the 

arrival of lawyers, which is not a welcome development. 

5.1.2 I ASSESSmENT OF GRIEvANcE 

As stated above, the arbitration procedure applied to the grievance is an internal procedure. under Swiss law, external 

legal arbitration as used in formal confl ict resolution is a very heavy, complex, time-consuming and costly procedure, 

involving teams of opposing experts, and quite inappropriate to an educational institution. 

The School’s procedure will meet the requirement of Standard 11.8, thus enhancing its integrity. 

Knowledge of it, with recourse to a body including external legal advice, may increase the number of grievances coming 

before the contact and mediation committee. This can also be seen as a positive development, even though the ideal is 

of course to have as few confl icts and grievances as possible. 

The School’s own view is still that, in the local context, a grievance procedure as such is not essential. On the other hand, 

it accepts the need to follow the recommendations made by NEASc. 

5.1.3 I PROJEcTIONS AbOuT GRIEvANcE 


5.1.1 Règlement concernant le Comité du personnel à l’Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne (September 2011) 

5.1.2 [Projet de] Règlement concernant la procédure d’élection de la représentation des travailleurs à l’Ecole hôtelière 

de Lausanne (September 2011). 

58 


• Fully Implement the new procedure by 1 January 2012 

• Review the procedure after two years’ operation, in 2014.

AbbREvIATION LIST 

Abbreviation List 

AP Année Préparatoire (bachelor preparatory year) 

cAS Certificate of Advanced Studies 

cDIR comité de Direction 

cF conseil de Fondation / board of Trustees 

cFAc conseil de Faculté 

cFhES commission fédérale des hautes écoles spécialisées 

cIhE NEASc – commission on Institutions of higher Education 

DAS Diploma of Advanced Studies 

DFE Département fédéral de l’économie 

DER Directeur de l’Enseignement et de la Recherche 

EcAL Lausanne university of Arts and Design 

EcTS European credit Transfert System - Système Européen de transfert et d’accumulation de crédits 

EFQm European Foundation for Quality management 

EhL Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne 

ENQA European Association for Quality Assurance in higher Education 

FNRS Fonds national de la recherche scientifique 

GE General Education 

hAccP hazard Analysis and critical control Points 

hEP haute Ecole Pédagogique 

hES haute Ecoles Spécialisées 

hES-SO haute Ecole Spécialisée de Suisse occidentale 

KFH conférence des recteurs des hautes écoles spécialisées 

KPIs Key Performance Indicators 

LAhE Loi sur l’Aide au hautes Ecoles 

LhES Loi fédérale du 6 octobre 1995 sur les hautes écoles spécialisées 

LIEGE Laboratoire interuniversitaire en études genre 

mAS master of Advanced Studies (offres de master postgrade, master de formation continue) 

NA Not applicable 

NEASc New England Association of Schools and colleges 

OAQ Organe d’accréditation et d’assurance qualité des hautes écoles suisses 

OFFT Office fédéral de la formation professionnelle et de la technologie 

PPI Perfectionnement professionnel individuel 

PmO Project Management Office 

SLOs Student Learning Outcomes 

uNIL university of Lausanne 

uQ uS Quarter credits 


LIST OF APPENDIcES 

Institutional Overview 

• NEASc Letter (30 June 2009) 

• Projet de Loi fédérale sur l’aide aux hautes écoles et la coordination dans le domaine suisse des hautes écoles 

(LAhE) (29 may 2009) 

• Accreditation of the universities of applied sciences: Quality standards for institutional accreditation: Points of reference 

(march 2011). 

1. PLANNING AND EvALuATION 

1.1 Strategic planning 


1.1.1.1 EhL Strategy 2012 (November 2006) 

1.1.1.2 Relevé des indicateurs clés de performance pour le comité de Direction (April 2011) 


1.1.2.1 Planning process 

Lignes directrices du développement (December 2010) 

Stratégie EhL 2020 (September 2011) 

macro compétences (2011) 

1.1.2.2 communication actions 

Learning: 

Rentrée 2011 (march 2011) 

Enseignement et recherche : objectifs et développements (may 2011) 

Département de l’enseignement et de la recherche : [séance à la faculté dans le cadre de l’ouverture de 

la semaine de développement de la faculté] (August 2011) 

Students: 

Q&A session: bSc Students (may 2011) 

KPIs SEE ALSO Appendices1.2.1.1 Quality Office Annual Reports 

Balanced Scorecard SEE Appendices 1.2.1.1 Quality Office Annual Reports. 

1.2 Evaluation 

1.2.1 Key Performance Indicators 

1.2.1.1 Quality Office Annual Reports 

2008 

2009 

1.2.2 Surveys 

1.2.2.1 Survey of Service centre (October 2010) 

1.2.2.2 IT services Survey (June 2011) 

1.2.2.3 Staff engagement Survey (march 2010) 

1.2.2.4 broad Student Survey (may 2011) 

1.2.3 business Process analysis 

1.2.3.1 methodology and template for analysis of EhL processes (march 2011) 

1.2.3.2 broad risk analysis on EhL macro-processes (June 2010) 

1.2.3.3 Financial processes (September 2010) 

1.2.3.4 EhL process methodology (march 2011) 

1.2.3.5 Flash Report (Financial oversight and monitoring) 

1.2.4 Project management Services 


62 

1.2.4.1 Dashboard 

1.2.5 Système de management. 

2. ORGANIzATION AND GOvERNANCE: FACuLTY AND ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP 

2.1 The Faculty Council in the organizational structure 

2.1.1 Règlement du conseil de Faculté (cFAc) de 2010 

2.2 The role of faculty 

2.2.1 Projet « Révision programme AP 2012 » : Synthèse du brainstorming (June 2011) 

2.3 Academic leadership 

2.3.1 Job’s descriptions 

2.3.1.1 Academic and Research Director 

2.3.1.2 Deputy Director of Learning and Research 

2.3.1.3 Responsible for academic support. 

3. THE ACADEMIC PROGRAM: GENERAL EDuCATION AND ASSESSMENT OF STuDENT 

LEARNING 

3.1 General education 

3.1.2 courses description 

3.1.2.1 General Education course distribution in the bSc 

3.1.2.2 General Education courses by competencies 

3.2 Assessment of Student Learning 

3.2.1 Evaluation of program portfolio 

3.2.1.1 AP Assessment (bOS program) 

Protocole de décisions d’évaluation interne de l’AP (June 2011) 

Rapport d’évaluation interne de l’AP (June 2011) 

Grille d’evaluation interne n°1 : AP - conditions cadre (may 2011) 

Grille d’évaluation interne n°2 : AP – documentation Plan d’études (may 2011) 

3.2.1.2 DhR Assessment 

Transformation du DhR en Diplôme ES : rapport d’évaluation interne [and 2 appendices] 

(February 2011) 

3.2.1.3 mhA Assessment 

Grille d’evaluation interne n°1 : mhA – Standards d’accréditation OAQ (may 2011) 

Grille d’évaluation interne n°2 : mhA – documentation Plan d’études (may 2011) 

3.2.2 Evaluation of program delivery 

3.2.2.1 Evaluation de la qualité perçue des programmes académiques : résultat de l’enquête du 15 décembre 2009 

au 15 janvier 2010 (may 2010) 

3.2.2.2 mhA exit Survey (2011) 

3.2.2.3 modèle de questionnaire d’évaluation de l’enseignement (September 2011)

4. FACuLTY: RESEARCH AND FACuLTY SCHOLARSHIP 

4.1 Research, Faculty profile and Evaluation of Faculty 

4.1.1 Liste des projets de recherche en cours (2011) 

4.1.2 Future of research at EhL (August 2011) 

Job’s descriptions SEE Appendices 2.3.1 

Standards OAQ SEE Appendices Institutional Overview. 

4.2 Faculty support resources 

4.2.1 Academic Support Services (August 2011) 

5. INTEGRITY . GRIEvANCE 

5.1 Grievance 

5.1.1 Règlement concernant le Comité du personnel à l’Ecole hôtelière de Lausanne (September 2011) 

5.1.2 [Projet de] Règlement concernant la procédure d’élection de la représentation des travailleurs à l’Ecole hôtelière 

de Lausanne (September 2011). 

F&E FORMS

NEASC Progress Report - October 2011 - Ecole Hôtelière de ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?