Evaluation of service units

Service units are evaluated at least every seven years, according to the Quality Assurance part of the Statutes. The goals of the evaluation are

  • to examine the portfolio of services provided 
  • to draw up and implement measures aimed at improving its ability to support research and teaching activities. 


The evaluations are performed in accordance with the informed peer review model and are carried out in four stages.

1. Preparation

2. Self-evaluation

3. Peer evaluation

4. Implementation

Decision on key evaluation topics, time schedule

Selection of peers

Discussion of key evaluation topics within the unit

SWOT analysis

Quantitative data

Site visit by peers: talks with rectorate, leadership and members of the unit, users of the services

Implementation discussion

Evaluation concept

Self-evaluation report

Peer report, statement 

Implementation agreement



1. Preparation

The Unit for Quality Assurance and the unit leadership specify details of the evaluation process and

  • key evaluation topics are agreed upon with the rectorate.
  • criteria for the selection of evaluators (peers) are agreed upon and suggestions of potential peers are made by the evaluated unit and quality assurance. The decision about the peers is made by the head of quality assurance in accordance with the statutes.
  • specific measures are agreed upon according to need and subject-related possibilities, e.g. focus groups.

The result of this phase is the evaluation concept.


2. Self-evaluation

The unit leadership is responsible for the self-evaluation process and the preparation of the self-evaluation report, with broad and transparent involvement of all unit members.

In a kick-off event open to the unit, Quality Assurance and unit's leadership jointly present the evaluation procedure as well as the content-related and organizational stipulations made in the evaluation concept.

Quality Assurance provides a guideline for the self-evaluation report and, if necessary, conducts specific surveys or focus groups.

The result of the self-evaluation is the self-evaluation report, which together with further appendices (e.g. results of user satisfaction surveys, data report, excerpt of the development plan, peer report of the previous evaluation) serves as the basis for the evaluation.


3. Peer evaluation


Peers (external, international experts in the field) inform themselves on the basis of the self-evaluation report  and receive an online briefing from Quality Assurance about two weeks before the site visit. The agenda for the site visit is also set at this time.

During the two or three-day site visit, the peers hold discussions with the rectorate, unit's leadership and members, users of the unit's services. At the end of the site visit, the peers provide initial verbal feedback on their impressions (debriefing).

After the site visit, the peers submit a written evaluation report.

The unit's leadership statement to the evaluation report should also prepare the implementation measures.

The peer report and statement will be published, accessible for university members, after the process is complete, i.e., after the implementation agreement is signed.



4. Implementation

  • Quality Assurance summarizes the results of the evaluation report and statement and presents the results to the Rectorate.
  • The Rectorate and the unit's leadership hold an implementation discussion accompanied by quality assurance.
  • Measures derived from the evaluation are recorded in an implementation agreement.
  • Monitoring is carried out via the target agreements between the Rectorate and the unit leadership.



Confidentiality and Data Protection

The Unit for Quality Assurance warrants that during the whole evaluation process all data and information provided by the evaluated unit is treated with confidentiality.


Mag. Dr. Michael Hofer

T: +43-1-4277-18010

Dipl.-Pol. Jürgen Roth

T: +43-1-4277-18005

Mag. Marcel Kalmar, MSc.

T: +43-1-4277-18004