directed toward the leadership of Higher Education. Students were rarely addresses and graduates were only informed comparable late about the results. Based on the six case studies it can be concluded that there are two approaches: A central and a decentral approach. In the central approach, the university-wide report is the primary focus whereas in the decentral approach, the faculty reports are written first and a university-wide report is only secondary priority or not planned at all. Striking, was the lack of a systematic online linking of the project. In all six Higher Education Institutions which were observed in the case studies, the result reports were only downloadable on the project homepage. There was no linking to the career service homepage or information for prospective students. On the contrary, it could be found information and links to graduate surveys conducted on national level or by other institutions in order to give students information about future job prospects without knowledge about the survey conducted at the own institution.

The utilization of results could only be analyzed on basis of the six cases studies, as the written survey was too early for any information about utilization. In general, the findings about utilization were rather disappointing. So far no instrumental use could be reported, that means no decisions or actions were taken on basis of the results. The reported usages were mostly on central level like accreditation, external demands for data, external information like annual report. On the departmental level utilization was only observed very randomly, mostly in cases of professional-oriented faculties as well as faculties in reform-process. The project coordinators confirmed these results by complaining about the lack of interests of faculty-side. Also, in the student services (career service, student counseling, alumni service) nearly no utilization was found. The student counseling and alumni services showed no interest, whereas career services showed interest and planned utilization in only two cases. Additionally, data protection regulations, which give the faculty the 1 data sovereignty, hinders utilization inside of central student services. So, a conflict between a decentral approach and central utilization could be observed.

## Literatur:

Arnold, Eva (2003): Qualitätsentwicklung im Bereich der Lehre: Anforderungen und Strategien auf der Ebene der Fachbereiche. Beitrag im Evaluationsnetzwerk des HIS (evaNet). Evanet.

Kaufmann, Benedict (2009): Qualitätssicherungssysteme an Hochschulen - Maßnahmen und Effekte. Eine empirische Studie. Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Bonn.

KOAB Homepage: http://koab.uni-kassel.de/en/koab.html

Krempkow, René (2009): Graduate surveys as an outcome evaluation. Paper presented in track 1 at the 31st annual EAIR forum in Vilnius, Lithuania, August 2009.

Nickel, Sigrun (2007): Institutionelle QM-System in Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Konzepte – Instrumente – Umsetzung. Eine empirische Studie. Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung, Gütersloh. Schomburg, Harald (2005): The Relevance of Graduate Surveys. International Centre for Higher Education Research, University Kassel.