In the process of external evaluation of the study programs Quality Management - Professional Bachelor's Degree Program, Quality Management - Master's Degree Program, and Quality Management - Doctoral Degree Program, we evaluated the study programs according to the five standards of Article 23. We identified strengths in three standards, such as the Project Office of the institution being a highly effective support for the entire project work, and good recognition of all three study programs in the local economy, among other advantages mentioned in the report. We identified opportunities for improvement in four standards (standards 1, 3, 4, and 5), which are also listed in the report. In standards 2, 3, and 5, we identified major deficiencies or inconsistencies, which include the following: although we acknowledge the institution's awareness of the importance of improving the content aspect of self-evaluation and the efforts made for improvement in 2023, we found that in previous years there has been a lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the self-evaluation processes; the closure of the quality loop can only be positively evaluated from a procedural ("technical") perspective, while there is a significant lack of active involvement of stakeholders in the content aspects of self-evaluation processes; inadequate level of competence in scientific research methodology, particularly at the doctoral level of study; duplication of mandatory study literature in subjects of the same study program; outdated mandatory study literature; inappropriate and insufficient mandatory study literature in some cases; ; the institution does not meet the minimum research standards required for third-level study programs, considering the research or development projects obtained in the last five years, which should be led by the course instructors of the third-level study program; violation of criteria for the appointment of university teachers in one case - concerning inadequate references for subject leadership by the same lecturer; scientific and research references provided by one of the lecturers in the doctoral program are inadequate regarding the research field, and in some cases, the references do not meet high standards and relevance.