The one thing Learning Regions have in common is that they are all discussing the quality of their network. But they differ a lot concerning the way they want to manage quality that is what they think quality is about and who has the power to define how quality should be conceived. One of the consequences of this might be that all the regions need adaptive systems and tools for managing their own quality as they understand it.

Since the German network was very large much energy was consumed by keeping together the numerous small and bigger projects and products and reducing them to a common denominator. In the end no large scale quality assurance took place. In 2008 after the project was finished only some L-points survived, namely only in the connection where the municipalities had taken over the financial part.

In relation to its statutory requirements the Partnership and the Scottish Executive entered into a Single Outcome Agreement (SOA). The SOA sets out a number of indicators, actions and commitments between the Partnership and the Executive and the Partnership published a monitoring report showing how and in what ways the key objectives, based on nationally agreed indicators had been achieved (Dundee City Council, 2009). The report noted progress on a number of the outcomes in relation to health, the environment, life chances and inequality among others. In relation to quality mechanisms used in the networks and partnerships, there appear to be a number of formal procedures in place. Further discussion with network representatives will attempt to gain a more detailed perception of the network actors on the efficiency and effectiveness of the quality monitoring currently in place.

Up till now, there are not explicit criteria for quality assessment of learning in Lundaland (Sweden), not on the personal level and not on the top management level. Due to the rather many but small and heterogeneous projects that are managed within the Lundaland, there are problems to apply the same set of quality measurement to all projects and an adaptation to local contexts and project team participants must be made in the assessment of progress and quality of results. Both the management team and the individual micro-project teams are complaining about the burden of filling in a number of formal documents and forms in order to get the project to start phase, to run it according to project plan and document the results that has been envisioned when the project was accepted as a Lundaland project.

Also in Ireland quality management has not become an issue within network discussions. But there has been an emphasis upon evaluation in a broader sense. Although there is no formal commitment of resources there is a marked openness to exploring possible means of evaluation and quality assurance. Contacts with the Steering Group to date have established that the capacity to review, evaluate and understand more about quality is seen to be beneficial in terms of (1) Contributing to the capacity for stakeholders in the process to become more flexible and responsive to needs in promotion of learning. (2) Demonstrating the benefits of learning in the broadest sense of the term. The potential benefits of quality assurance and evaluation activities are recognised as providing information and evidence of the contribution learning can make to social and economic development of the City. In Lithuania quality mechanisms are still in the phase of development.

Although the Consortium in Romania doesn’t use explicit quality assurance tools quality plays a key role in the approach of the project. Two dimensions are foreseen: (1) a better adapted offer of Universities and other education and training providers to the needs of the regional developing process. (2) An institutional development intervention, with a direct impact on the quality of the methodologies, tools and implementing strategies for enhancing the role of education and training providers from the region. In addition indirect features are included in the internal quality monitoring activities: capacity of the project to promote leadership competences, impact of the project on employment and employability strategies, role of the project in identifying new categories and providers of resources, impact of the project on promotion of new strategies to provide information on learning opportunities and the capacity of the project to promote change management competences.

The main challenge of the Forum in Hungary is to involve distinguished colleagues and experts from partner organisations/institutions in participating sessions for development, innovation, partnership promoting the goals of the Forum. European policies have influenced so far the quality development and actions to improve access and equal opportunities to education/training and culture: One example is the development of NQF in Hungary referring mainly to VET and adult training. Stakeholders consider the development process of NQF as a tool which may enhance the acceleration and harmonization of the internal reforms being implemented within the different areas of education and training.