Visa resultat

Customer Focused Product Development, 2009/3, TEK160

Your own effort

1. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

33 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		16		48%
Around 20 hours/week»		11		33%
Around 25 hours/week»		4		12%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		6%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.75

- way too low workload» (At most 15 hours/week)
- lots of similarities with the earlier course in product development. » (At most 15 hours/week)
- didnt had time , worked during peak hours , so really cannot say about it» (Around 20 hours/week)

2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

33 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		1		3%
50%»		2		6%
75%»		17		51%
100%»		13		39%

Genomsnitt: 4.27

- Much was kept on the same level of difficulty as previous courses. This is the main reason for not attending all lectures.» (25%)
- same reason mentioned above didnt had enough time» (50%)
- I missed one week... between 75% and 100%» (75%)
- 85%» (75%)
- See above» (75%)
- Very good» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		5		15%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		8		24%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		20		60%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- It "s hard to judge about this question. But the goal and the contents were almost clear.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

30 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		5		16%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		25		83%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.83

- regarding the fact that we have studied many previous courses that are similar to CFPD, makes me believe that we could put some more challenging goals. » (No, the goals are set too low)

5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		14		48%
Yes, definitely»		11		37%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.65

- Fuzzy examination forms...» (To some extent)
- Hard to test everything we learned. A wide course.» (To some extent)
- The questions could have been outlined to make the student think more for itself, lots of information was just referring back to articles.» (To some extent)
- I haven"t got the result back, so I cant answer the question if it have or have not. My reflection is that the level of subjectivness in the examination is high, not saying that it is a bad thing, but one could think that the evaluation is increasingly difficult pending upon the interpretation of the questions, and what Ida attended to focus on. So if I would have to give you an answer, my answer would be to some extent. » (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

Teaching and course administration

6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		2		6%
Some extent»		10		30%
Large extent»		16		48%
Great extent»		5		15%

Genomsnitt: 2.72

- especially Idas first two lectures was good and clear. The Kansei was kind of fuzzy... Bo is great, but he can drifta away sometimes. Didn"t really like the advanced SPC, to much numbers compared to the real content. » (Some extent)
- Much was kept on the same level of difficulty as previous courses.» (Some extent)

7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		8		24%
Large extent»		19		57%
Great extent»		6		18%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- One of the articles was too specialized, ANP/AHP, and another was not fulfulling Benefits, obstacles, and future of six sigma approach.» (Large extent)
- I think the book and the articles have been good. Could be more though...» (Large extent)
- One of the QFD papers could be skipped...» (Large extent)
- i did not like the AHN. something like that literature and neither kansei» (Large extent)
- Some literature were really good, and some not that good. But overall, the material was good.» (Large extent)

8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		7		21%
Very well»		26		78%

Genomsnitt: 3.78

- Few misunderstandings between the schedule in the course PM and the schedule at the homepage.» (Very well)
- Ida is very organized» (Very well)
- keep up the good work here.» (Very well)

Study climate

9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		0		0%
Rather good»		3		9%
Very good»		22		70%
I did not seek help»		6		19%

Genomsnitt: 4.09

10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

Very poorly»		1		3%
Rather poorly»		1		3%
Rather well»		15		45%
Very well»		15		45%
I did not seek cooperation»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- Because of the given time for some assignments being to short, it was not possible to coordinate the groups. In the KE Soft exercise, me and antother person finished the whole assignment by our selves (in a group of seven people). Of course this was not only because of the short time, also the other group members showed disrespect by not contacting me when they knew we had a presentation to take care of. I emailed them for a meeting but they said that they didnt check their email. But if we would have had longer time it would have been easier for me to make sure everyone helped. This time I had to chose between failing everyone (including myself) or do the whole work myself.» (Very poorly)
- However there were few oportunities for group work» (Very well)
- We did not have so much group work, which I have to say was very good.» (I did not seek cooperation)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		5		15%
Low»		7		21%
Adequate»		20		60%
High»		1		3%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.51

- I took the lean production course along with the op improvement project and i still feel that i havent done anything...» (Too low)
- Honestly, I feel like you are underestimating our potential with these kind of courses. Life is hard, so just because we have had lots to do before or in parallell does not mean that we should be be "given a break".» (Too low)
- See goals above» (Too low)
- Low. But, Since some students were in the six sigma course, it became a balance.» (Low)
- not divided with the same workload every week» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		3%
Low»		12		36%
Adequate»		17		51%
High»		2		6%
Too high»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.69

- I think it was low, even though I had additional courses.» (Low)
- Studying operations» (Low)

Learning

13. Ida Gremyr

14. Marcus Assarlind

- He was helpful and instructive.»
- I learned a lot here »
- Good, always there as a helping hand.»
- Bra, dock kunde jobba på att stimulera seminarium»
- really good»
- in the helicopter and seminar i did them with Ida. Also, I miss out the first week»
- he was good at Kano questionnaire, that"s the only time I experienced him. »
- Good effort. Enthusiastic and willing to help.»
- he was good»
- Good laboratory. It is good to practice what you learn.»
- Only had marcus in one seminar, but it was good.»
- the DoE was very interesting»
- For me DOE is bettert experiment than the others project»
- poor coordinating skills in the seminars. Take command and start/brake the discussions, so that we (the students) can get through the entire agenda of the seminar. »

15. Hendry Raharjo

- Demonstrated high knowledge on the area of QFD. Excellent presentation with the use of a software to apply lessons learned. Good Support at the interactive examination. Too specialized articles, for the scheduled time. For further improvements would be good to have not just one day for this. »
- He is an expert in his field. The topic he covered was deeper than others. (I do not know if it is good or not)»
- Too little practical knowledge about QFD»
- As I stated, to much focus in numbers... I don"t like statistics, I"m one of those that the SAAB guy said are afraid of that word...»
- Hendry är hendry.»
- Describing clearer!»
- some part of the lecture was hard to follow»
- I was good but the literature was a bit confusing»
- a bit confusing teaching method, but generally rather good.»
- He was very good. I think more time should be devoted to him, in order to apply the QFD methodology in a practical way.»
- Knowlegdeable, interesting to listen to.»
- he was good»
- Hendry has a great deal of knowledge and is very enjoying to listen to. Most teachers at the university do not seam to be enthusiastic. Hendry is an exception and I genuinly enjoy listening to his lectures.»
- Very into details, are details that important.. But i think he is good in explaining, and making good associations.»
- Hendry try his best. However, as he told us, we need to do a project and calculate ourselves in order to understand the point. »
- Too much into details !»
- Don"t know where to start, Hendry has to narrow the focus down and learn how to communicate the important issues more constructively in the lectures. »

16. Martin Arvidsson

- Very Enjoyful Lecture with him!»
- What I remember rather good, atleast I don"t have any remarks I remeber. Good example with the catapult. »
- the lecture could be more effective and more interesting. I got the design of experiments after doing the lab not after the lecture»
- good»
- he didn"t explain some important parts of the DoE, e.g. fractional factorial design»
- Interersting guest. Professional, charismatic.»
- he was good»
- Good lecturer!»
- the DoE was very nice»
- Completely good.»

17. Bo Bergman

- Years of Experience and knowledge»
- Good»
- Can drift away sometimes... »
- good enough»
- good»
- very helpful seminar,interesting examples»
- He is always good.»
- Always interesting to listen to. Enourmous experience, knowledge and also very pedagogic. Mr. Bergman can explain complicated matters in an easy way.»
- he was good»
- The lecture was good with an application of conjoint analysis. Bergman is always pleasent to listen to. But I think his lecture on creativity was even better. Innovation is something that we often forget when learning all the systematic tools.»
- Very knowledgable!»
- I haven"t participated , unfortunately.»

18. Simon Schütte

- Good coverage of topic. But we had not enough time for the Kansei exercise.»
- Intresting. Good teaching.»
- Was kind of to much for me... and the assignement didn"g give that much, maybe it was to litle time as he self said. »
- perfect. special thanks!»
- very interesting lectures but not a good lab I guess»
- too much focused on the software»
- made the subject very interesting and understandable, nice to work with the software for Kansei, was welcoming any question which was nice»
- not bad»
- Charismatic, interesting and entertaining speaker. »
- he was good»
- Also very good lecturer.Very good with many real life examples and applications of theory. I hope you keep Simon next year as well.»
- Interesting!»
- I really liked the concept of Kansei Engineering..although it might seem a bit outside our terratory as operation manager»
- The way he taught and the project we have done, satisified me.»
- I liked him the most of all the lecturers, but PLEASE do the walkthrough of the KE Software more thorough next time. The assignment was a disaster.»

19. Cagdas Senis

- Very nice lecture»
- Intresting! »
- Good, seamd to know what he spoke about in an easy that made it easy and youthfull way, making it easy understand.»
- Godd»
- as he is engaged with the problem right now and he was describing his own problems during his lecture, it seemed so interesting for me»
- the most interesting lecture during the course»
- good with a lot motivation despite saab situation!!!»
- he was really good.»
- Enthusiastic, willing to explain, interesting to listen to a "youger" engineers" reflections.»
- he wa good»
- Good motivator to bring in former students that are applying their knowledge. Good lecturer as well.»
- Good to get a "real" insight in day-to-day work.»
- Good»
- Very good!»

20. Alex Chakhunashvili

- Very interesting topic»
- Seams afraid, and we"ve hade him before. But a good complement to simon. »
- The best thing of the course.»
- as a guest lecturer he was good enough»
- good»
- he was really good.»
- Interesting and very knowledgeable. You can tell he has experience, and a will to teach.»
- he was good»
- Alexander is also good. We have had him before and are familiar with him. Very interesting application area of six-sigma»
- Good to get a "real" insight in day-to-day work.»
- To some extent good»
- Var tyvårr inte direkt givande. hade i princip sagt det vid tillfället i tidigare kurs»

21. Do you think these subjects would be useful to maintain in the course?

- DOE and Kano Surveys are the best weeks.»
- Design for six sigma: We just touched the topic. »
- Skip QFD, we"ve already had alot about that. The extended didn"t give that much...»
- The ones that I have chosen "maybe" are not due to boring lectures and/or seminars but rather that we have discussed them before and still we discuss them on the same level over and over again. Make it harder or at least more challening. For example, we heard about the Kano model last time. This time we saw how it is used and that is good.»
- QFD is interesting, but advanced QFD is something that I think need more than 3 lectures to understand and learn how to use.»

1 - Introduction
33 svarande

Definately not»		1		3%
No»		1		3%
Maybe»		4		12%
Yes»		13		41%
Definately»		12		38%
No opinion»		2

Genomsnitt: 4.09

2 - Kano Surveys
33 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		1		3%
Maybe»		0		0%
Yes»		11		33%
Definately»		21		63%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.57

3 - Quality Function Deployment
33 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		1		3%
Maybe»		6		18%
Yes»		11		33%
Definately»		15		45%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.21

4 - Design of Experiments
33 svarande

Definately not»		1		3%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		3		9%
Yes»		12		36%
Definately»		17		51%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.33

5 - Kansei Engineering
33 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		4		12%
Maybe»		3		9%
Yes»		14		42%
Definately»		12		36%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.03

6 - Design for Six Sigma
33 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		1		3%
Maybe»		8		25%
Yes»		11		34%
Definately»		12		37%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 4.06

7a - Creativity
33 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		3		9%
Maybe»		13		40%
Yes»		11		34%
Definately»		5		15%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.56

7b - Guest Lectures
33 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		1		3%
Maybe»		2		6%
Yes»		13		39%
Definately»		17		51%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.39

Assessment critera

22. Should group assignments be graded or not?

No grades»		18		56%
Half of them graded»		4		12%
All graded»		10		31%

Genomsnitt: 1.75

- passed / not passed» (No grades)
- Grades will inherently make the students put more effort in the course.» (All graded)

23. Do you prefer a home exam or an conventional exam?

Home exam»		26		81%
Conventional exam»		6		18%

Genomsnitt: 1.18

- Both are good, but homeexam gives the chance to cover a more comprehensive areas, making it more research mixed with own opinions...» (?)
- Doesn"t really matter» (Home exam)
- after completed home exam and knows how much work it is, I can answer this better, now i just think this way...» (Home exam)
- With these kinds of question it is better to be home exam. Since we should reveiw and study questions again. The home exam is also an opportunity for learning. It is not the case in conventional exam.» (Home exam)
- Don"t really know, havn"t done the exam yet and it"s my first home exam. » (Home exam)
- the time for it can be extended a little» (Home exam)
- Home exam is closer to reality despite it is more difficult!!!» (Home exam)
- It was the first home exam for me, and i got alot out of it.» (Home exam)
- but it should be easer.» (Home exam)
- I think the home exam was a good way of being tested. But I have some remarks. 1. Make it harder. One week for 4 questions of that difficulty is way too much time. 2. With your "system" that list of references should be included in the page limitation, students will read less different literature and thereby do not get different point of views on subject. This is not logical at all.» (Home exam)
- good to have some differentiations in the examination constructions, though I would like to say that the exam could be more of a case-study and have some more application areas of the taught tools. » (Home exam)
- My first one, but it was really good. Do not think i have learned this much on any regular exam» (Home exam)
- Home exams make students be anxious and stressed.» (Conventional exam)

Summarizing questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		1		3%
Fair»		2		6%
Adequate»		6		18%
Good»		19		57%
Excellent»		5		15%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- The tools are good to know and the content is appropriate. The level of difficulty on the other hand significantly reduces the general impression.» (Adequate)
- Would be good to add a company visit.» (Good)
- Good with hands on stuff.» (Good)
- Try to learn us things with different methods and models» (Good)
- excellent and pragmatical » (Excellent)

25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

27. Additional comments