Här kan se resultatet från utvärderingen och exportera statistiken till ett annat program. Det går också att
göra en enkel filtrering genom att klicka på svarsalternativen och kommentarerna eller en avancerad filtrering
genom att använda knappen längst ned.
Management of open innovation and network-based markets (ICM GS)
Öppen för svar: 2011-09-28 - 2011-10-05
Antal svar: 3
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 27%
Kontaktperson: Anna Tullsten»
1. What was your overall sense of the content of the course?Was the level of difficulty appropriate for your learning process? Has the course contributed to your concrete understanding and application of open innovation?
- Did the lectures cover the content appropriately?
- Did the assignments convey the content in a relevant way?
- Did the literature list facilitate your learning experience and was it aligned with the lectures and assignments?
- Good lectures but too few and many were above that cancelled. Assignements were very good. »
- Level of difficulty was ok. The course contributed to my understanding of open innovation but not so much to the application of open innovation since the course felt more theoretical than practical, which is not common for ICM. »
- Not enough lectures and feedvack»
2. How well were the work processes distributed over the course?This is the second year we’,ve run the open innovation lab in parallel with the pre-Applied ICM project evaluation process. We’,ve tried to streamline and standardize the evaluation process, and reduced some of the workload in the open innovation lab sections. Would you have preferred to have worked in different ways?
- Good, much work as it shall be »
- I would have preferred more work on the open innovation section, and two projects in the project evaluation section. I do not think it was necessary to reduce the amount of work. »
- Workload ok»
3. How well did the communication and administration of the course work?Please explain if relevant whether you are describing communication and administration of the project evaluation, or the open innovation lab.
- well i suppose, »
- I think it worked well.»
- Worked well, quick answers from Henrik Rosén. Good communication with Andrew»
4. Other input on the overall course, as well as overall changes you would suggest for the future development of the Open Innovation Lab.- No »
- I would have more lectures on different topics, especially with industry people that utilizes open innovation in practice. Less focus on competition law and other legal frameworks and more on open business models. I would say that 50/50 or 60/40 would be a good mix. Now it was 85 law and 15 business. I felt that most assignments (all except ass 4) wasvery theoretical and not so practical, something I did not enjoy so much since I joined ICM to get the practical approach on lectures and assignments. »
- If the pedagogy is action based there needs to be more effort put into giving students feedback quicker. The course will be finished before any feedback has been given and thereby get in the way of shorter learning loops where students can develop during the course. Also good for teams to know where level of "good enough" is in order to not create an excessive workload.»
Specific modulesFor 2011, the September period was divided into two parallel layers –,, the project evaluation process and the thematic open innovation lab. This is the second time we try this structure, which we’,,ve refined from last year, and we would therefore appreciate your input on how well you think this approach facilitated your learning processes, how well managed it was, and what changes you would suggest for the further development of the lab.
5. Project evaluation processThe project evaluation process was intended to allow you to apply real, practical skills to innovation and group work, to get a head start on the project pipeline, and to lay a foundation for the practical work you will continue in Applied ICM.
- It was Ok, but not that much novel things that you could not undestand after a five minute surf on the research groups webbsite has been found.»
- This module was good, but would have preferred more projects. »
- Good initiative to do pre-evaluations. A lot of confusion because of different info from faculty and Innovationsservice»
6. Open Innovation LabThe open innovation lab, while somewhat revised from previous years, was built on three major themes relating to and explaining open innovation: building the Open Society on private and public structures for sharing information and building the public domain, creating and managing Open Platforms for joint development and market design, and Open Science for fostering innovation and utilization of research results in the public-private interface. It was then concluded with a license-focused exercise.
- Good assignements, However it could be nice if there were more sceduled discussions and feedback sessions after each assignement »
- See previous answers»
7. Open Innovation LabThe open innovation lab, while somewhat revised from previous years, was built on three major themes relating to and explaining open innovation: building the Open Society on private and public structures for sharing information and building the public domain, creating and managing Open Platforms for joint development and market design, and Open Science for fostering innovation and utilization of research results in the public-private interface. It was then concluded with a license-focused exercise.
- same as & »
- See previous answers»
Specific lecturesIt is also useful for us if you can provide feedback on specific lectures, whether in terms of content, administration or other aspects. This helps us learn which lectures to include, which lecture formats are most appreciated, and allows us to communicate results to out external lecturers, who are almost always interested in hearing how their lecture went. Try to comment on as many lectures as you can, note that project evaluation lectures are not included in this evaluation.
8. Introduction to the September period02/09, 10-12 Henrik Rosén, Andrew Telles
- Did not attend»
- Good, structured and clear.»
9. Open IT society09/09, 10-12 Jan Ljungqvist (IT University)
- Great lecture. Very interessting theoretical reasoning. »
- Good content but poor execution.»
10. Patent transactions and market design14/09, 12-15 Anders Arvidsson (Zacco)
- Quite good. »
- Very good, practical approach which was interesting. »
11. Introduction to standards15/09, 10-12 Henrik Rosén (CIP Professional Services)
- Good. »
- Served its purpose. Good lecture.»
- Very good»
12. Open innovation in the intersection of industry and university19/09, 10-12 Ulf Petrusson (Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship)
- Great preformance as usual »
- Very good as always. »
13. Open source software23/09 10-12 Kristoffer Schollin
- Very good lecture and discussion in class »
- good discussion but a bit misplaced in the course. »
- Very good»
14. Any other input or suggestions that you have in relation to the course:- See previous answers. »