Visa resultat

Design for Quality, 2012/2013 sp2, TEK161

Your own effort

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

22 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		4		18%
Around 20 hours/week»		6		27%
Around 25 hours/week»		9		40%
Around 30 hours/week»		2		9%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 2.54

- A bit more time the weeks it was literature reviews and last week of cases.» (At most 15 hours/week)

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

22 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		2		9%
75%»		5		22%
100%»		15		68%

Genomsnitt: 4.59

- more like 90%» (100%)
- Very good lectures, good to be able to download slides before lectures.» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		6		27%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		6		27%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		10		45%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- Probably saw them but do not remember.» (I have not seen/read the goals)

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

19 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		19		100%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		6		28%
Yes, definitely»		9		42%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		6		28%

Genomsnitt: 3

- The DoE question seems to be very narrow, and isn"t maybe examination material.» (To some extent)
- Due to the limitation of words, I felt I had more to prove on some questions in the exam and would have liked some extra words to prove so. » (To some extent)
- Very good exam» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		6		27%
Large extent»		13		59%
Great extent»		3		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.86

- depending on who was leading the seminars and presentations. sometimes i was lucky to have Ida, in the cases i didnt no relevant feedback or discussions were given» (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»		4		18%
Large extent»		12		54%
Great extent»		6		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

- maybe look for some new articles, references list in the home exame can be used as an input» (Some extent)
- A large amount of articles to go through, could be minimized, all of them very did not support very much » (Large extent)
- A lot of literature. Good with many different viewpoints on the topics covered.» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		6		27%
Very well»		16		72%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- did not se the purpose of "booking" own times for seminars or supervisions.» (Rather well)
- Pingpong is not totally clear on signing up for activities.» (Very well)
- Great to get quick feedback from the cases» (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»		4		18%
Very good»		16		72%
I did not seek help»		2		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.9

- The progress reviews were not optimally placed. Would have been great with a question hour or so every week.» (Rather good)
- Good to have scheduled supervision» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		2		9%
Rather well»		7		31%
Very well»		13		59%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- four or five team work assignment at the same time is complecated. Also collision between those how have been working and did not have time for integration and comunication and sitting together as a tema and working. » (Rather poorly)
- The cases were a bit frustrating.» (Rather well)
- Had some problems in the group with exchange students» (Rather well)
- One of them was not very active in our team work » (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		1		4%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		7		31%
High»		14		63%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- High but not in a bad sense, was a bit tough with two cases with so many people in the groups.» (High)
- A lot of work on the home exam since the recommended articles did not cover one question at all and even more articles had to be covered» (High)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		1		4%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		8		36%
High»		12		54%
Too high»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

- Four cases whereof three influences final grades speaks for itself.» (High)
- The IPD course did suffer from the extensive workload of DfQ.» (High)
- Could try to fit the courses better especially in the end» (High)
- This period was very time-consuming, with all group work and much literature in both courses.» (Too high)

Learning

13. Ida Gremyr

- ok»
- Good with mandatory "hand-ins" at seminars. Should revise the rules for getting extra work. The extra work is often/always more heavy than the actual lecture..»
- Way above average in terms of presence, knowledge and ambition to have good lectures and an educating course. Very good! Could hand out more readings next time though! ,) Sitting on the desk is fine to.»
- The seminars were very helpful and Ida"s summary at the end of them were good. Her lectures are easy to follow and she is pedagogical. »
- Good case supervision, the possibility that Ida reads the case is very good!»
- I think the cases are good learning opportunities, and should be the same next year. The literature seminars could conntain more than just discussing the questions we have answered, since we already discussed them a lot trying to answer them. Otherwise the teaching is good.»
- seminars really good, big contribution to my learning»
- She is very good and pedagogical»
- Sometimes went a little bit to far outside what was covered in the slides, could have been nice with a few more lines in slides instead.»
- With regard to the examination, I feel I lack some understanding in how to provide concrete advice to companies. That could be more emphasized. i like to know how to write concrete and why we are supposed to do so. I am used to show my understanding of a subject in other ways. »
- Gives concrete and great feedback both on the seminars and the presentations. »

14. Marcus Assarlind

- ok»
- Good, hard to follow on some of the statistics in the beginning.»
- Very energetic which was nice since the subject was a bit boring for most of us. »
- I think Marcus wants to teach a lot and he tries very hard to do so. However, he seems a bit nervous which results in a bit messy lectures. He was helpful and calmer at the lab. »
- During the lectures, it would have been more understandable if more focus was paid to the more difficult part instead of the more basic stuff. »
- DoE: I think the lab was good and made me understand more. The second lecture, to much time was spent on "easy parts" like the plotting. I would wanted more explanations on how to analyse the result instead.»
- He was nice to talk to in person, but during the lectures he has to understand that not all students want to interrupt him with questions all the time. During lectures it"s nice to just sit and listen, and maybe ask questions and participate in discussions afterwards»
- A lot of slides in DoE 1. Could probably fit the same information into less slides.»
- DoE was at first a bitt fuzzy. I liked the summary though, and I was able to ask a lot of questions!»
- Tend to complicate things during the DoE lectures. Ask more questions instead of giving more concrete feedback. Participate more in the discussions during the seminars rather than reading the assignment all the time.»

15. Hendry Raharjo

- ok»
- Extremely good and energising performances! The article was too heavy to read though, I read it but remember nothing more than that one can divide QFD into many, many and some more steps.»
- Henry is funny and has good lectures, perhaps a bit unstructured while lecturing but when supervising he is very helpful. »
- he manage to express the quality philosophy, he should do more lecturing. Hendry is quality managment, so much knowledge! the only thing is the language barrier.»
- A bit hard to understand sometimes, but had great energy »
- Very good presentations. Excellent presentation technique and good at including the students in the presentations. Could perhaps have more self-explanatory slides for more effective repetition.»
- Good lecture! But poor slides»
- Spreads joy with his laugh»

16. Vanajah Siva

- ok»
- Solid job!»
- Good»
- Every one participating on this seminar was lost regarding RDM, big difference in understanding the articles. »
- Don"t know who that is»
- Did not attend this seminar.»
- Ok, I guess»

17. Alexander Chakhunashvili

- ok»
- Good.»
- good and interesting lecture»
- Interesting but did not felt so providing for this course. »
- no clear connection»
- very sharp guy, but what has telling about six sgima green belt / kaizen (updating a schedule) to do with DFSS?»
- I wasn"t there»
- Good and intresstng lecture»

18. Martin Arvidsson

- ok»
- Sounded a bit grumpy, lost interest.»
- Unfortunately not so pedagogical which made it a bit difficult to follow his reasoning. »
- Relevant lecture.»
- really good in making RDM less abstract by showing practical examples»
- With this topic it was very good with a connection to real-life application. Good examples.»
- Good lecture! Added a l lot of understanding in RDM»
- Good to get concrete examples in how RDM is used in Cochlear»

19. Per Johansson

- weak»
- Not overly memorable performance. What was the main takeaway?»
- Interesting but he did not try to get the class engaged in the lecture. »
- Relevant lecture.»
- he was to stressed and I dont think he managed to make a sound lecture of a structured risk process. »
- I would have liked more basic FMEA knowlege before this lecture »

20. Simon Schütte

- very good»
- Mandatory but not exam material..?»
- Interesting but the whole thing felt like a mix of Japanese awe, marketing and a small portion of engineering.»
- Interesting and he was good at having a lecture. Unfortunately this guest lecture was late in the period and the focus was on deadlines in all the courses. Would have been nice to have it a bit earlier.»
- Very interesting subject but when a guest lecture is so late it felt just stressful»
- intresteing and up to date! maybe skip Hendrys 1st part in the QFD introduction presentaion which also was touching the same topic.»
- intressting subject. But I had trouble relate it to the oveall course »

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

- In terms of Kano and QFD, there are overlaps with the previous course.»

Design for Quality
22 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		2		9%
Yes»		7		31%
Definately»		13		59%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

Kano Model
22 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		1		4%
Yes»		8		36%
Definately»		13		59%

Genomsnitt: 4.54

Quality Function Deployment
22 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		0		0%
Yes»		10		45%
Definately»		12		54%

Genomsnitt: 4.54

Design of Experiments
22 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		2		9%
Maybe»		4		18%
Yes»		5		22%
Definately»		11		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

Robust Design Methodology
22 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		2		9%
Yes»		7		31%
Definately»		13		59%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

Design for Six Sigma
22 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		4		18%
Yes»		6		27%
Definately»		12		54%

Genomsnitt: 4.36

Kansei Engineering
22 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		4		18%
Maybe»		6		27%
Yes»		8		36%
Definately»		4		18%

Genomsnitt: 3.54

22. To what extent did the group assignments contribute to your learning?

- There were better articles than Matzler and Löfgren. Bergers looked really good.»
- Lab was great! The best way to learn DoE I guess »

Kano case
21 svarande

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		2		9%
Large extent»		10		47%
Great extent»		9		42%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

QFD case
21 svarande

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		6		28%
Large extent»		9		42%
Great extent»		6		28%

Genomsnitt: 3

DoE lab
21 svarande

Small extent»		3		14%
Some extent»		4		19%
Large extent»		9		42%
Great extent»		5		23%

Genomsnitt: 2.76

23. What do you perceive as the best format of litterature seminars?

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

90% small group discussion,10% full group discussion/summary»		2		9%
50% small group discussion, 50% full group discussion»		17		77%
100% full group discussion»		2		9%
Variation in formats»		3		13%
No opinion»		0

- 30% small group, 30 % full group and the rest for the teacher. Lars Trygg held really good ones, benchmark!!» (Variation in formats)
- Depends on the questions, but a bit more small group discussions than full group would be nice.» (50% small group discussion, 50% full group discussion)
- in addition were the teacher summaries his/her reflections of the topic and its questions» (50% small group discussion, 50% full group discussion)

Summarizing questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		3		13%
Good»		13		59%
Excellent»		6		27%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- I am kind of in love with IDA!» (Excellent)
- Ambition and teaching staff was very good. Don"t listen to reading haters and reduce the number of articles though, add 5-10. We have to read more.» (Excellent)

25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

27. Additional comments