Aktuella utvärderingar

Visa resultat

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.

Customer Focused Product Development, 2009/3, TEK160

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-03-05 - 2009-03-18
Antal svar: 33
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 68%
Kontaktperson: Marcus Assarlind»

Your own effort

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

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

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

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

3. How understandable are the course goals?

33 svarande

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?

Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.

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?

29 svarande

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?

33 svarande

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?

33 svarande

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?

33 svarande

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?

31 svarande

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?

33 svarande

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?

33 svarande

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?

33 svarande

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)


Please contribute with constructive comments regarding teaching individuals

13. Ida Gremyr

- Very knowledgeable on the area of DFSS. Would be good to present some articles and work you have done. Very clear in the objectives. Always give the students opportunities to ask questions. No comments for further improvement, »
- She manged the course very well. The course had good structure and contents and one the main reason behind this, is Ida. »
- Just great, if just everybody could be as structured as her.»
- Vimsig»
- More teaching hours!»
- Bra handledning och hjälp vid frågor men kursen var för lätt.»
- No change please, just the time for the home exam»
- good»
- very open and helpful,clear to make students understand while teaching, very good coordination of classes»
- she was good.»
- always very good lectures wit Ida.»
- Very knowledgeable, charismatic and kind.»
- she was good. »
- It is hard to evaluate a lecturer who only have had 1-2 lectures. I did not attend the non-mandatory lectures so I do not have a comment.»
- Very structured, good!»
- Very pedagogic, helpfull and has a nice and positive way of communication»
- Good»
- You have a good approach when you have the lectures, think about the fact that you sometimes try hard to get people to think and see it your way, even to the extent that you not always see or here the question/argument at hand. »

14. Marcus Assarlind

Seminar on Quality Management
Helicopter Lab - DoE
Seminar of Design for Six Sigma

- 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

Quality Function Deployment

- 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

Design of Experiments

- 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

Conjoint Analysis

- 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

Kansei Engineering

- 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

Guest Lecturer - Saab

- 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

Guest Lecturer - Skaraborg Hospital

- 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?

32 svarande

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?

32 svarande

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?

33 svarande

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?

- Kano survey and DOE»
- The course is good, it is definately needed for the QOM program but it should be more information about all the different areas. It feels like were are just touching everything.»
- 1 - Introduction 2 - Kano Surveys 3 - Quality Function Deployment 4 - Design of Experiments 5 - Kansei Engineering»
- The content of the course is good»
- I quite liked it as it was.»
- Most of the subjects. You migh add something extera!»
- practical week assignments»
- close look at subjects like QFD,KANO,DOE,DFSS»
- DoE, and QFD, Conjoint analysis»
- Guest lecturers, and teachings from Ida Gremyr and Bo Bergman.»
- to me all of the material»
- Kano Survey, Kansei engineering, Guest lectures, no/little group work»
- I think the structure is good! Maybe add a case report, or something..»
- I mentioned above.»
- Home-exam»

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Creativity week. Maybe combine the session with application of Kansei Engineering.. therefore students will have more time to make a better kansei project.»
- The Lean course had a very good way conducting seminars. every week everyone had to hand in written answers to a number of question that covered various articles and books. This made everyone very involved in the course and deep and reflecting seminars could be held. This is a good way of "forcing" students to be in pace with the course and make them learn as the course progresses.»
- 6 - Design for Six Sigma 7a - Creativity Need refurnishing! Maybe with more clear papers or supportive material!»
- I think that more practical insights, more practical training should be included. This is because I think that practical experience will enhance the learnings that can be gained from the articles»
- The kansei assignement did"t give me anything, and the advanced QFD.»
- Higher work load.»
- changing the time of the course to the second quarter together with integrating product development»
- maybe Kansei engineering is not a totally necessary subject for students of this program but instead more effort on understanfing DOE and QFD could be more appropriate.»
- kansei»
- nothing»
- More work, harder tasks, graded assignments»
- Maybe a group excersize about design of experiments could be useful. It would be good to a little more deep into DoE. More time should be given to Kansei excersize. »
- I mentioned above.»
- AHP and ANP could be explained better, the overall workload could be increased in the same line as the goals are set higher»

27. Additional comments

- Would be good to spend more time on DOE in order to gain a more indepth knowledge to be able to apply the tool in other courses.»
- Poor workload»
- rather good course and interesting lectures, home exam was appropriate and fair in the given time, nice teachers.»
- in summary, a very interesting course. Good mix of practical, theoretical and "fuzzy" knowledge =)»
- Assignments where the time is short should not be combined with oral presentations. This will lead to people just "slipping through" without doing anything. The list of attendance is pretty useless... I experinced that some people didnt help with assignments but passed because they signed the attendance list, while some other people who had helped with the assigmnet got sick and had to do an extra assignment. If the time is short, the examination/presentations should be individual.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från