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.

Total Quality Mgmt - Spring 2009, IEK311

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-03-08 - 2009-03-23
Antal svar: 59
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 79%
Kontaktperson: Marco Santos»

Your own effort

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

59 svarande

Very little (0% - 25%)»5 8%
Less than half (25% - 50%)»13 22%
More than half (50% - 75%)»16 27%
Most of the time (75% - 100%)»25 42%

Genomsnitt: 3.03

- Lectures are so time consuming when you can read everything in the book and learn it.» (Very little (0% - 25%))
- I would have liked to attend much more of it ! But I was pregnant and working on my Thesis at the same time...» (Very little (0% - 25%))
- Had unfortunatly too much do do during daytime so I had to work on evenings.» (Very little (0% - 25%))
- I think that the course is very very good, i can see how it actually puts an effort on improving, but some lectures seemed rather pointless. The book on the other hand is incredibly good, i loved it.» (Less than half (25% - 50%))
- Product Developent project takes alot of time» (Less than half (25% - 50%))
- because i was on vaccation for two weeks, otherwise i would have gone on more.» (More than half (50% - 75%))
- I had vacation during two weeks :)» (More than half (50% - 75%))
- I had another lecture at the same time, so I half the time I attended TQM and to other half I attended the other course.» (More than half (50% - 75%))
- I had many conflicting lectures this quarter.» (More than half (50% - 75%))

Teaching and course administration

2. What is your overall opinion of the course?

59 svarande

Very negative»1 1%
Negative»5 8%
Positive»41 69%
Very positive»12 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- Information was late and sometimes missing. The interactive assesmet rules were changed afterwards» (Negative)
- there was alot of content in the course and so we knew a little about everything, but nothing in alot of detail» (Negative)
- Some individual lectures were very good, but I missed a "red line" through the whole course.» (Negative)
- I feel I studied many of the TQM concepts in more depth in my lean production course. The TQM course was not very inspiring. There didn"t feel like there was much to do apart from read the book.» (Negative)
- I found the workshops very interesting, specially the one in which the KJ-Shiva method was covered» (Positive)
- The course is interesting. However, the administration was lacking (interesting if you concider the course)» (Positive)
- D.O.E was very badly explained. There was alot of content skipped over due to time restraints in lectures.» (Positive)
- Sometimes really insightful.» (Positive)
- Perhaps a little too general about subject. Hard to know how to implement quality thinking in a company. It feels like I need another course (Six Sigma) for this.» (Positive)
- lectures like the one on saab aerospace was little to non useful, a lot of talking, not too much to gain from it. Same with the health care one. only thing useful where the examples, which was less than 30 minutes out of all the time. i liked the helicopter lab and the interactive assessment. also, i think the spc lectures where too technical and not so practical. the lecturer seemed to worry more about probing mathematical concepts than actually giving a real understanding of what spc can do. i would like to see a better aproach on it, making it more practical, things like reading the charts, not calculating the limits so much, but trully understand what the charts can say, how to use that information and how to implement changes based on it. We need a quality aproach on spc not a mathematical one.» (Very positive)
- I think the topic is interesting, despite that it was a bit varying quality of the lectures i think the course covered the topic fairly.» (Very positive)
- The exam was too difficult» (Very positive)

3. How was the structure of the course?

(A good structure means that the time spent on each subject is adequate and the sequence of the subjects is clear and logical)

59 svarande

Very negative»1 1%
Negative»9 15%
Positive»39 66%
Very positive»10 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.98

- Sometimes the subjects introduced so detailed that I get lost and miss the main basic idea. Sometimes irrelevancy was just distracting the attention. The structure of the course needs to be reorganized.» (Negative)
- Some of the subjects took too much time (SPC and DoE)» (Negative)
- it was very unstructured , the ambiguity with requirements was quite disturbing factor..» (Negative)
- Later parts of DOE needed a lot further explaination, text book chapter 7 was not much help for this topic» (Negative)
- See above.» (Negative)
- Although all the subjects were important and at the end, studying by myself i got the real learning of tqm, i believe that all the guest lectures pretty much were useless. probably only 30 minutes out of every guest lecture was good, the rest was a lot of useless things. and therefore i decided to skip a lot of them. only the last one on CHANGE was really good. i loved the interactive activities involved, thats a real good positive thing about the course structure, and i think that Bo, marco and the girl who talked about QFD and Pugh were pretty good. » (Positive)
- read the book » (Positive)
- I enjoyed the laboration and the interactive assignment. More effort should be taken to make this assignment more efficient.» (Very positive)
- It was good with a laboration and the workshop for the qc tools was good!» (Very positive)

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

59 svarande

Small extent»6 10%
Some extent»25 42%
Large extent»23 38%
Great extent»5 8%

Genomsnitt: 2.45

- Since the exam was based on the book, and most of the lectures did not contribute any new things to the book, the lectures were of little help.» (Small extent)
- SOme teachers were not covering all the material they where supposted to» (Some extent)
- Spc was so mathematical that i had better understanding when another student studied with me and we took a quality approach on it. mathematics and calculations are important but the only thing the lecture did was put a million equations and number and theorems that ended nowhere. i insist that an approach to quality was missing. im pretty sure this lecturer was not related to any quality issues, he seems to be a purely mathematical person. Hë put little to non enphasis on the quality issues involving spc.» (Some extent)
- some lectures didn´,t give so much» (Some extent)
- Learned most from the book.» (Some extent)
- The book played a mayor role here» (Some extent)
- The lecture notes vere of some help» (Some extent)
- Maths-based lectures were very unclear. lecturers managed to convolute simple concepts. It seems logical that a single TQM practitioner should be well placed to lecture on all aspects of TQM.» (Some extent)
- DOE was pretty good but I don"t think the lectures was that good otherwise. » (Some extent)

5. How was the course workload?

59 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Adequate / Low»34 57%
Adequate / High»21 35%
Too high»4 6%

Genomsnitt: 2.49

- it was pretty good. the lecture hours were long, i wouldnt have a 4 hour class, because the last hour is a waste, everyone is tired and not getting anything from it. the assignments were very helpful on the understanding and very very good.» (Adequate / Low)
- normal is not in the scale...» (Adequate / Low)
- Adequate/low does not mean worse or better than adequate/high, the interactive assessment motivated me to study early and distribute the workload across the study period.» (Adequate / Low)
- A few articles, papers and literature reviews would have been welcome.» (Adequate / Low)
- I feel more emphasis needs to be placed on reading the book as the course progresses. I found that i was left trying to learn the book in two weeks. Maybe some exercises on each topic would help with this.» (Adequate / Low)
- Some parts were very high, while others were low.» (Adequate / High)
- The thursdays lecutres were quite massive and maybe split into shorter lectures.» (Too high)
- Is it useful to make us read (and learn by heart!!!!!) 500 pages?» (Too high)

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

58 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 3%
Rather good»16 27%
Very good»27 46%
I did not seek help»13 22%

Genomsnitt: 3.87

- Havn"t tried» (Rather good)
- Marco put a lot of effort in helping students!» (Rather good)
- Although i didnt seek help from the teachers i felt that i could do it at any time. » (Very good)
- Marco was very helpful and approachable» (Very good)
- All lectures and Marco were very helpful during all contact.» (Very good)
- I did not seek help however everybody involved in the course was willing to help» (I did not seek help)

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

59 svarande

Very badly»2 3%
Rather badly»5 8%
Rather well»23 38%
Very well»29 49%

Genomsnitt: 3.33

- it was good once you get there. but i couldnt find the way to go the current webpage until a month after the course started. it appears that you go first into the old page and then you have a link to go to the real one. very very bad, i almost couldnt sign up for the helicopter lab because of it.» (Rather badly)
- There were 2 sets of reading specifications in the PM... Both turned out to be wrong. Also (to me) vague information was given on what was to be covered on the exam.» (Rather badly)
- Good information on webpage and on lectures.» (Rather well)
- But some information came late and was a little bit confusing.» (Rather well)
- Was difficult to understand at the start but it was only that i had never used it before.» (Rather well)
- Good but could be better. Some lecture slides has too little info. If you had missed the lecture, it was sometimes pointless to look at the slides. The slides for example dropped some questions but it is impossible to find it either on the slide or in the book. I mainly think of control charts. Improve this.» (Rather well)
- Marco has been splendid and it was obvious that he was really interested to give his total dedication to us and the course.» (Very well)
- It is one of the best administered courses» (Very well)
- Marco was an excellent course administrator, best ever at Chalmers I believe. » (Very well)
- Only Week 3 was missing in the Handouts.» (Very well)

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

58 svarande

Small extent»1 1%
Some extent»11 18%
Large extent»33 56%
Great extent»13 22%

Genomsnitt: 3

- Depends how you look on it. For me, the reason to have a course or lecture is that you get more insights than just by reading the book. That"s why I do not like that everything was so much based on the book. I would have liked to get also more critical insights, and not just what everyboday is saying about TQM. I would have wanted to profit more from the knowledge and expereince of Bo Bergman. Since he was hardly ever present, this left the students with the impression that he doesnt really care. And this is for me not a motivation for this course.» (Some extent)
- I think that the book is more an overview of method. A suggestion of reading should be made for each subject» (Some extent)
- Certain topics were covered only superficially in the text book (e.g. DOE), preparing for the exam as a consequence required additional material (that was not provided) in order to obtain sufficient knowledge in this field.» (Some extent)
- the book is good but the english version is in need of a revise.» (Large extent)
- The book was informative and easy to read. I would have benefited from also having to read opposing literature, to encourage critical analysis.» (Large extent)
- The book is the best. more than helpfull, although it points too many steps to do everything, so at the end its so much that its imposible to learn it all good enough for the exam.» (Great extent)
- Only whent to the fist lectures» (Great extent)

Evaluation Process and Grading

9. Did the exam reflect the course in a fair way?

53 svarande

Not at all»6 11%
No»9 16%
Yes»35 66%
Yes, completely»3 5%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- Haven"t done it yet» (?)
- i havent made the exam.» (?)
- I don´,t know. I didn´,t write it...» (?)
- It focused on some details. To me it is very bad if an exam leaves out some important and big parts of the lecture, as the last lecture on change management.» (Not at all)
- Some questions were not clear. PDSA was not seen enough during lectures and book.» (Not at all)
- All the questions were sort of tricky.» (No)
- To hard questions on spc and doe. Didn"t really reflected the hellicopter lab and lecture.» (No)
- No there is the posibilty that you could have a bad exam day, but have good knowledge in the course, DOE Lab should be counted» (No)
- Some aspects were not fully understood in the questions that were asked, a more specific question base would have been better» (No)
- It was to many "easy" question that any person could answer. You didn"t get the opportunity to show what you learned» (No)
- Too different from the last re-exam of January. Some questions were stange: "mistakes" in SPC?????» (No)
- I think the DoE and SPC was far trickier than expected. It had been okey if there had been excercises with answears available during the cource, so that you could have learned, but it was not.» (No)
- We haven"t had the final exam yet but from what I have seen on previous exams it"s OK in the layout.» (Yes)
- Still the doe part was a bit confucing since the question was a braincracker at first glanze but after a while when understanding what the question was it went well... Still I heared other people failing to understand the question though they knewed the answered if they just had understand the question.» (Yes)
- It did. Though it covered parts more thoroughly then was said. This meant a wrong priority when studying.» (Yes)
- to difficult doe compared to the teaching.» (Yes)
- Though I thought poor language caused some of the questions to be misleading. For example, The word "treatment" was used in two different contexts in the design of experiments question, and in the same question it asked about mistakes that could be "committed". It made it slightly difficult to figure out what the question was looking for.» (Yes)
- Hard to do a completely relevant exam on the subject» (Yes)

10. How would you change the grading system of the course?

Current system: compulsory "Pass" in the "Interactive Assessment" and in the "Helicopter Lab Report". The final grade is totally based on the exam grade.

58 svarande

I suggest my system, see below»18 31%
No change is needed»40 68%

Genomsnitt: 1.68

- The interactive assesment can give bonus points to the exam» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Allot of time is spent on the interactive assesment and perhaps some grading should be assigned to that part as well. Maybe bonus points from the interactive assessment that could be counted in to the final exam.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Could have bonus points to the exam from the interactive assessment. This would make people even more prepared.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- There should be a weightage of Helicopter lab and interactive assesment in the final grade so that the students attending the assesment are benefitted (unlike what happened in course during SP3).» (I suggest my system, see below)
- I suggest the course should include seminars based on certain important chapters in the book like customer relationship, SPC, DOE or Quality standards (ISO)... etc. These seminars help more than lecture and forces students to study the chapters early. A small presentation session for each group (helicopter lab) could also be helpful, where the seminar topic can be anything from the book or any TQM concepts (any innovative ideas).» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Interactive assessment and lab report should has some point that can be used for final grade.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- The helicopter lab should be longer and with less people.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- The DOE Lab should be counted as a certain percentage of the exam, because people might have a bad exam day, and then the exam does not fairly reflect there knowledge of the subject,» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Award graded mark for the DOE assignment and the Interactive learning. Less focus on exam grade and more continual assessment.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- If possible give BONUS points for the Helicopter Lab and the Interactive Assessment, otherwise it gets a bit disappointing.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- I would assign a symbolic percentage to the helicopter lab and to the interactive assessment. Probably a 10% of the total grade.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- E.g. Helicopter lab report: 30% and final exam: 70% of final mark» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Seminars to get 3. Helicopter lab, just pass. Exam : 18-34 = 4 , 35-50 = 5» (I suggest my system, see below)
- add project and report» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Firstly, the interactive assessment was made non-compulsory. To say one thing and then change your mind because "you don"t have time" is not ok when it concerns our education.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Personally, I would like to see a lot of my courses run like lean production: pass based on participation in literature reviews and seminars, 4/5 based on optional exam. This increases critical analysis during course and makes learning much more substantial.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- Give some percentage to the assigments during the course» (I suggest my system, see below)
- The Helicopter Lab Report should be graded (counting for 5%-10% of the total grade). The Interactive Assessment should stay a pass/fail assignment- it should however be executed also this way. Those people that did not attend the assessment in the end didn"t have to do any additional task and still received a a "Pass". Even if this assessment mainly aims at giving the students a hint on how much they still have to work for the exam, it should be executed in a fair way. If it is however regarded less important that all students attend this assessment, it should not be compulsory it at all.» (I suggest my system, see below)
- The assasements were very benefical and well organized. Grading is totally fine.» (No change is needed)
- 15 points for Helicoptet Lab 0 points for interactive assessment» (No change is needed)

Summarizing questions

11. Would you recommend this course to other students?

59 svarande

Not at all»1 1%
No»3 5%
Yes»39 66%
Yes, definitely»16 27%

Genomsnitt: 3.18

- It is quite fun that a course about quality has the poorest quality of all courses I"ve studied at Chalmers. The information was poor and many late changes. For example the memo for the helicopter lab didn"t say anything about a report, we didn"t get to know that until AFTER the lab... The instructions for the interactive assessment changed totally at the assignment... The reading guide was not correct, because after 5 weeks it was decided that the whole book was examined... It would be good if all this stuff was decided before the courses started.» (No)
- See above» (No)
- The course gives a good overview of working with quality improvements.» (Yes)
- It is a good course and topic to learn as an engineer » (Yes)
- Very interesting and beneficial to all engineers.» (Yes)
- It felt like it contains things important for every engineer to know.» (Yes)
- If you don"t have to learn by heart 500 pages ... yes it could be a could course!» (Yes)
- They should read the book and have the lectures as secondary. » (Yes)
- But I"d recommend they read up on the subject on their own.» (Yes)
- Some parts of the course were persent in other courses I studied, so that was a bit of repetition. But I think it is collected in a relevant way.» (Yes)
- i would because of what it teaches, not for the lectures. they didnt help much.» (Yes, definitely)

12. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- Helicopter lab»
- DOE»
- The structure and content»
- Interacive assessment»
- The Customer Involvement lecture the Interactive assessment and the Helicopter Lab»
- In class workshops.»
- helicopter lab, interactive assessment with a change of the instructions, marco santos.»
- DoE and SPC were very good. The RUAG guest lecture was extremely good. »
- The Helicopter Lab, lecture on SPC»
- The interactive assasement.»
- Some kind of experiment (but I don"t think that you have to hand in a report).»
- Guest lecturer from Saab.»
- The RUAG conference, i think, is the best lecture i ever had in chalmers»
- The hellicopter lab, it was the first playful thing at chalmers for 3 years... And it is important that the lab concern easy equipment so one can use the statistical tools instead of building a spaceship without using the tools one should practise during the lab :)»
- Lab report is very nice for student understand how to use DOE.»
- All the good guest lectures»
- DOE Helicopter LAB»
- Course content and structure»
- Helicopter lab was good and interesting, but the admionistration of it was poor. Skip surprises such as report hand in and prepare so we get propability plot papers when we need them (and not 20 minutes after) and we will be much happier.»
- Week 3 with the exercises about the 7QC-tools and the 7M-tools was really good!»
- Framework of the course»
- the Helicopter Lab and the Interactive Assessment»
- Sverker"s lectures»
- Helicopter lab, lecture by Claes Berlin, kj-method»
- Statistical Quality Control - SPC DOM ...»
- the helicopter lab»
- Helicopter lab»
- Control chart section. I found it very useful.»
- The book»
- the courses on statistical process control were really nice. the lecturer had a good rhythm that makes the hard and boring subject much more bearable or even fun.»
- Bo"s lectures were interesting. Some of the lecturers from industry were interesting.»
- KJ Shiba mehod lecture/workshop. Claes Berlin Lecture. I think the midterm Interactive assessment was good and helpful, and maybe it doesn"t need to be graded. But it gievs a bad impression to drop the grading AFTER the assessment has been done. »
- the interactive assesment»

13. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- Leadership lecture, etc. too up to format»
- maybe some lecuturers, for some lecures (SPC, for instance)the teacher didnot teach clearly.»
- Add grades or bonus grades for the assessments to be counted into the final exam points.»
- The lectures on the helicopter lab has to go quicker in the beginning so that everything is covered before the lab.»
- More info on Six Sigma »
- spc approach, guest lecturers, better distribution of the lecture hours, a better understanding to the important things to study, »
- The Six Sigma gues lecture not so good.»
- The initial difficulty in using the course portal, like difficulties felt while registering for lab groups. It was very confusing at the beginning.»
- The helicopter lab was good as an excersize but it might be something more precise and well defined than a paper helicopter.»
- Some lectures, i.e. DoE and SPC should not take so much of the total course. There are also other subjects that are of great importance for the TQM course.»
- Lecturer in DoE and SPC.»
- more information of how work the interactive assessment at th beginning of the course could be usefull»
- Recomend the swedish book to the swedish students since it is revised... until the english one is revised...»
- no»
- the helicopter lab»
- More practical exercises on drawing control charts, and methods we can use in industry»
- More DOE explainiations on more difficult areas of topic, maybe an additional lecture. I had personally never seen this material before and found the pace a little fast.»
- The Interactive Assessment chould be thought through so that it serves it"s purpose. By for example not having it compulsory and making it stimulate learning, by for example having a semiar/discussion regarding the literature, instead of having it as a checkpoint/inspection of what we"ve learned so far.»
- Stefano could have his lecture about DOE in 4 hours instead of 10 if he just talked a little faster and didn"t talk to us like we were little children or stupid... You got so bored because he talk about the same slide for 45 minutes. I learned more reading the book than listening to him. »
- More involvement of the professor! I understand if Prof. Bo Bergman has a lot of other things to do, but as we have learned, comitted leadership is important, and this course was a poor example of that.»
- DOE : more information about analysing probability plotting»
- How to implement Total Quality Management in projects. E.g. Reduction of cost of bad quality. E.g. How to increase quality in activities that are not very repetitive.»
- Clearer lectures on DOE, e.g. have better example before doing the helicopter lab. More how you execute six sigma in practice.»
- exam, fact of learning by heart 500 pages»
- A possibility to work om your own with SPC and DoE excercises. Also that solutions shall be available..»
- More study questions like the quiz posted by Marco would be useful. Important questions would be great too reflect on the right things a bit easier.»
- The layout of the course. A mandatory part should stay that way and the material covered on the exam should not be changed afterthe course starts»
- there were some steps in interactive assessment that made us wait for no apparent reason. we can maybe bypass that before the assessment. after everyone submitted their questions online, the lecturer can send out the questions to every one and ask them to rank them beforehand.»
- more structure and info about the helicopter lab.»
- All technical/maths aspects should be taught by Bo or a TQM practitioner. Or anyone who"s factual and clear and not so over-enthusiastic that they actually complicate simple concepts.»
- More time spent on SPC and DOE. These are quite difficult if you have no experience in the topics, the book also doesnt give enough detail on how to complete these.»
- Clearer instructions for helicopter lab. THe lectures of DOE were a bit long-winded, and the material in the book for DOE not that good. Have registration for the exam. It does no make sense to have it different for his course. A bit tedious to have all students say their handkershief measures when it"s almost 200 measures. This part of the SPC lectuer was done a bit inefficiently.»
- The book»

14. Additional comments

- Thank you for a good course!»
- The SPC lecture was difficult to follow due to the lecturer"s communication»
- Please do something about spc, i think at the end its easy and helpful, but trying to probe mathematically that the number and equations are correct is not the point, the real deal is how to use it in TQM. i hated that week and still think it was a complete waste of time, i learned a million times more studying with the book and slides than in the lectures.»
- Very good course, but it the topic is a bit loose some times and it is sometimes hard to understand the connection between different parts. »
- Good course»
- helicopterlab was fun.»
- Marco and Bo were great! »
- Recomend the swedish book to the swedish students since it is revised... until the english one is revised...»
- As far as I experienced it, the course might be a bit more CRITICAL towards the principles and tools taught (they slightly seemed to solve everything) - but it was an excellent course though !»
- None»
- Less reading material but more exercises will result in more learning outcome.»
- Good course anyway»
- it is one of the good subject in chalmers»
- it is a fun course/subject to study for an engineer.»
- Marco is doing a GREAT job!»
- I was expecting a general course about quality. By the end, it seemed like TQM had half-merged into an entire philosophy, much like lean. However, I don"t feel like there"s been much critical analysis of TQM as a philosophy. For example, the cornerstones of TQM didn"t really get much of a mention until they were on the past exam.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från