Visa resultat

Product Lifecycle Management, PPU110

Your own effort

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

30 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		1		3%
Around 20 hours/week»		8		26%
Around 25 hours/week»		9		30%
Around 30 hours/week»		6		20%
At least 35 hours/week»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- A lot of time spent just waiting for the software"s to work, around 75% of the time» (Around 30 hours/week)
- The project requires a lot of time and effort...» (At least 35 hours/week)
- The project work took too long time of the study period.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

30 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		1		3%
50%»		2		6%
75%»		12		40%
100%»		15		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.36

- Had a parallell course that collided with almost every lecture.» (50%)
- Had a conflicting course.» (75%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		2		6%
The goals are difficult to understand»		2		6%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		13		43%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		13		43%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- Quite abstract topic» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- it is a little confusing in the beginning, but it is quite OK after 1 or 2 weeks.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The goals presented in the course goals do not correspond to the goals presented in workshops for the project.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)
- good to have the learning outcomes each lecture.» (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»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		24		80%
No, the goals are set too high»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.2

- Speaking about the goals presented on workshops, not in the compendium.» (No, the goals are set too high)
- It is very demanding getting a grade 5 with the SmarTeam project.» (No, the goals are set too high)
- Have no really idea of what the goals are... But in comparison to the lack of good education regarding the project, the level needed for higher grades were set to high.» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

No, not at all»		3		10%
To some extent»		16		53%
Yes, definitely»		9		30%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- There where VERY unclear goals for how to achieve 5. The supervisers said that we were suppose to do some own programming and that that could higher the grade, but they never said that some applications mighth lower the grade. very unclear. To get a grade 3 it as pretty clear. » (No, not at all)
- Better to have one big dugga for two hours I think.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		8		26%
Some extent»		13		43%
Large extent»		8		26%
Great extent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- The structure of the course really needs to be revised. For example workshops could be held that covered the basics needed to complete the project work. E.g basic vbscript, SQL prog., general SMARteam functions, instead of poorly made powerpoint slides!!!» (Small extent)
- All information can be found on slides» (Small extent)
- not at all for the grade 4/5. » (Some extent)

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

Small extent»		11		36%
Some extent»		10		33%
Large extent»		7		23%
Great extent»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2

- There should have been course literature, it would have helped. Just lecture notes makes everything just look like small pieces and you miss the big picture.» (Small extent)
- software didn"t work during the days. Not enough licenses?» (Small extent)
- Didn"t read many articles.» (Small extent)
- The lectures and project work really felt like two different courses, some work on trying to integrate the two parts would be preferable. Also how come only basic explanations where given on UML diagrams, at the same time as the exam questions required in-depth knowledge. One way to solve this would be to offer "räknestugor" that covered some of the most important concepts, such as IDEF0, UML, Express G etc..» (Some extent)
- The material considering Smarteam could be clearer. It was very difficult at the beginning to understand how the system worked. Some other form of introduction to Smarteam would be appreciated.» (Some extent)
- the slides and the questions where good to have. But since we didnt have any answers to the questions it was quite frustrating.Even though we sat in a group and did all the question, we where not sure if we where right on the answer. And its a bit inefficient if all student would go up to Johan. » (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		3		10%
Rather well»		17		56%
Very well»		10		33%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- It took forever before we got a working copy of SmarTeam.» (Rather badly)
- Some stuff were really hard to find in all the different folders posted.» (Rather badly)
- we love that you handed out printed lecturenotes» (Rather well)
- Web page and handouts worked very well. But the information from the supervisors was sometimes confusing, because it felt like they didn"t have the right information. When you asked the different supervisors about the hand-ins etc, you could receive very different answers.» (Rather well)

Project

9. What is your opinion of the project work?*

Poor»		9		30%
Fair»		8		26%
Adequate»		8		26%
Good»		4		13%
Excellent»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

10. Did you get adequate supervision?*

No, not at all»		3		10%
To some extent»		21		70%
Yes, definitively»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 2.1

11. Where the tutorial materials helpful?*

No, not at all»		7		23%
To some extent»		16		53%
Yes, definitively»		7		23%

Genomsnitt: 2

- I felt bad for the supervisors not easy for them to do anything when the software"s works so poorly.» (No, not at all)
- The project was very fuzzy, and when we asked questions they just said that it was even more fuzzy last year. But that didnt help us?! The exercises where very vague. They only showed what one can do, but not why. For instance: "In this exercise you ill learn about the task manager" Ok, but when are you using this tool, and why??» (No, not at all)
- The tutorial can be made much more informative by telling speaking about the purpose for the use of specific command apart from a live demonstration. Also some part of the tutorial lead to confusion on which most of the time was spent.» (No, not at all)
- It was really frustrating to not know what, and how many credits the extra tasks in the project would generate. This made it impossible to know how much effort that was required for a specific grade. » (To some extent)
- The expected requirements of the students are too high if not even the tutors can give advice on some areas in SmarTeam. You are supposed to have knowledge in programming, writing scripts etc. This is something that system developers should do, not us, the product developers. Although, you have learnt these things anyway, and that might be good too know someday. Over all, it is fun and encouraging too learn new stuff.» (To some extent)
- Software and licence failures, too few people that could help you when you needed it. Just a very bad planned and executed project from an administration point of view.» (To some extent)
- Very poor setup. The challanges in the project lay in getting the programs to work properly. Til next year, smarteam should have been properly installed or get the imagefile to work outside of chalmers premises.» (To some extent)
- Better tutorial with an exercise with a working customer order in SmarTeam so you know what the finished program should look like» (To some extent)
- I think it is very bad that the software doesn´,t work appropriately. Licenses and such things must be managed before the course starts. It is not okey that you can come to a computer excercise and just half the class can work on the computers because the license server does not work.» (To some extent)
- Too much work, unclear grading, supervisors wasn"t able to help in the difficulty level of a 5, the tutorials for smarteam was diffuse and messy.» (To some extent)
- - confusion was very high in different moments of the project - the course assistants were not always as useful as expected - the tutorials were not clear enough in several points - the whole way to implement smarteam in the course should be revised, e.g. image files, or having to work always in the same computer at Chalmers» (To some extent)
- The tutorials didn"t explain why we did things.» (To some extent)
- Feel that it is not so related to the theory we"re learning in the lectures. This project is much more about handling and trying to understand how a software works. Loose a lot of time trying to know if it"s possible to do something. We don"t know what can be done, what can"t. CAD part interesting, Smarteam part less interesting» (To some extent)
- The tutorials gave some insight to how the different parts of SmarTeam worked, but it was frustrating to not get the whole picture and see the interactions. Also, the turtorials were very, very, basic and not really helping when doing the real configuration lateron. The turtorial could be made a lot better by having the different parts follow a path, making very basic configuration, and achieving some kind of end result. Then you will see the read thread through the system clearly and get a good view on how to start the configuration for the real assignment. The information regarding the project and turtorials when problems occured in some part was rather poor. It"s not very motivating to work on one part of the turtorial for 2 hours and when asking about it just get the answer "oh, that doesn"t work, skip this part". Make sure to remove those parts before handing out the excersises or be very clear with the information on homepage, update powerpoints etc...» (To some extent)
- Why it was a Very bad project assignment: 1- there was poor structure to project introduction - many crucial details were exposed only after weeks from the beginning of project-work! (for example - tour around Smarteam, and how each functions relate to actual purpose of PDM). 2- SmarTeam is SLOOOW on personal computers. When software is so slow that it takes 40min/hour just to wait for loading times it kills any intention for experimenting and improving end result. 3- tutorials are bad - they are a good start, but they are missing Sooo many essential details, that it takes weeks to understand things you did in the first tutorial. 4- there are no good examples!!! Tutorials show individual functions, but there are no working systems to analyze and build upon (how about One working, useful SmarTeam script example???). 5- given limited expertise of Smarteam among supervisors, slow performance, no programming skills among students and limited time - the stated goals for grade 5 in this project are ridiculous. 6- inconsistent assessment - each supervisor had their own view of what is important in the project (concept, analysis, implementation quality, usability, extra features...) making it impossible to understand what to concentrate on, while doing everything was nearly impossible. 7- there are some more problems, but 6 major ones should be enough...» (To some extent)
- The tutorial materials for the project was not enough, for the exercises etc. The project took too much time, a lot of time was spent on just waiting for the system to start. Sometimes it also felt that we had to spend much time in the beginning of the course for Catia (even though we were told not to).» (To some extent)
- Try to get started earlier, the workload was to high in the end of the course.» (Yes, definitively)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		9		30%
Rather good»		13		43%
Very good»		8		26%
I did not seek help»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

- Unwillingness to answer questions about SmarTeam.» (Rather poor)
- The supervisors were (understandably) busy.» (Rather poor)
- Dag and Amer has done been really helpful! But with the license problems with Smarteam (mostly impossible to run during supervision) and there limited knowledge it is hard!» (Rather poor)
- When the system had some major problems, the help was very limited. Sometimes you had to start from the beginning again (and it took a lot of time to catch up again). » (Rather poor)
- Although it seemed like some of the supervisors lacked appropriate skills needed to supervise. For example no help was offered for the scripting(visual basic) with the motivation that we had to learn our selves since it was a extra task. This might have some logic to it, BUT why couldnt some basic info be given such as how to complie and just get some script to run? If so we could then have created more elaborate scripts that would have been more rewarding and provided more knowledge.» (Rather good)
- Ok, the assistants don"t have to do our work but they should give out more information/guidance when they see that some people are lost and confused.» (Rather good)
- Long wait sometimes.» (Rather good)
- We could go up to johan to his office and the computer labs offered also help. » (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		4		13%
Very well»		26		86%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.86

- This was the solution for the project.» (Rather well)

14. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		11		36%
High»		12		40%
Too high»		6		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- Easy to get 3, much more work required for 4 or 5.» (Low)
- Much of the workload was due to the lacking CATIA and SMARteam licenses. My opinion is that it is really a mystery how the last of the three alternatives that were given was to use school computers... How can that be motivated, that the students are almost required to own a laptop to be able to pass a course!? This must be corrected for next year. » (High)
- To much time spent on waiting thanks to smarteam» (Too high)
- Too much work to fix CATIA and Matlab. More time/lectures could be spend for SmarTeam and scripting.» (Too high)

15. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		2		6%
Adequate»		10		33%
High»		14		46%
Too high»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- thanks to smarteam» (Too high)

Summarizing questions

16. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		6		20%
Fair»		3		10%
Adequate»		10		34%
Good»		8		27%
Excellent»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

- A course should not be based on that the students are supervisers to their own friends. In this course this has been the case. Since the supervisers could not help for the grade 5, the student themself had to act tutors.» (?)
- Just lecture notes and software and licence problems all the time, frustrating that this is a compulsory course. Fix the problems or close down this course.» (Poor)
- Really bad link between lectures and the projects. The tutorials were bad and Smarteam was down due to license problems all to often, the same with Catia. In addition there were not any possibility to get help for higher grades than a three. » (Poor)
- Projekt, föreläsningar och examination var minst sagt dåligt.» (Poor)
- Theoretic part was good. Project goal was good for learning PDM, BUT it was unattainable with actual amount of help and project work structure. >>> HOW TO FIX PROJECT <<< Give a fully working example system for students to get familiar with Smarteam - to actually Use it, to check how Smarteam works. Then give assignment to build similar system, so it is actually possible to concentrate on smaller, but important details, like user interface improvement, extra features and custom solutions. When there is something working to start with, it is possible to improve the basic system, while building something from scratch, that you have no idea how it should look in the end is just frustrating.» (Adequate)
- Good, because you learn a lot of new things and you get a better understanding of PDM systems. BUT, the project takes up too much time comparing to how much you learn. » (Good)
- This is a real thing that companies use...» (Good)
- The idea is awsome but the project definition and outcarrying needs refinement.» (Good)

17. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

18. What should definitely be changed to next year?

19. Additional comments

* obligatoriska frågor