|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ENKÄTER | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visa resultatHär 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.
Design of Technologies, Innovations and Markets: GIBBS, ICM, CSE, ICM-G (module for ICM-G), CIP010Status: AvslutadÖppen för svar: 2007-11-29 - 2007-12-14 Antal svar: 14 Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 32% Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg» Klass: Övriga
Your own effort1. 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.14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.64 - I don"t really know what element is in which course. Overall I spend at least 35 hours a week studying...» (At least 35 hours/week) 2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 5 - sick one lesson, so maybe 95%» (100%) Goals and goal fulfilmentThe 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?14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.85 - They have not been available as far as I know» (I have not seen/read the goals) 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.9 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2 - the valuation part maybe sat to high for someone with a legal background. maybe try to emphasize some summer reading in valuation for dummies? There is one such book in this summer reading about accounting, maybe one about the different valueation methods too?» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable) 5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?7 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.85 - If examination refers to the assignments, then yes!» (Yes, definitely) Teaching and course administration6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.14 - a lot to learn on own time, mostly from reading. people that don"t read the literature fall behind and have to be helped by classmates» (Some extent) Study climate7. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.64 - teachers could, and should maybe, monitor moodle a bit better when we are in handing-in times. i don"t think that a question shoul sit unanswered for several hours on the day for the deadline.» (Rather good) 8. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?13 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.61 - some work together, some don"t. thise who do - i have enjoyed working with very much.» (Rather well) 9. How was the course workload?14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.85 - Lot of work but also good outcome.» (Adequate) 10. How was the total workload this study period?14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 3.64 - I study about 20% lesser at BD compared to my basic engineering training.So from my perspective I think the workload could be higher. From what I sense within the class of BD"09 the majority is not up for a extra 20%. » (Low) Summarizing questions11. What is your general impression of the course?14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 4.21 - we could have used better cooperation with the class of "07 as the idea provider when it comes to the assignments.» (Good) Part II: General Questions12. What is your overall impression of the DTIM course/module? Please motivate your answer!- I find it hard to separate from other courses like TBE, therefore it"s hard to answer for just this course. However the whole term has been very rewarding and everything gives a comprehensive understanding of the overall situation.»- It has provided a very solid foundation for the comming courses.» - really good, you get a insight on something that you never thought about before» - good, gives good real examples coupled with theory» - interesting. we could have more feedback on ability to "sell things", rather than just the design.» - Well structured and no great changes are needed.» - Very good and interesting. Professional. Stimulating. Good with practical assignments.» - Good since we had such clear themes during the weeks.» - I liked it because it is a crash course in valuing companies. the degunkification gave a bit of a risk assessment, IAA, TIM and BM gave strategies and foundations for the valuation. very interesting. » - It was interesting although I would have liked to have fewer "tools" presented and having time to work more with the ones presented. » - It was good since we got some more hands-on experience on how to do the different parts of starting up a new venture.» - the topic itself was very new to me thinking to my background and if it was not because of a great lecturing mostly from Bo Heiden, it would have been much more difficault for me to benefit at all. huge amount of reading was kind of little unrealistic because the amount of work we had made it impossible to read everything. the overall was very good.» 13. What would you recommend us to do differently next year, do you have suggestions for improvements?- more clearly communicate course-goals and state more clearly what elements is in which course. Also when you don"t get feedback before you hand in next assignment it"s hard to fix problems/bad stuff. I think you always should be graded on the former assignment before you deliver next. This time the grading was behind.»- summer reading about valuation (for dummies)» - clearer guidelines of what you expect. Would like to see good/bad examples or clearer on what the grading criteria are» - much more clear guidelines to the prject groups in the incubator.» - Valuation workshops.» - Have more deliverables. » - i would like to have more lectures that are to the point. there are many lectures that are interesting to listen to but they don"t teach anything concrete.» - The venture valueation exercise should be a group exercise since at least I had problems with the calculations and it would have been better being able to cooperate on that. » - Even tough I know it is hard, faster grading and feedback would have been helpful.» - my suggestion would be to keep the assignments and the istructions in the same way, but the amount of reading could be reduced because it was really impossible to read everything.» 14. Which were the pros and cons of working with real projects?- The difference in difficulty. My project was barely an idea with no patents or anything yet. Made it extremly hard to know what markets or numbers to calculate on having no economic knowledge.»- Just pros.» - Different starting positions as regards help from tho old students and how long they had comed with their projects. Inspiring though to work with something in real life, not just a task on a paper where one just analyses what the teacher might have thought or is reaching for us to understand.» - pros, it becomes more realistic Con, different groups get different amount of help» - only pros except the fact that it is really hard to find data for valuations and you can only say what you do to find that data to some extent.» - pro: interesting, stimulating con: hard to get information sometimes, it felt like we were a pain for the students every time we interacted, like they didn"t want us there...» - We did not get any information from our group and they were not interested in us at all. This meant that while other people got market surveys etc our group didn"t even want to tell us their project name. I think it is a great idea to work with real projects though, and I was just unfortunate to be in a non-cooperative project.» - Pros: Much more interesting to work with. Good to get the opportunity to use our knowledge in real projects. I only see positive things with it.» - The pros is that the education is as adapeted as it gets to the real life situations but we also rely on the students within the projects. You can get "lucky" by end up in a good project.» - the pros are that the thing is not fictional, we are actually doing work. cons ae that there aren"t right and wrong so it is hard to know what is right when doing a graded assignment. » - On one hand it feels as if the assignment actually is more close to reality, although it in som cases can be hard to find information.» - I think I"ve learnt more to my real project by doing this during this fall, has not been so easy to get info tough.» - it was only good in my opinion but as in these cases people have already been working, it didnt give the feeling of that this is a real thing.the problems and complications were only good when it came to a real project. » 15. How did the collaboration with the “,old”, students function? Possibility to get information and availability?- never saw them, not neccessary...»- became bbetter and better. But there should be more scheduled big meetings like the first that we had to clear out misinterpretations» - They are busy, but try to help as much as possible» - Not available and not very helpfu. They had not comed so far with the project either. » - not so well for our group, more for some of the other» - would have liked access to more data, hard data. Find it unfair that some are more helpful than others. You should beforehand tell them what their responsibilities are so that everyone has the same opportunity. This time some groups had much better access than others» - see above. availability sometimes a bit too low. as being said above, i think they and we lacked clear guidelines of what to do and not to, rules etc.» - We did not get any information from our group and they were not interested in us at all. This meant that while other people got market surveys etc our group didn"t even want to tell us their project name.» - Good. Our group has been really friendly. They have helped us with answering some questions.» - GOOD. They were very helpful with everything. » - it was a little hard because they were all very busy. » - Really good. No problem at all for us.» - It went ok, they answered when we asked them, but we did not want to interupt them too much. We could have done better assignment if we would have had more data. We also had a hard time to really understand the technology.» - it worked perfectly well. they were busy which was expected from the start and we had to plan. they were always kind when we called them and asked questions.» 16. What was your general impression of the administration of the course?- ok, too long time to get feedback on assignments»- good» - Good» - okay» - allright. i would have appreciated to get the grading on time though.» - Well organized.» - Good.» - Okey, nothing to complain on or add. » - good. when help was needed it was there» - Ok. But set dates for feedback on assignments is important to keep. If there is going to be some delay in the feedback and grading it is important to provide this information. We students strive hard to keep our deadlines ad expect the teachers to do so aswell, or at least show us the respect to tell us that the gradings will be postponed.» - Everything was good.» - it was good because there were no problem at all.» 17. What did you think about the assignments?- hard but rewarding»- very hard, especially since the teachers said one thing on one assignment and then said another thing later that was the opposite. » - very good, differce in work load and time to perform them» - Hard and stressful» - good assignment, you really have to implement everything you"ve learn into the assignments » - okay» - intense but rewarding. all right. more of them should be group work i think.» - Informative and I learnt a lot. There was plenty of time to do them and I did not feel that the work load was too high.» - Very good. Stimulating. Difficult. Educating. Maybe one can do some more group assignments next year or remove one assignment, because they are so many.» - Good, The only thing that is bad is that the feedback is given with such a delay. I know that it is much to correct.» - good. they were fun but very time consuming because they were inadequately described to us. » - Most of them felt undefined, but I guess that it is part of the learning experience. Having an individual business plan might be good but I feel as the valuation exercise should have been a groupassignment. We should also be allowed to discuss the Business Model assignment in the groups, it is in most cases a creative process which is good touse in the groups.» - I think the assignment, especially the business model, the valuation and the business report presentation because they were individual and also had some creative parts that I have missed from the other ones.» - they were very tough for people new in the field but when I look back, I see that it was amazingly useful for all of us.» 18. Miscellaneous comments- none»- the course was good but this evaluation was not. way to long and to detailed. the questions on specific classes doesn"t make sense att all, and if you really want to have our input, invite to a lunch meeting that is optional, then everyone interested will come and you will have us discussing with you what to improve. in that way, we know that you care as well, when writing these kinds of evaluation, you never know if anyone care to read what you submitted.» - sometimes the lectures were not informing enough. they were just interesting. i hoped that they had more to do with the assignments» - I do not remember specific lectures when they ocurred two months back, it is better to have a evaluation half was as well, at least on the lectures we have had. More external lecturers, especially as as inspirational source.» Part III: Lectures, Exercises and Assignments19. The entrepreneurial university (Bo Heiden)- good»- good» - Good to get an understanding how our surrounding works and how it shuld work perhaps» - good, extensive» - almost all classes bo had were good. interesting things, but sometimes a bit repetitive. i think it is a little bit too much to ask that i, after the course is done, shall answer in detail EVERY part of the course in 50 different questions. this will make the answer frequency go down, i am sure of. as i said bo has been good. ulf has been great. together they have been wonderful - and funny. the degunkification was a bit strange, but i got the message. the IAA with jens was good. mats had some interesting classes, but not as skill preaching as bo, more on a for your information level. the case studies have been good. mpst guest lecturers have been good. in general, i am very happy with the course, even though the assignment instructions could have been more clear.» - Great book, I am not sure of how much relevance the actual content was for us though. It felt like it was more focused on University teachers. Good to know though.» - Very good!» - very good. i liked the arguments about why the universities become more important in innovation» - From what I can remember that was an interesting lecture. The discussion about the researcher"s exemption really triggered my mind.» - it was a topic which was really nice to discuss around because talking about it gave a new perspective on how it really have developped.» 20. University ownership capabilities (Bo Heiden)- ok»- good» - Good» - good overview» - see above» - Very good!» - also good. i liked the arguments for how the teacher"s exemption can be a bad thing. the lecture was a little tainted.» - See last question.» 21. Degunkification (Bo Heiden, Caroline Pamp, Henrik Rosén)- very good»- ok, a little fuzzy when it comes to the individual/group instructions. But they sorted it out nicely.» - Hard» - very rapidly explained before getting started. Very poor and rapid explanation which was obvious after having made the exercise. Very often I feel that you tell us what one should think about after having done the exercises instead of before. This was very obvious with this exercise.» - see above» - Great exercise, we could have done better if our "old" students hadn"t given us false information about being employed.» - Very interesting and educating. An excellent tool to work with. I assume that I will use it a lot in the future.» - very helpful... but their lecture should have been held before the assignment.» - Interesting and somewhat explainatory of how the assignment should be carried out. » - It was not so much of a lecture, but they made us grasp the concept of degunkification pretty well during that morning so that we were prepared for the assignment.» - this was very new and confusing in the beginning but Bo treated the whole question in a very simpl way that helped me to manage the way of thinking.very good of Bo.» 22. Intellectual asset assessment (Jens Bördin)- ok, hard to grasp»- ok, a bit brief for such a wide topic» - Hard» - Good, could have made some concrete examples rather than only talking about the theory. Again lack of concrete examples makes it hard to understand the theory and is obvious after the exercises and only then the concrete stuff is explained» - see above» - A lot of information to take in under one lecture. Maybe this should be done for a while day or two sessions?» - Good. Rather difficult. At least for me a new way of thinking.» - a little vague but interesting. we got a good score on the IAA but we didn"t understand what we could improve.» - Not concrete enough, hard to get how the assignment should be done...» - I som problems following Jens on this lecture, also the assignment about IAA were really hard to understand.» - It was a very good lecture because it in some way gave a structure to the invention which helped us a lot to be able to see it from above in a better way. at the end it became very rpetitive and boring.» 23. Innovation and strategic capabilities (Mats Lundqvist)- good»- good» - Cant really remember the different lectures. They are a bit intertwined, sorry» - good, » - see above» - Interesting and motivational. Mats is a very good lecturer and it is impressive to see him lecture about topics brought up in the class.» - good, i liked how the strategic capabilities were described through an example.» - Don"t really remember anything special.» - some examples were good and could show us some big companies making misstakes but it was too long and it could be much shorter. he used two hourse just to answer one question which some people reacted to.» 24. The innovator’,s dilemma (Mats Lundqvist)- good»- good» - good,» - see above» - good. » - Don"t really remember anything special.» - broing and repetitive.» 25. Shaping the innovation (Bo Heiden)- good»- very good» - good» - see above» - a little vague since we have different background knowledge in the class. » - Don"t really remember anything special.» - very good lecture. very exciting and interesting because it gave a good show from a good start.» 26. Shaping the market (Bo Heiden)- good»- very good» - good,» - see above» - a little vague since we have different background knowledge in the class. » - Don"t really remember anything special.» - very interesting especially for people new in the field. I feel if it was not because of this lecture, I would not be able to do my assignments.» 27. Market analysis (Bo Heiden)- very good»- good» - good,» - see above» - pretty good. a lot of porter 5-forces and how itunes has changed the music industry. i think more examples could have been helpful» - Don"t really remember anything special.» - very givving because it touched new areas which also were totally new to me. » 28. Case study: Tivo (Bo Heiden)- ok»- good» - Good. Fun to listen to how the powergame can be conducted» - Focus less on restating what already is read and more on what should have been different. The entire class was put on restating what was already read or students raising hands to give their perception of what they"ve read rather than saying "ok so this is what they should have done"» - see above» - It would be appreciated if Bo could go through what could have been done differently, the next time.» - Very good. Educating.» - very good, unfortunate that apple was moved» - This was interesting again and TiVo was a good company to choose to analyze.» - very great case. I loved talking about the problems in their way and the reason behind them and Bo touched those all quite amazing.» 29. The material and intellectual value chain (Bo Heiden)- very good»- very, very good» - good» - see above» - good, i understood how the material value chain is being moved away from, but i still can"t see an intellectual value chain..» - Absolutely some good concepts and I started really to see how you can use the IVC and not just paint the picture of it.» - very good because it opened a subject which was going to be further disscussed by Ulf later on and if it was not because of his simplifications I would totally not get any thing.» 30. Business models (Ulf Petrusson, Bo Heiden)- very good»- very good» - Inspiring as usual when Bo and Ulf is having lectures together» - good, but rather fuzzy because no clear definition was given. but guess that no real definitions exists» - see above» - Inspiring.» - very interesting, i liked the examples» - Interesting but I would have liked to have at least one more lecture on the subject to get the concept and more examples. » - Bo and Ulf together always makes interesting lecturing and this was not an exeption.» - it was a great lecture because it was first then I realised what a Business model is!great examples were givven by Ulf. I totally understand eveyrthing when we have lectures with him in any subject and its a pity there are not so many.» 31. Licensing and IP-based business models (Ulf Petrusson, Bo Heiden)- ok»- very good» - Ulf"s lessons are good in all aspects. » - see above» - good» - Bo and Ulf together always makes interesting lecturing and this was not an exeption.» - I could not attend at this lecture.» 32. Case study: Rambus (Bo Heiden, Henrik Pettersson)- ok»- good» - Fun to listen to a student who has performed work in silicon valley. Cool» - Same as Tivo» - see above» - good» - Also interesting and it was a privilegie to have a former Rambus person present in the discussion.» - very good and especially taking the student who had worked for them was also a great idea.He brought us to more reality.» 33. TIM assessment (Bo Heiden)- good»- very good» - Hard as usual» - good» - see above» - Very clear and informative lectures.» - very hard. unclear method for the purpose but still quite interesting» - Good» - very good because he really went in to details and gave us examples and also materials about those which were great.without this lecture it would be totally impossible to do the assigment.» 34. The nature and role of assets, property and capital in wealth creation (Bo Heiden)- good»- very good» - It is really fun to listen to. I read the deSoto book during summer so I cought an intrest in the subject already then.» - good» - see above» - Good if you haven¨,t read the mystery of capital. Interesting.» - very interesting. it described the fundamentals behind capitalism. » - This was good, I liked the de Soto book during the summer, so getting some re-cap on that were good.» - great lecture. It was then I actually could get a brife explanation on the difference between east and west worlds economical systems.» 35. Fundamentals of financial accounting/reporting (Tamir Agmon)- very good»- not that good, he seemed to be there to talk to Bo, nad didn"t pay much attention to the class...» - Tamir"s lectures were advanced. I feel like I should have read some financials in english before going to his lessons» - good» - see above» - Not very structured. Maybe include some reading material for this lecture?» - Tamir assumed that we all had an economic background and knew the grounds. He focused most of his time on Bo. I would appreciate if he held the times, especially after we asked him to.» - very interesting to listen to but too low level» - He was sometimes interesting and sometimes to detailed. Bad that he only spoke to Bo and not to the class. » - I don"t doubt that Tamir is a brilliant researcher, but I found what he said very hard to apply to what"s gonna be when we start our companies, the lectures were too theoretical and on too high level at least for me.» - it was not a good lecture because the level was too high for a person without an economical background.he talked about different things at the same moment and he was too fast.» 36. Fundamentals of entrepreneurial finance (Tamir Agmon)- very good»- see above» - goood» - see above» - Not very structured. Maybe include some reading material for this lecture?» - very interesting to listen to but too low level. too little about real options. it felt as if the lecture was to bo.» - I don"t doubt that Tamir is a brilliant researcher, but I found what he said very hard to apply to what"s gonna be when we start our companies, the lectures were too theoretical and on too high level at least for me.» - this was good because this time he was more focused on one subject and repeated some stuff so one could follow the discussion.» 37. Venture financing in practice (Per Hulthén)- very good»- ok» - Intresting to lidten to a guy from school who has a point of view from both sides, both from an entreprenurial and a VC pont of view.» - very good, the lecturer is confident and knowledgeable» - see above» - Very good. It was inspiring to see someone from CSE becoming a VC.» - Good, but he was not the most humble man I have met.» - interesting to listen to but not specific at all. I could have read a book instead. he only gave us quotes and general info about VCs. i would have wanted to hear more about his experience» - Interesting with a practitioner. » - This was the best lecture I have had for a long time. I got so many answers that I have wanted to get for long. He also had credability since he had worked as both entrepreneur and VC. Have him teach again!» - I could not attend» 38. Business models (Bo Heiden)- good»- good» - All following lectures where good in order to perform the assignment later. Tamirs would not have been sufficient.» - good» - see above» - really interesting. good examples to describe what a business model is» - Nothing extra to comment.» - very good because it was a great follow up of the previous lectures with the same topic. great examples.» 39. Valuation and value creation (Bo Heiden)- good»- very good» - good» - see above» - good. i liked that it was concrete» - Nothing extra to comment.» - it was really good because it explained in details what he ment and what he wanted at the assignement.» 40. Valuation methods (Bo Heiden)- very good»- very good» - poor explanation for students not familiar with maths and finance» - see above» - concrete and good» - Why should we know how to calculate the different valuations? More motivation needed.» - Nothing extra to comment.» - for me as an engineer it was great to have that lecture because I had no idea about this stuff from past and the way the text related to this lecture was written was a great help for the lecture and the understanding. Bi explained the whole thing very good.» 41. Valuing intellectual assets (Bo Heiden)- good»- very good» - ok» - see above» - i liked how the accounting systems today are not good when valuing intellectual assets» - Nothing extra to comment.» - great experience» 42. Valuing ventures (Bo Heiden)- good»- good» - ok» - see above» - good reading» - Nothing extra to comment.» - very useful in order to understand the concept» 43. Financing and valuation (Bo Heiden)- very good»- good» - It was a really really hard assignment. I am so "slow" and have a hard time doing stuff if I can"t see if it is correct, while other just assume and thinks whatever as I should do, why it got really hard for me.» - ok» - see above» - The financing assignment was really difficult!» - very fun!» - For this assignment it would have been good with generic numbers provided. To much of the assignment was was around what assumptions to do and why. » - Nothing extra to comment.» - great help for the real work and the assignment» Part VI: Course Literature44. How much of the book have you read?Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship (Ulf Petrusson)14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.21 - Read a few pages and I will probably read the whole over christmas, it seems to be a good book, but I had to prioritize.» (None) 45. How much of the book have you read?Christensen, C. (2003), The Innovator"s Dilemma14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.28 - didn"t have time. Will read it on christmas» (None) 46. How much of the book have you read?Davenport, T. (2006), Strategic Management in the Innovation Economy14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.5 - i have read some.» (None) 47. How much of the book have you read?DeSoto, H. (2001), The Mystery of Capital14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.35 - very good» (Half) 48. How much of the book have you read?Wilmerding, A. (2006), Term Sheets & Valuations: An Inside Look at the Intricacies of Term Sheets & Valuations14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.14 - they didn"t have it at adlibris» (None) 49. How much of the book have you read?Berman, K. et al. (2006), Financial Intelligence14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 1.92 - i have read some.» (None) 50. How much of the articles have you read?Articles14 svarande
Genomsnitt: 2.71 - some were really good, some were just long and very american (i.e. authors paid per side, thus long texts). a good way of giving us course literature. » (Half)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
0%