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.

Design for Quality, 2009/2#2, TEK161

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2009-12-11 - 2009-12-18
Antal svar: 18
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 36%
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.

18 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»2 11%
Around 20 hours/week»7 38%
Around 25 hours/week»2 11%
Around 30 hours/week»5 27%
At least 35 hours/week»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- It is hard to estimate. I can"t recall. But, I know, it was very flexible. First, I was with the class, and I didn"t have to rush myself, but gradually I lost track, and I was under pressure for seminars. Due to having 2 course with many different elements (e.g. seminars, reviews, games, labs, guest lectures.) it was confusing for me to synchronize my duties. » (Around 20 hours/week)
- The time in class is ten hours. The time on my own work is about twenty hours.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- Around 45 hour/week the last week. » (Around 30 hours/week)

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

18 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»0 0%
50%»0 0%
75%»6 33%
100%»12 66%

Genomsnitt: 4.66

- Because of the sickness, I missed some courses.» (75%)
- 8 am is too early» (75%)
- Maybe closer to 100%, but still, not everything.» (75%)
- Sometimes it was hard, due to heavy workload of both courses, but I didn"t want to miss anything, so I attended all sessions.» (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?

18 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»4 22%
The goals are difficult to understand»0 0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»5 27%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»9 50%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- At first, I didn"t understand the goals that much, but since I am answering the question now, that I have even answered my exam, I feel like I fully understand the goals. So, the question of the goal should not be asked now, because it doesn"t provide a fair judgments. When I have studied all the tools and methods, I fully understand what you mean by those words in the goal description.» (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.

14 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»1 7%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»12 85%
No, the goals are set too high»1 7%

Genomsnitt: 2

- As an industrial engineer, my background on product development was not that much. But I enjoyed the course anyway. It was framed in a good way, which was understandable for me. After all, I learned something from it.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- should be better coordinated with the other course in QOM » (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- Way to many goals on such short period of time, with regard to what we had to do in the parallel course as well.....» (No, the goals are set too high)

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

15 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»4 26%
Yes, definitely»7 46%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»4 26%

Genomsnitt: 3

- i don"t belive that a home-exam is the way to go in this course.» (To some extent)
- Things that had little focus on during the course was major on the exam, I"m reffering to DoE!» (To some extent)
- The home exam questions are so challenging and professional. I do love the challenging questions to examine the learning.» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

18 svarande

Small extent»1 5%
Some extent»3 16%
Large extent»11 61%
Great extent»3 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.88

- The DoE week wasn"t obligatory, but still its included in 2 question on the exam... and the slides doesn"t provide any help what so ever.......» (Some extent)
- About DOE, can the ANOVA and usage of minitab be added. » (Large extent)
- Design of Experiment lecture was AWFUL. It was so confusing, the lecturer was not ready at all, the sequence of slides were not set, and I read the book several times and asked so many classmates to learn it (somehow, not fully) finally. Also, although Hendry has a lot of knowledge, he should think more how to present and convey this deep knowledge in a lecture. He has a lot to say, but they are of help only if presented in a structured and systematic way. His pronunciation is hard to follow.» (Large extent)
- That is unfortunately very rare, but I was plaasantly surprised to find that most of the answers to the home exam questions was, more or less, discussed during lecturs, literature reviews and cases. » (Great extent)

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

18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»5 27%
Large extent»5 27%
Great extent»8 44%

Genomsnitt: 3.16

- Too much reading - too little "doing".» (Some extent)
- The course literature was so amazing. Some of them more, some less. One suggestion is to explain the last year"s literature for students as well, so if someone likes can read them as well. I liked the articles very much. I wish there was good articles on DoE as well. » (Great extent)
- we have had a lot of litterature at hand.» (Great extent)

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

18 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»0 0%
Rather well»7 38%
Very well»11 61%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- Excellent, as Ida always is. Structured, on time, precise. Thanks!» (Very well)
- the idea of posting exam questions on the studentporal was werry good! thumbs up» (Very well)
- Good order on the homepage e.g.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

18 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»1 5%
Rather good»4 22%
Very good»12 66%
I did not seek help»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- Teachers not avaible during the exam week!!» (Rather poor)
- Responsive, welcoming, and supportive. Thanks!» (Very good)
- ida has done a great work» (Very good)

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

18 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 5%
Rather well»9 50%
Very well»8 44%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- Some people have different ways of working, hard to balance the work load and it is not so easy to be straight to that person. » (Rather well)
- We couldn"t manage to divide the work that effectively.» (Rather well)
- have had difficulties in the cases, some people havent contributed to the group. feels rather sad that some people in the group dident put the effort in their work. they just put more work load on the other team memebers.» (Rather well)
- Not a perfect fit but it could have been a lot worse.» (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

18 svarande

Too low»1 5%
Low»1 5%
Adequate»6 33%
High»9 50%
Too high»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- Long working hours but learn a lot in practice side!» (High)
- When I say high, I don"t mean I didn"t like that. I like it when it is challenging and deep. Yes, it was a lot of reading and more importantly, a lot of thinking. The point is, I love it this way. It should be professional, comprehensive, and informative.» (High)
- mabe too high for the 7.5p. 2x cases, and a home exam. the 3 litterature seminars was contributing so i would like to keep them.» (High)
- It is individual. If you study for a high grade then the workload is big.» (High)
- To much to cope with at the same time.!! And the final presentation was to be done the same day as we got the exam :S» (Too high)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

18 svarande

Too low»1 5%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»6 33%
High»8 44%
Too high»3 16%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- The workload was certainly perfect... if only I hadnt read other courses as well. ,-)» (Adequate)
- High is not a problem, the point is, it was not synchronized between courses.» (High)
- too many cases! badly coordinated, we talk about coordination all the time. do something about it for next year.» (Too high)


Please contribute with constructive comments regarding teaching individuals

13. Ida Gremyr

DfQ - Lectures and seminar
Kano model - Lectures and seminar
RDM - Lectures and seminar
DfSS - Lecture
Supervision on group cases
and more..

- Ida gives good lecture with alot of interaction which is appriciated. »
- Over all excellent, too much focus on rdm.»
- RDM-lecture by Ida was one of the best lectures during this course. She was clear with what she wanted us to learn and explained well during all her lectures! She had good comments on our reports and seminars, it was interesting seeing her point of view on the seminar questions, both her questions and our own that we had come up with. It was crusial that the seminaires were compolsory, that meant that you were well prepared for the homeexam.»
- Don"t remeber so much about the lecture, since that is more conceptual things and many of them were introduced in the first study period but dig further. I think the articles and reports help learning even more. Constructive advices in supervision and help a lot!»
- Ida was excellent as always. As the ultimate course responsible, I suggest to pay more attention to the DoE and QFD lectures. Literature seminars were very good and informative. The lecture on DFSS can be expanded, more from basics, to the more detailed areas. For someone with no knowledge on DFSS, this lecture was not enough.»
- you pass on all criterias, think that you have done a great work.»
- DfSS didn"t provide any thing during lectures. Couldn"t grasp it until i did extensive research during the exam!»
- Some lectures where filled with too much of facts (especially RDM as i recall). Difficult for the listener to follow and understand.»
- Good English. Good at keeping the audience interest. Very nice.»

14. Marcus Assarlind

DfQ - Seminar
Kano model - Seminar
DoE - Lectures and lab
RDM - Seminar
and more..

- Marcus is a good seminar leader but lost himself in the lecture with the slides. If he would align what he said with the slides better it would make an improvement. »
- The DoE week was had the poores lectures, Marcus wasn´,t structured in his way of teaching and he didn´,t seem to know exactly in what way he wanted us to learn DoE. He needs to be more prepared next time! During the seminar he didn´,t seem to want to discuss the questions with us he was more a listner.. I personally prefer Idas way of involving her self in our discussions.»
- Nice lecture for DoE, simple example helps to understand how it works, or the related chapter in the book is hard to understand. Seminar could be more structured or sometimes didn"t get too much from it. Nice attitude, easy to reach in helping with work.»
- In seminars, you are not active at all. There is a huge difference between Ida"s and yours seminars. You didn"t participate that much. DoE lecture was confusing, and awful. Please do it as practice for someone before the class, and see how much s/he has learned. Think about the way you want to present the material. Explain the logic of steps clearly. And finally, how to draw a line? I am not convinced... there should be a scientific way. Look for it...»
- did a good job in the seminars and presentations.»
- You said DoE week wasn"t neccassry if you had done the helicopter lab before... Therefore i didn"t attend it.. and ofcourse I got stuck on Q4 just for that... Could atleast told us that it was recommended to attend to the elctures eventough one done the helicopter lab before.!½,!!!»
- The DoE lecture where difficult to follow. Stick to one example instead.»
- in the beginning of the DoE lecture the structure was not evident, which confused for the rest of the class»
- Good English. Enthusiastic. Not fully prepared though.»

15. Hendry Raharjo

QFD - Lecture

- Hendry gave a good lecture with interaction. He explain in a good way what his article talked about, something which would have been diffficult to understand by only reading it. »
- really POOR lecture! He got to mutch in to details and didn´,t get any over view over what QFD is and how it works. It was hard to ceep track of what he wanted to teach us when he always wrote with his "pen" on the computer so you no longer could understand the slides during the lecture. Nex time it would maby be an idea to not have as many slides and to simplify his way of going through the QFD-house.»
- Show the work step by step helps to understand. But the article seems not so related to what we are supposed to learn, too hard and leads some confusion.»
- It is a very good idea to use electronic pen during the lecture, specially for QFD which needs modification and explanation. But, please, don"t overdo it!!! Use it, it is so helping for learning, but keep it as necessary. Thanks for your learning lectures.»
- Good even tough the use of AHP might have been to complicated to fit in our course.»
- the use of the computer software was a little too extensive and therefore confusing»
- Could do some improvements in English. Very pedagogical with an interactive computer pen on the lecture. The slides were not so instructive alone unfortunately.»
- Innovative way of teaching by drawing on the powerpoint slides, but it becomes too messy.»

16. Lisa Carlgren

DoE - Lab

- Good! »
- It was a really fun lab to do! ..but we were to many doing it at the same time that when you actually wanted help from Marcus or the other girl (that was there to help Marcus), you had to wait a long time to get help because everybody happend to be finished at the same time and the girl didn´,t seem to know so mutch so she always whent to Marcus to ask him for explainations as well. »
- Should be more clear about what to do. Maybe this Lab should have more supervisors, took a long time to reach people.»
- Good»

17. Cagdas Senis

Guest Lecturer, Saab Automobile

- Intereseting lecture but it should been placed after a lecture about DFSS.»
- Interesting...»
- did a good presentation, i hope that saab is still around so you come back next year.»
- Funny. Interesting. Looked like a movie celebrity.»

18. Anette Gustavsson & Katarina Brantin

Guest Lecturers, SCA

- Interesting lecture and very good speakers but it should have been placed after a lecture about DFSS.»
- Verry interesting. I always appreciate when you get the oppertunitie to go on a study visit so thanks!»
- Interesting lecture but not got too much from it. Would like to know how they use DFSS more specificlly.»
- Interesting...»
- could have had the "lecture" in chalmers, owuld have prefered a sudy wisit to the work floor.»
- To much Gothenburg accent in English that got pretty tiresome after a while. Too long a lecture but interesting close to the course.»

19. Simon Schütte

Kansei Engineering - Lecture

- Very interesting subject and relevant to the coarse but it is not a good way to have the lecture after the home exam is distributed. It is not very nice towards the lecturer nor the class. »
- Very interesting!»
- This was a really interesting and fun lecture but I would have prefered it to be earlier in the course and not in the last week of the course when you couldn´,t take it in that mutch because we already had started to work with the home exam. i would love to learn some more about this method.»
- Nice lecture, related to think further for customer in design phase.»
- Excellent speaker, interesting slides. A suggestion: change slides faster, speak less on each slide, manage the time so that you can explain the software . If you want to go to the mathematical details, please explain the rationale and logic clearly. Don"t take anything for granted.»
- this is something that you should have brought in much earlier in the course. found it interesting and contributing for the subject. a must next year but earlier!»
- Most interesting lecture in this course. Very good.»
- Very interesting. Very good presenting ability.»

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

Kansei Engineering - Lecture


- Design for Quality is an introduction course. Kano model and QFD are the very important tools for product design. DOE is the very important tool for RDM. Both RDM and DFSS are the very important methodology for product development. Kansei Engineering is the supplementary course. »
- Maybe add even more practical training in forms of workshops and more focus on Kansei Engineering and how this field is connected to the other frameworks presented during the course. »
- The content is definitely good, but the lecturers and the way they are presented can be improved.»

Design for Quality
17 svarande

Definately not»0 0%
No»0 0%
Maybe»2 11%
Yes»6 35%
Definately»9 52%

Genomsnitt: 4.41

Kano Model
17 svarande

Definately not»0 0%
No»0 0%
Maybe»0 0%
Yes»3 17%
Definately»14 82%

Genomsnitt: 4.82

Quality Function Deployment
17 svarande

Definately not»0 0%
No»0 0%
Maybe»0 0%
Yes»4 23%
Definately»13 76%

Genomsnitt: 4.76

Design of Experiments
17 svarande

Definately not»0 0%
No»0 0%
Maybe»2 11%
Yes»7 41%
Definately»8 47%

Genomsnitt: 4.35

Robust Design Methodology
17 svarande

Definately not»0 0%
No»1 5%
Maybe»1 5%
Yes»5 29%
Definately»10 58%

Genomsnitt: 4.41

Design for Six Sigma
17 svarande

Definately not»0 0%
No»0 0%
Maybe»2 11%
Yes»6 35%
Definately»9 52%

Genomsnitt: 4.41

Kansei Engineering
17 svarande

Definately not»0 0%
No»0 0%
Maybe»3 17%
Yes»4 23%
Definately»10 58%

Genomsnitt: 4.41

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


- There should have been a discussion after the DoE lab. And questions should have been posed to the groups (such as: how did you come up with your conclusions? why can you use this model? What are the weaknesses in the approach?)»
- The cases gave good training but since the product was fictive, it was difficult to make use of the tools. It would have been better to have a real product to analyze. »
- I already knew the things taught in the DoE lab.»

Kano case
17 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»0 0%
Large extent»7 41%
Great extent»10 58%

Genomsnitt: 3.58

QFD case
18 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»2 11%
Large extent»9 50%
Great extent»7 38%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

DoE lab
18 svarande

Small extent»5 27%
Some extent»6 33%
Large extent»3 16%
Great extent»4 22%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

Assesment criteria

22. Should group assignments be graded?

18 svarande

No grades»8 44%
Half of them graded»1 5%
All graded»9 50%

Genomsnitt: 2.05

- We was lucky but if you"re in a group where some people don"t do their assignments, it"s very frusturating.» (No grades)
- No grades, as we cant choose our groups (which works well, otherwise).» (No grades)
- It is an important method for measuring the performance of group assignments.» (All graded)
- I like that you have the oppertunitie to have bonus points for the exam.» (All graded)
- But less strict! » (All graded)
- It keeps the motivation up.» (All graded)

23. Do you prefer a home exam or an conventional exam?

16 svarande

Home exam»10 62%
Conventional exam»6 37%

Genomsnitt: 1.37

- For me, both ok.» (?)
- I"m not sure. I will know that when I"m done with the home exam.» (?)
- More reflection!» (Home exam)
- I learn more but i takes more time» (Home exam)
- Home exam is an awesome idea. I have learned a lot of things which I am sure I never forget, just because of home exam. Many of my friends have the same idea. We learned the articles this way, not memorized only. I feel so powerful with all the learning I have. Viva Home Exam! Viva Ida!» (Home exam)
- Learn more in home exam but not so clear about what real qustion want. Think too much when constructing the answer. » (Conventional exam)
- so much to say so few words..» (Conventional exam)
- Definately» (Conventional exam)

Summarizing questions

24. What is your general impression of the course?

18 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»3 16%
Good»11 61%
Excellent»4 22%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

25. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- All the courses should be preserved to next year.»
- The connection between lectures and the final exam»
- Discussion of the own questions in the literature seminare. Interactive classes. Supervision on group cases.»
- Ida was freat! Ceep this main structure of quality tools and methods.»
- Ida herself!!! DfQ, DFSS, QFD, KANO, DOE, ... everything. But they way they are presented can be improved.»
- Litterautre»
- The subjects were all very interesting. The amount of literature was very reasonable.»

26. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- About the presentation,if all the classmates can get together, maybe we can get more feelings about it.»
- Higher requirements.»
- No guest lecturer after the distribution of the exam. Bring the SCA lecturers to Chalmers. Inform the SCA lecturers that a man from SCA already as presented the company to the class in the first course. Make QFD and Kano on real products. Present DFSS before the two guest lecturers so the students can make better use of these lectures. Lectures at 08.00. »
- The DoE week and the QFD lecture.»
- DoE lectures and lab.»
- home exam, coordination with the other course.»
- the home exam, and number of projects»
- the two group works should be more "officially" introduced and the time for the Kano report could be a little longer»
- The literature seminars did not contribute so much to the learning and designing a question of one own was more tiresome than instructive.»

27. Additional comments

- The structure and organization was really good (for example that questions for the home exam were stated on the student portal so everyone got a chance to see them!)»
- Thank you for a fun course!»
- Thank you Ida for an interesting course! »
- Thanks for letting me learn! In addition to QFD and Kana, if there are more tools, they can be presented as well, or refer student to articles with more tools (optional, not obligatory) for more interested students.»

Kursutvärderingssystem från