Visa resultat

project Management 2009 SP 2, IBB 135

1. I am a student originally coming from,

the School of Technology Management and Economics»		15		16%
another school at Chalmers»		60		65%
another Swedish University»		0		0%
I am an international student within the MEI-program»		5		5%
I am an exchange student (e.g. Erasmus)»		12		13%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

2. Overall, the course was

91 svarande

1, Very poor»		0		0%
2»		2		2%
3»		22		24%
4»		48		52%
5, Very good»		19		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- Before the course I thought it would be exiting but now I"m only glad that it is over. It feels like all the different momements in the course was there just to show that there are many different ways of teaching. Sometimes more lectures would have given a much better understanding of the subject than just have many different moments to pass. And also how can a course like this, an elective course at master level have such different level of the students? this made some of the moments very boring.» (3)
- to much courseparts och alldeles för låg nivå på kompetens bland framförallt utbytesstudenterna..» (3)
- With my background from I the number of new topics and the depth of the topics were not what I was hoping for. But nice structure of the course.» (3)
- Interesting lectures and good content. The literature seminairs was interesting» (4)
- It was really good, except that it appears that every possible alternative for evaluating the performance of a student is used in the course which is quite a lot for a 7.5 HEC course.» (4)
- Everygthing was chunked in very few lectures and the book concepts weren"t touched» (4)
- Covers the project process very well. » (4)
- I was expecting more, perhaps because of the intense classes in first couple of weeks, and than no classes at all at the end (excluding the literature seminars)» (4)
- The course has mostly focused on the theoritical part of the project management and since project management is something that should be learned in real world i think instead of interviews its better to do something else like cooperation in some projects. » (4)
- Very interesting, and learning! but more demanding than "other" master cources» (4)
- I would have liked to have more lectures.» (4)
- more lectures would be beneficial» (4)
- the course was informative but the workload was a lot» (4)
- Intensive but extremely effective and well-structured» (5, Very good)
- This has been one of the most valuable courses that I have taken at Chalmers. The workload has though been much to high. Without the home exam it might have been more reasonable. There is no possibility to take another as demanding course at the same time, and that means that this course is over its head on workload.» (5, Very good)
- Various opportunities to develop our knowledge and analytic thinking and also improving English through heavy writing work, discussion and presentation.» (5, Very good)
- The course is at good quality. We learned how to apply theory to analyze real world problem aiming at to suggest insightful solutions. Although, lots of reading and writing, I think it"s worth for.» (5, Very good)
- I learnt a lot of new information» (5, Very good)
- Being my first IBB course, I was very satisfied! » (5, Very good)
- This was my last course out of four in the economics minor I have taken, and this was by far the best one of them.» (5, Very good)

3. How much did you learn from the course?

92 svarande

1, Nothing at all»		0		0%
2»		2		2%
3»		26		28%
4»		47		51%
5, Very much»		17		18%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

- Well, I think even though the course was really heavy in terms of hand ins, the knowledge given was not appropriate for a master level course as I had already learnt almost all the headings in a bachelor"s course named Project Control and Management. For example the AOA was explained in the course but the AON was not while I knew both from the previous course and I was expecting to learn much more about leadership and management given that this was a coutse in the I-department of Chalmers. But the seminars were really really good and appreciable in this case and I learned quite a lot from them.» (3)
- there are a lot of common themes from all of the courses. » (3)
- With my background from I the number of new topics and the depth of the topics were not what I was hoping for. » (3)
- (in the end everything feels is commonsense)» (3)
- Much more work than the actual learning...» (3)
- Useful book, seminars and book.» (4)
- I learn a lot, especially how to write a formulate ideas and write a report. However, i still need more improvement in this, so I rate myself 4 =)» (4)
- just by working on the project, and in the specific field of the project.» (4)
- Depends on which area I go in to, I find them to be very different of importance.» (4)
- Very forceful learning, which was good! » (5, Very much)

4. The structure of the course was

91 svarande

1, Difficult to follow»		2		2%
2»		8		8%
3»		25		27%
4»		40		43%
5, Easy to follow»		16		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- some lessons more would be prerable in order to explain critical arguments of the book.» (3)
- how can your grade to some extent be based on what you know after 3 weeks of the course? the questions of the basic text concerned topics I learned so much more about after the test. is the grade then reflecting my knowledge? » (3)
- One thing that I found a little tricky was that some had the second litterature seminar first. This made some of us read the wrong litterature.» (3)
- But a lot of times the information could have come earlier and more clearly structured. It was not stated anywhere the dates of the home exam and this course evaluation could also have come earlier. Some times it felt that you did not respect our time, when you say it is a tough course you can at least give us the structural conditions to make it easier.» (4)
- It has a good structure, but again the lectures can be discussed... Maybe spread out, but i understand it is made like that due to the basic test.» (4)
- I didn"t get that my first seminar was seminar number 2, but other than that it was pretty straightforward.» (4)
- In the beginning of the course it was quite confusing however, in the middle of the course or something around there it started to get clear.» (4)
- The teachers were very good in transferring the information to the students and the book was really well written as well as the very well-structured seminars.» (5, Easy to follow)
- Very thoughtful and well prepared structure to help student reach goals» (5, Easy to follow)

5. The pace of the course was

91 svarande

1, Too slow»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		41		44%
4»		35		38%
5, Too fast»		16		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- I think the pace was quite ok, except that as I mentioned before, the volume of the hand ins was too much: exam, home exam, team-work, research project report, research project presentation, seminar 1, seminar 2.» (3)
- I actually like having an early dugga since you then have material to analyze the reports with» (3)
- As expected, because of the warnings from the faculty, that it is an overwhelming class with a high workload.» (3)
- Project presentation and hand out of home examination could be earlier. Due to the fact that I also take other courses, the home examination just interrupt with other studies.» (3)
- several (too many) examining activities » (3)
- The pace wasnt too fast, but it was still alot to do» (3)
- Moderately fast but managerable» (4)
- With the text-book exam so early I had to spend more than 50% of my time on this course and let the other course fall behind a bit. But after the exam the pace was well balanced.» (4)
- It was hard to get something qualitative from the company we studied in such a short time.» (4)
- My personal opinion is, that this course had a higher pace than most other courses I have read. I guess it had to do a lot with seminars and so on.» (4)
- having 300 pages read in the first two weeks is so fast without a related teaching areas.» (5, Too fast)

6. The administration of the course was

91 svarande

1, Very poor»		1		1%
2»		12		13%
3»		20		21%
4»		44		47%
5, Very good»		15		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- Have you heard about sending importan information by e-mail? especially for the home exam when the information was updated on the homepage, you do not check it several times a day.» (1, Very poor)
- Late openings of file hand-in etc.» (2)
- Since I was in a group where our supervisor was not located in Sweden(!) it was not always that easy to get hold of him. And when answers were needed with short notice, Per refused to answer and pointed us towars our supervisor, which was not available. This was really not an ideal way of handling it.» (2)
- Information was not distributed in time! The information about the home-exam should have been available a lot earlier. Now a lot of rumours circulated in class! Also, if things should be uploaded on the homepage then the link has to be available earlier than 5 hours before deadline.» (2)
- I think the home exam also should be included in the schedule.» (2)
- Some information came out late, for example the direct information of the literatur seminairs» (3)
- Dividing groups caused some problems» (3)
- However some of the instructions like for literature seminars were not very clear» (4)
- Too little time, from the actual feedback of the basic test until the day for the resit examination. » (4)
- Although, more information about the exam in advance could have been appreciated, since nobody really knew anything about the exam uptil the day of distribution.» (4)
- The only thing I"d like to comment on was the consultations that we had. I felt that our supervisor wasn"t prepared for the course at all, even though he did his best to read our paper and comment on such things. But when we refered to the course-PM or project-PM it seemed like he had not read it.» (4)
- The supervisor was a bit too busy with other things at times. Perhaps it would be good to book supervision in advance to a greater extent.» (4)
- It was very very good and so different from my department and I appreciate it, specially the fast email responds from the supervisors and Per.» (5, Very good)
- Course homepage was updated quickly and handout was well distributed» (5, Very good)
- I think our supervisor was one of the best supervisors I have had.» (5, Very good)
- I have never had and administration who answered mail faster!» (5, Very good)

7. Did the course meet your expectations?

90 svarande

1, Not at all»		1		1%
2»		8		8%
3»		22		24%
4»		39		42%
5, Very much»		21		23%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- Since I was expecting more in a master course, I should answer "no" to this question but since the seminars were something totally new to me and I learnt quite a lot from them I can say "yes" at the same time. Especially the implicit knowledge gained in the course about how to do conduct a research project and analysis of related articles was very valuable.» (2)
- I expected to get more of "best practice" techniques in project managemnet » (3)
- content ok, level of knowlege amongst participants not enough» (3)
- i did not expect much , but was good even though it is supposed to be a management subject.» (4)
- I think I hade another view of Project Management before I took this course than afterwards. I am now not that sure that I want to be a project manager in the future...» (4)

8. How demanding was the course?

91 svarande

1, Not demanding at all»		0		0%
2»		2		2%
3»		4		4%
4»		43		47%
5, Very demanding»		42		46%

Genomsnitt: 4.37

- ( it sounded like there is lots but may be .. )» (2)
- very demanding because of the limited time for everything» (4)
- There are many different types of examination which was quite demanding.» (4)
- It was quite demanding, especially with the early book test and so on, but I must say the thing that took it a bit further were the seminars. They were quite good indeed but they were also a bit irritating. They became a obstacle when you actually wanted to work with the project report.» (4)
- Way to much to do, especially since the home exam and the basic test almos covered the same things.» (5, Very demanding)
- Very demanding in terms of work load, not knowledge.» (5, Very demanding)
- Remove the home exam.» (5, Very demanding)
- The course was too demanding. Usually a course has one or two or maximum three ways of evaluating the students while this course had 5 different ways which is too much for just 7.5 credits. 1. exam 2. home exam 3. seminar 4. research project 5. project presentation» (5, Very demanding)
- It was very demanding! Most of all due to issues in the Research project group. I for one, do not appriciate the way of formation of the groups and I think that more time was spent on trying to explain stuff to the other in the group who had a real hard time with the language! I do not understand really how they can get in at chalmers when they do not understand english!! It makes life so much harder for the swedish students since they have to take on a lot heavier workload than actually needed and the time is spent on things that does not improve their skills in the subject of interest.» (5, Very demanding)
- Too many tasks and examinations. Litterature test, seminars, project work and home exam is too much. One of them could be removed or done in an less demanding way.» (5, Very demanding)
- Loads of writing and reading » (5, Very demanding)

9. How difficult was the course

91 svarande

1, Not difficult at all»		3		3%
2»		7		7%
3»		30		32%
3»		44		48%
5, Very difficult»		7		7%

Genomsnitt: 3.49

- A good level, but you did not have time to understand anything since it vas to much to do. Ypu just did it and moved on.» (3)
- The content was fine, the workload was worse...» (3)
- You have two number 3 as responses here, no 4. » (3)
- a bit difficult because of weak background, but well structured course was helpful to improve background gradually» (3)
- more on organizational theory ... hard for engineering students to understand and analyse critically» (3)
- there are two number threes in the answers on this question. My answer should be 4.» (3)
- This is graded upon the material during the cours and not including the home exam, can"t really have opinion about that since I do not know my grade.» (3)
- too much pressure and even not balanced. having the whole book and slides for the exam and just 20 points is too much pressure. in such courses getting a good grade is so much depended on other peoples as well.» (5, Very difficult)

10. Did the examination form mirror the course content?

91 svarande

1, Not at all»		2		2%
2»		7		7%
3»		24		26%
4»		41		44%
5, Very much»		18		19%

Genomsnitt: 3.75

- More an examination of how much work you could put in during the course periode, and not how good you learned the subject.» (1, Not at all)
- Would have preferred less stress or emphasis on Mayler)» (2)
- It was too much details in questions like names of the authors (which for some reason we need to remember) for different models and graphs which if you don"t remember you can not answer the question. Also some questions seemed to be structured in such a way as they were designed to mislead instead of being more clear what the question is about » (3)
- you are supposed to learn throughout the whole course. having an exam on all content after 3 weeks makes it harder to show what youve actually learned. » (3)
- All parts of the examination touched the same things, if there should be three examination parts, they should handle difeerent parts of the course.» (3)
- Maybe was much more focused on the seminars rather than the book. But seminars were mandatory, thus good!» (4)
- pretty much except from the group evaluation, assessing workcontribution together within the group shows nothing...» (4)
- Maybe working with the same material too many times... But as you say, repetition is good...» (4)
- Hard to say since the home exam has not been graded yet.» (4)
- I think the examination was perfect.» (5, Very much)
- Home exam was quiet nice because there is not right answer in management.» (5, Very much)
- Completely, perhaps not in every area but which course can provide that.» (5, Very much)

11. Did the examination form give opportunities for reflection and learning?

91 svarande

1, Not at all»		1		1%
2»		7		7%
3»		18		19%
4»		41		44%
5, Very much»		25		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.93

- Questions were very fact based instead of essay.» (2)
- very short amount of time and a huge amount of suff to read.» (2)
- Unfortunatly other deadlines provides stress on the output rather than reflections and learning.» (3)
- The examination provided time to reflect, for example the seminars. But since there were so many (different) examinations, one did not have the time to stop and reflect. » (3)
- home exam: yes Research project: not really because of the things stated in question 8 Basic test: learning yes, reflection no.» (4)
- Definitely.» (5, Very much)
- Both the seminars and the homeexam gave time to reflect, meybe one of them may be enough.» (5, Very much)
- Completely again.» (5, Very much)

12. Of the lectures, I have attended,

20%»		2		2%
40%»		4		4%
60%»		3		3%
80%»		37		40%
100%»		45		49%

Genomsnitt: 4.3

13. Overall the lecturer David Loid was

91 svarande

1, Not good»		0		0%
2»		4		4%
3»		13		14%
4»		39		42%
5, Very good»		35		38%

Genomsnitt: 4.15

- It was sometimes hard to follow him when he wrote on the blackboard, because he posed a question and then answered it on the blackboard so if you missed the question you did not understand the answers either. » (3)
- It would be good if he improved his skills with the "whiteboard", otherwise good.» (3)
- Fun to listen to, but he wasn"t that into the course content in my opinion.» (3)
- I believed David was very good in get the audience to listen» (3)
- Maybe a more understanding approach to questions during lectures could have helped in creating a learning climate. » (4)
- Sometimes he explained or asked questions too fast, it was little hard to catch up.» (4)
- Good lectures, but was to unstructured» (4)
- He is a wonderful teacher and his teaching method is quite different from the methods I have seen so far and I really enjoyed the interactive atmosphere of the lectures as well as the examples he made for facilitating the learning process.» (5, Very good)
- Very comfortable environment to learn» (5, Very good)
- He is a really good speaker, fun to listen to. But maybe his sarcasm can upset people?» (5, Very good)
- excellent!» (5, Very good)
- He was very good but his notes on the blackboard was hard to follow. if he wrote down a bullet point list, he didnt wrote the heading so sometimes it was hard to follow.» (5, Very good)
- One of the best I"ve had, indeed» (5, Very good)

14. How did you perceive your lecturer"s (Davied Loid"s) competence on this topic?

91 svarande

1, Very poor»		0		0%
2»		1		1%
3»		8		8%
4»		37		40%
5, Very good»		46		50%

Genomsnitt: 4.43

- He was a lot better in the areas he has own interest in. For example, the agendas were not very well explained and still we were examined on them...» (4)
- Excellent on developing thoughts and theories. » (5, Very good)
- I think he knew enough about the topic and he seemed to be completely fluent about what he was teaching.» (5, Very good)
- on the lecture very good, but the seminars was a bit of a disapointment. not as structured at al as the lectures. » (5, Very good)

15. Overall the lecturer Susanne Ollila was

88 svarande

1, Not good»		1		1%
2»		0		0%
3»		17		19%
4»		38		43%
5, Very good»		32		36%

Genomsnitt: 4.13

- Did not attend.» (?)
- did not attend» (3)
- did not attend, was away» (3)
- Inspiring, but I expected more from the lecture. » (3)
- hard to understand what she explained because she didn"t explain basic knowledge for a beginner, but she did good presentation in the manner of preparation and delivery» (3)
- It was too little and too shallow to be of any help, despite the interesting and relevant topic.» (3)
- Maybe she can get more time to be able to go deeper..? The politics is really interesting.» (4)
- Very interesting to listen to but I am not shure that I got so much out from it...» (4)
- A lot of energy.» (4)
- Extremely interesting one!» (5, Very good)
- She was very very good. I liked her method and her interaction with the students.» (5, Very good)
- Interesting about the informalities in projects» (5, Very good)
- excellent!» (5, Very good)

16. How did you perceive your lecturer"s (Susanne Ollila"s) competence on this topic?

88 svarande

1, Very poor»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		12		13%
4»		35		39%
5, Very good»		42		47%

Genomsnitt: 4.38

- Did not attend.» (?)
- did not attend, was away» (3)
- I think she has competence within a large part of the area but not the whole. » (4)
- I think she is quite knowledgeable in what she is teaching.» (5, Very good)

17. Overall the lecturer Jan Wickenberg was

85 svarande

1, Not Good»		2		2%
2»		1		1%
3»		17		20%
4»		26		30%
5, Very good»		39		45%

Genomsnitt: 4.16

- I was not at his lecture, but on the seminar he was very good. » (?)
- did not participat» (?)
- I didn"t attend his lecture, so I let the option be set to default "Not Good" assuming that it will be discarded in the statistics analysis.» (1, Not Good)
- It was difficult to follow, didnt see the conection with the course, up till the end of the lecture» (3)
- I did not attend this lecture.» (3)
- Unfortunately I didn"t attend any of his Lectures.» (3)
- I havent been at his lecture» (3)
- Nice to learn shadow system and watch video clips nice presentation. He tried to explian easily, so it was easy to understand» (4)
- Well prepared.» (4)
- Only attended his seminar, but there he was truly magnificent! Excellent at developing peoples questions.» (5, Very good)
- New to me, very interesting!» (5, Very good)
- Very enjoyable» (5, Very good)
- He spread a lot of energy. That was good.» (5, Very good)
- very enthustiastic, and he was interseting» (5, Very good)

18. How did you peceive your lecturer"s (Jan Wickenberg"s) competens?

83 svarande

1, Very poor»		0		0%
2»		1		1%
3»		16		19%
4»		31		37%
5, Very good»		35		42%

Genomsnitt: 4.2

- I didn"t attend his lecture, I cannot reply to this question.» (?)
- I was not at the lecture. » (?)
- I havent been at his lecture» (3)
- This is a final comment about all lecturer"s. I think everyone were over my expectation actually.» (5, Very good)

19. How much did you learn from the seminar on Project leadership and learning

91 svarande

1, Nothing at all»		2		2%
2»		8		8%
3»		31		33%
3»		34		36%
5, Very much»		17		18%

Genomsnitt: 3.64

- Some of the articles did I not find very interesting or having the purpose for the seminar.» (3)
- I have split opinions about the seminars.» (3)
- Maybe not some much new of how to handle these issues, but more on how to read and reflect on articles...» (3)
- Wickenberg was the supervisor in this seminar. It was a really inspiring occation. We had to sit in four groups and discuss each area before we discussed it in the whole group. This was very good because people became a bit "warm in their clothes", that is, they dared to speak in front of everyone, and people had had some minutes to reflect upon the subject already in the small groups. Wickenberg did not really give right or wrong answers, but more wanted to evoke a discussion. This was also very good since people dared to speak when they were not about to be doomed if they said anything "wrong". So to conclude, I did not really learn facts within the area, but it got my head started and thereby I could question the articles myself. » (3)
- This seminar was very very good. It was my first time in such a seminar and I found it a very successful way of involving the students in learning by discussion and analysis.» (5, Very much)
- They gave me a lot and was also a good support for the project and the take-home exam.» (5, Very much)

20. How much did you learn from the seminar on Project Processes?

91 svarande

1, Nothing at all»		2		2%
2»		14		15%
3»		30		32%
3»		33		36%
5, Very much»		12		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- So, at the second seminar I had Loid as supervisor. He did the seminar structure totally the opposite to how Wickenberg did it. Everything was discussed in the group right away which had the consequence that only some people spoke all the time. It was also confusing when going directly in to students questions since the subject had not been discussed at all in the group and peolpe did not really remember what the article in question was about. People need a start up time to be able to discuss the articles. What Loid also did was to say if things were right or wrong. This had the consequence that people did not dare to speak. » (2)
- Seminar 1 was more interseting!. Sthe articles of seminar 2 were hard to grasp» (2)
- same as above.» (3)
- Maybe not some much new of how to handle these issues, but more on how to read and reflect on articles...» (3)
- This seminar was also very nice. Since some parts of the course that were not really covered by the book or the lectures were covered by this seminar. And also it was a good choice to put it as the second seminar as it required more analysis and discussion ability.» (5, Very much)

21. How was the seminar leader David Loid?

63 svarande

1, Very poor»		0		0%
2»		5		7%
3»		27		42%
4»		25		39%
5, Very good»		6		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- Didn´,t have David Loid.» (?)
- Dont know» (?)
- I never had him as seminar leader.» (?)
- I did not have him» (?)
- I never participated in his seminars.» (?)
- Didn"t have him in any of the seminars» (?)
- didn"t have Dave as a seminar leader» (?)
- See question 20. » (2)
- He should try to create a more open and relaxed atmosphere. It was a bit uptight this time.» (2)
- did not have him» (3)
- i did not have david» (3)
- did not involve everyone as Sanne did, there everyone had to at least say something.» (3)
- Didn"t have him» (3)
- n/a» (3)
- He didn´,t sum up the main points of the papers/discussion» (3)
- was not part of his group» (3)
- dont now» (3)
- David was a good leader in the seminar as he tried to keep the students in the track and bringing up the required questions and discussion topics, but it could have been better if he could some times help the discussion by his own knowledge and opinion or help the discussion in words to come to a conclusion.» (4)
- I didn"t attend his seminar, but it would be good.» (4)

22. How was the seminar leader Susanne Ollila?

63 svarande

1, Very poor»		1		1%
2»		0		0%
3»		14		22%
4»		26		41%
5, Very good»		22		34%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

- Didn´,t have Susanne Ollila.» (?)
- Dont know» (?)
- I never had her s seminar leader.» (?)
- I did not have her» (?)
- I never participated in her seminars.» (?)
- Did not attend.» (?)
- Didn"t have him in any of the seminars» (?)
- Didn"t have susanne as seminar leader» (?)
- did not have her» (3)
- i did not have her» (3)
- didn"t have her» (3)
- n/a» (3)
- I didn"t attend his seminar, but it would be good.» (4)
- Susanne was a good leader in the seminar as she always tried to keep the students in the track of discussion bringing up the relevant questions and also commenting the discussion. I think Susanne did a perfect job as a seminar leader.» (5, Very good)
- Susanne was very good in inviting everybody in the discussion» (5, Very good)

23. How was the seminar leader Per Svensson?

70 svarande

1, Very poor»		3		4%
2»		9		12%
3»		25		35%
4»		19		27%
5, Very good»		14		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.45

- didn"t have per as seminar leader» (?)
- Did not attend.» (?)
- Did not have Per as a seminar leader.» (?)
- i didn"t have seminar with him.» (?)
- I didn´,t have a seminar with Per Svensson» (?)
- I havent been at his seminar» (?)
- Need to let the students partisipate more in the discussions. » (1, Very poor)
- Like killing the discussion» (2)
- cared too much about his own opinions and was therfore unable to stimulate a discussion.» (2)
- Did not have him» (3)
- didnt have him.» (3)
- did not attend » (3)
- Good balance, but too few follow up questions and too little spontaneous discussion.» (3)
- Too much articles for the time, so I suggest max 3 articles in order to discuss deeper the contenent.» (4)
- Not so much of a discussion, more of a well structured debate.. » (4)
- i didnt have seminar with him» (4)
- It was fun to discuss because he induced deep discussion.» (5, Very good)

24. How was the seminar leader Jan Wickenberg?

69 svarande

1, Very poor»		1		1%
2»		0		0%
3»		22		31%
4»		23		32%
5, Very good»		24		34%

Genomsnitt: 4.04

- didn"t have Jan as seminar leader» (?)
- Did not have Jan as seminar leader.» (?)
- i didn"t have seminar with him.» (?)
- I didn´,t have a seminar with Jan Wickenberg» (?)
- I havent been at his lecture» (?)
- Too much articles for the time, so I suggest max 3 articles in order to discuss deeper the contenent.» (3)
- Did not have him» (3)
- didnt have him.» (3)
- did not attend » (3)
- Interesting seminar, but its not good with a leader that dispise all of the articles.» (3)
- was not part of his group» (3)
- dont now» (3)
- He managed seminar well. He bridged student to student well.» (4)
- i didnt have seminar with him» (4)
- Really good structure with a mix of small group talks and whole class discussion. Perhaps a bit too much talk himself. Can be risky with small groups as the discussion is not supervised and some students are not that dedicated.» (4)
- Created a base for good discussions.» (4)
- Give the guy a nobel price.» (5, Very good)
- Better to discuss in small groups, actually gives you a wider range of input.» (5, Very good)
- See question 19. » (5, Very good)
- Great! My first seminar ever and he made me feel secure and cmofortable in the situation. Well prepared and good structure. » (5, Very good)

25. How much did you learn from the Research project?

90 svarande

1,Nothing at all»		0		0%
2»		6		6%
3»		21		23%
4»		42		46%
5, Very much»		22		24%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- due to that i had to do it all myself which din not give me any feedback at all....» (2)
- Well, I learnt many things about the topic of the research but not really a lot for the purpose of project management. I expected much more relevant knowledge to be gained about the course through this project.» (3)
- the guidelines were diffuse» (3)
- Also here, we could have learned more if there would not have been so many other things in the course that took the attention. Also hard to find a project so fast. » (3)
- Why, see question 8.» (3)
- I felt that it was difficult to work with an area that should both help the project and fit the course. Perhaps a specific list of 4-6 research areas of which one must be chosen would help out.» (3)
- I did not feel that the research project gave as much as the lectures. The research project could be more limited and more lectures added. However, it is good to have some sort of practical application of the theory.» (3)
- I felt it became a bit targeted, which I felt may lead to that I miss out on other areas.» (3)
- Nice project, nice groupmates, nice experience» (4)
- Not very well prepared for the interview questions because of fast-paced course. Interview questions dicided the quality of report in some extends.» (4)
- I think we still need to learn how to formulate questions and how to perform interview. We have knowledge from the course to analyse the situation. But due to few interviews and lack of skills, we cannot get much insights from the company.» (4)
- I was very unhappy with the group I ended up in. Totally different levels of ambition and the knowledge from some of the members makes one wonder about the entry conditions at chalmers. Maybe not specific critic about this course, but to chalmers. I learned or got very much experienced about how the situation can be in worst cases of bad group dynamic. Unfortunately, this time it may affect the final grading. » (4)
- i did come across some new concepts and theories, but i guess it does not match actual practice and experience.» (4)
- Good group selection, Normally is quite uncomfortable when groups are selected by the department. But it was really good the strategy chosen.» (5, Very much)
- Fun to work with so different people, learned a lot from the interaction in the group. Also learned a lot about reality.» (5, Very much)
- but just in the field of our project.» (5, Very much)
- I learnt a lot about how it works in real life» (5, Very much)
- One of the best components of the course.» (5, Very much)

26. How was the Research project supervisor David Loid?

48 svarande

1, Not good»		1		2%
2»		0		0%
3»		22		45%
3»		11		22%
5, Very good»		14		29%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- I did not have him. But rumour has it that he has said completly different things from the other supervisors.» (?)
- I did not have him as supervisor.» (?)
- Did not have David» (?)
- Didn"t have him» (?)
- did not have him» (3)
- did not have him» (3)
- Did not have him» (3)
- didnt have him» (3)
- Ok. I did not really feel that he understod the problems in our group though and I feel that we would have needed more time with him than we got.» (3)
- n/a» (3)
- not under him» (3)
- dont now» (3)
- Gave a lot of very good input, and very detailed input. But sometimes he gave contradictory instructions, should be more clear...» (3)
- he was one of the best supervisors of a project i have ever had» (5, Very good)
- Once again, excellent at developing theories and analysis. Even better as tutor than lecturer. » (5, Very good)

27. How was the Research project supervisor Ulrika Badenfelt?

45 svarande

1, Not good»		3		6%
2»		2		4%
3»		23		51%
3»		8		17%
5, Very good»		9		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- Really good, even though we could not hand in enough to get proper feedback.» (?)
- I did not have her as Research project supervisor.» (?)
- I did not have her» (?)
- I did not have her as supervisor.» (?)
- Did not have Ulrika» (?)
- Really poor in giving feedback on the content. » (1, Not good)
- didn"t get any feedback, except follow the report instructions extremly strict. She doesn"t seem to have any knowledge in this area» (1, Not good)
- Was complaning a lot about the management of the research projects. Should focus more on giving feedback on our projects.» (2)
- did not have her» (3)
- did hot have her» (3)
- didnt have her» (3)
- Did not have her» (3)
- didnt have her» (3)
- N/A» (3)
- n/a» (3)
- dont now» (3)
- Very helpful!» (5, Very good)

28. How was the Research project supervisor Christoper Hedvall?

47 svarande

1, Not good»		1		2%
2»		5		10%
3»		28		58%
3»		11		22%
5, Very good»		3		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- I did not have him as Research project supervisor.» (?)
- I did not have him» (?)
- Did not have Christopher» (?)
- Didn"t have him» (?)
- Hadn"t read the whole report before the supervision meeting.» (2)
- Not prepared for the course. Quite unstructured and mixes details with high level issues. He puts time into it though, and wants to help.» (2)
- didnt have him» (3)
- Did not have him» (3)
- ok» (3)
- A bit poor feedback sometimes. » (3)
- N/A» (3)
- Good, but a bit vague. He could try to give more specific advice.» (3)
- not under him» (3)
- dont now» (3)
- He put time for answering the questions and was trying to keep the group on the required track and gave some really useful advices about the report and in general how to proceed in the research project.» (3)
- I liked him, he gave us substantial feedback. » (3)

29. How was the Research project supervisor Anna Yström?

43 svarande

1, Not good»		3		6%
2»		0		0%
3»		22		51%
3»		10		23%
5, Very good»		8		18%

Genomsnitt: 3.46

- I did not have her as Research project supervisor.» (?)
- I did not have her as supervisor.» (?)
- Didn"t have her» (?)
- did not have her» (3)
- didnt have her» (3)
- didnt have her.» (3)
- N/A» (3)
- She was ok. But when giving feedback on an unfished report she should help with the bigger picture and not go into details with the words. The text is not yet finished and corrected at that point and the student need to know more if they have missed important parts or discussions.» (3)
- n/a» (3)
- Anna was ok. We maybe not took the advantage of confer with her as much as we should. » (3)
- not under him» (3)
- hope that is a 4?» (3)
- Great feedback» (3)
- very helpful and interested with good feedback on the work » (5, Very good)

30. How was the textbook "Project Management" by Maylor?

90 svarande

1Very poor»		0		0%
2»		10		10%
3»		26		28%
4»		43		47%
5= Very good»		12		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.66

- Good in the sense that it presents a very broad spectrum of PM content. Badly written and not much details.» (?)
- I feel that it was over hyped» (2)
- I believe it was not enough for a course in a master"s level. It was too basic in my opinion. It was covering very basic topics in Project Management and management and leadership in general. It was more or less like a mixture of all the courses I had in the area of management in my bachelor studies.» (3)
- More of advertisement of different tools but still gives you an overview.» (3)
- not so logical» (3)
- Difficult to read with long sentences....» (3)
- insightful, but lack of coverage - seems not cover the content it should in each chapter, content swapping between chapter to chapter, confusing which task to do in which phase, » (3)
- American textbooks always have too much text. It could be much more concise. The content was good though.» (3)
- I prefer the project management book by J.K Pinto» (3)
- I didn"t buy it. Think I passed anyway, thanks to good supplementary documents, and studying with friends.» (3)
- it was good but a bit to much text to sa ybasic things sometimes.» (4)
- I think Maylor did not discussed many topics in details and more practical aspects of experience. Maybe introducing another book beside Maylor as a main literature source can be helpful. » (4)
- Many good examples to help understanding» (4)
- structured well , but concepts are a bit hard to grasp» (4)

31. What schould definitely be changed to next year?

32. Additional comments