Visa resultat

Idea evaluation and feasibility studies, TEK215

Your own effort

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

25 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		3		12%
Around 20 hours/week»		4		16%
Around 25 hours/week»		10		40%
Around 30 hours/week»		8		32%
At least 35 hours/week»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

- Most time spent on the cases.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- too much work for the projects, or perhaps our group just spent too much time. I m not sure. » (Around 25 hours/week)
- Including work on assignments.» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

25 svarande

0%»		1		4%
25%»		4		16%
50%»		5		20%
75%»		10		40%
100%»		5		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- Attended the first lectures then realised they were the worst shit I"ve ever experienced during my close to 4 years at Chalmers, possibly during my entire life.» (0%)
- I couldn"t waste my time anymore and that 25% is related to the first lecture until I recognized this fact.» (25%)
- Afternoon timings, and four hour sessions are a big no no.» (25%)
- I get really lost sometimes when many teachers are discussing. It is hard to get the content our if they are embedded in a discussion amongst teachers. Also, the coherence of all lectures are really not clear....» (50%)
- It was too much with 4 hour lectures» (50%)
- In my opinion the lectures had very little to do with the "topics for the lecture", and thus were of very little help for the cases. The lectures were often about sustainability from a company strategy point of view, or examples of startup companies. The focus on idea evaluation on the lectures was very little I think.» (75%)
- Lectures seemed rarely relevant to the actual course. The information was good in some of them, but it didn"t fit. It would have been better to have the teaching in how to conduct feasibility studies and make the classes more like workshops, than to continually have these random presentations.» (75%)
- many lectures were too similar to the litterature» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		4		16%
The goals are difficult to understand»		4		16%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		10		40%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		7		28%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- Is the course actually about learning how to evaluate ideas? see previous question.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- There is no relation between the course goals and what they really offer. I took the course expecting something I did not receive. It would be fair if the course syllabus really explain what they are going to offer for the students.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

21 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		1		4%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		20		95%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.95

- N/A» (?)
- Having the business desgin in the fall made it very reasonable» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)
- The problem here with these questions are that the goals had nothing to do with the real course.» (Yes, the goals seem reasonable)

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		9		40%
Yes, definitely»		5		22%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		8		36%

Genomsnitt: 2.95

- The exam as the lectures are about sustainability, and not about feasibility studies or idea evaluation that the goals concern.» (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		11		44%
Some extent»		11		44%
Large extent»		2		8%
Great extent»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 1.72

- Unfortunately I think the quality of the lectures were often very low. Some teachers have very big problem in framing the content and communicate what is actually important.» (Small extent)
- Teaching has been completely irrelevant for the purpose of the course. Group assignment was good but lectures did in no way connect or help in doing these. No consultation was given either.» (Small extent)
- Personally, I think some lectures were not that interesting. And we as students went out from the subject pretty often, and it made me confused about what we had been discussing so far. I think the teacher should manage this and be able to control not to be out of the scope.» (Small extent)
- I got very little knowledge about how to evaluate an idea in the lectures.» (Small extent)
- the first couple of lectures were interesting, specially Sverker"s and Mats" lectures. but the second half of the lectures were rather boring and gave nothing to me. so I left them after an hour.» (Some extent)
- The case presentations were some what repetitive as the same is in the book as well.» (Some extent)
- The problem is that immediately following the course, I find it hard to see how the course helped, but the day will come where the epiphany happens and then I"ll appreciate why I took the course.» (Some extent)

7. Which of the guest lecturers did you prefer?

22 svarande

Sverker Alänge»		2		9%
David Andersson»		4		18%
Thomas Bräck»		0		0%
Boo Edgar»		5		22%
Tomas Faxheden»		1		4%
Per Gyllenspetz»		0		0%
Erik Hansson»		0		0%
Kristina Henricson»		0		0%
Martin Lackéus»		3		13%
Mats Lundqvist»		2		9%
Karl Palmås»		0		0%
Christian Sjöberg»		1		4%
Karen Williams Middleton»		2		9%
Mats Williander»		2		9%

Genomsnitt: 6.72

- Sverker usually chose to speak about interesting and practical things, and he not only talks based on his experience and knowledge, but also he can express his meaning very well. » (Sverker Alänge)
- It was engaging.» (David Andersson)
- He seemed knowledgeable in his area and had a wide experience.» (Boo Edgar)
- The quality of the lectures varied. Lectures from, (IKEA, BioPlastics and social entrepreurship needs to be improved.)» (Boo Edgar)
- Martin was very energetic and inspiering» (Martin Lackéus)
- This lecture was to some extent related to what I expected to learn in this course.» (Martin Lackéus)
- I think Karen has is very clear, has great pedagogical skills and communicates things that matters! I think Martin, Thomas, the net clean guy did a great job, and their information was down to earth helpful, especially when answering questions. I think Sverker and Boo could practice in presenting things more clearly.» (Karen Williams Middleton)
- I heard Mats Williander was appreciated, apart from that I didn"t attend any lectures beside the first ones. » (Mats Williander)
- The lecture was very interesting as I felt lock ins was also the most interesting part in the book.» (Mats Williander)

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

Small extent»		6		24%
Some extent»		7		28%
Large extent»		10		40%
Great extent»		2		8%

Genomsnitt: 2.32

- Some chapters in the book is not understanable, very hard to grasp.. scenarioplanning, which probably is a straight forward method become abstract and unclear due to formulations..» (Small extent)
- The course material is a beta, so there are some flaws. Language is a bit inconsistent. There is not a clear red thread content wise, some content seems a bit misplaced actually... The literature is aimed at being tailor-made to the course, as there is little other literature available in the subject. This is a very nice objective. With some changes and some polishing the book can turn into something very useful!» (Some extent)
- The book is good in many aspects. If you would have time to read it while taking the course, this could help to understand the course. » (Large extent)
- just the scenario planning part lacks an example both in lecture-slides and in the book.» (Great extent)

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

Very badly»		3		12%
Rather badly»		4		16%
Rather well»		14		56%
Very well»		4		16%

Genomsnitt: 2.76

- The information was not very clear and it was difficult to know who you were supposed to ask what when you had a question.» (Rather badly)
- I think the communication interface towards the students have been very good. This was a problem during the fall (BCL) I think, but was now much better!» (Very well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		5		20%
Rather good»		5		20%
Very good»		14		56%
I did not seek help»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- a mentor hour fot the cases would have been great!» (Rather good)
- As usual the teachers are happy to answer questions and well involved with the students» (Very good)
- The occasions were I"ve wanted help I"ve got quick, and in most cases thorough answers. This goes for emailing as well as asking things during the lectures!» (Very good)
- I admire Boo" effort in helping us answer all the questions regarding the project work.» (Very good)

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

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		1		4%
Rather well»		5		20%
Very well»		19		76%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- This would have been very good had it not been for one worthless individual in my group. How this person was accepted to an entrepreneurship program is beyond me.» (Rather well)
- Interesting to work with different groups» (Very well)
- In both groups the collaboration went very well!» (Very well)
- Nothing at all to complain about, we helped each other and summarized the course literature together.» (Very well)

12. How was the course workload?

Too low»		1		4%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		12		48%
High»		11		44%
Too high»		1		4%

Genomsnitt: 3.44

- Adequate, but the 20hrs that was estimated per person for each case was way off.. more like 40hrs i would say» (Adequate)
- The workload was proper I think. One reflection is that the "scenario planning" guideline seemed a bit too extensive in relation to the available time for a case. The "scenario planning" guideline actually seemed to be made for a big company with already existing strategies and business models. I couldn"t really fit that onto an idea evaluation. I browsed the web and found other scenario planning templates that fitted better I think.» (Adequate)
- But not too high...it"s supposed to be intense» (High)
- Too high considering that I took the course R&D strategy and organization.» (High)
- I did not see the point of doing 3 projects which only 1 is considered for the final grade. More over, not receiving enough and clear feedback to improve in the next works or the exam. It"s like if you get it wrong since the beginning you keep it until the end of the course.» (High)
- You gained alot from the cases but two cases would be enough and the system with that only the score from the best of the cases counts is crap! Almost all greoups focused on one case and did not care anything about the other case.» (High)
- two projects at the same time seems a bit strange. many groups divide the team thus not a healthy way to learn. And i don"t see a repeat of doing the same thing in different context is interesting. Maybe have different emphasize on different projects could be a good idea. » (Too high)

13. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		10		40%
High»		10		40%
Too high»		5		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.8

- Two cases instead of three and the load would be perfect and the groups would deliver two good cases instead of one.» (High)
- We had a few time consuming cases in the MEI-programs R&D course at the same time» (Too high)
- Overall I had five different group assignments which is really too much, considering coordination in between groups and the work that needs to be done! » (Too high)

Summarizing questions

14. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		4		16%
Fair»		2		8%
Adequate»		4		16%
Good»		13		52%
Excellent»		2		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.28

- Cases were very good and interesting but the lectures and teaching offered sucked massively. More connection to the actual purpose of the course would have been great. Concrete tips about how to do market evaluations etc and consultations to help sort out questions in the middle of the group assignments.» (Poor)
- I did not find structure at all, the lectures were very fuzzy in the matter of how analyzing an idea. I think a lot of refining of the learning purposes must be done. I think only 1 professor per class would be better, because it confuses receiving (sometimes) different opinions from 2 different persons. The instructions for the cases and the exam were not clear at all, and I think the information base (book or lectures) is very uncomplete to provide a complete course base on that.» (Poor)
- I already stated my opinion above.» (Poor)
- I really liked the subject and the way we worked doing the idea evaluation but I think the course lacked in overall coordination, and the link between lectures and the projects could have been much stronger.» (Adequate)
- Really interesting to evaluate ideas, although some of the lectures was repetition for a CSE student» (Good)
- if all the lectures were usefull, then I would say Excellent!» (Good)
- The cases were better than the lectures» (Good)
- The lectures good have been more about idea evaluation that just existing company examples.» (Good)
- I like the content, I think it"s very interesting however, some lectures didn"t give something interesting and often we went out from our scope.» (Good)
- Could be more valuable if this is more of a working environment and not just basically one month of rush rush rush with seemingly little guidance. Also, I think the course should run from Jan. to June to really set up and deliver the true value of this course» (Good)
- The learning outcomes from the course are great! By doing the cases i really learned how to evaluating ideas. However, the course is not mainly about feasibility studies and idea development but about sustainable business development. » (Good)

15. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

16. What should definitely be changed to next year?

17. Additional comments