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.

Total Quality Mgmt - Spring 2010, IEK311

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-03-05 - 2010-03-22
Antal svar: 73
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 63%
Kontaktperson: Marco Santos»

Your own effort

1. Which of the following alternatives applies to your case:

Compulsory tasks:
- Design of experiments assignment "Helicopter lab"
- Interactive assessment/oral examination

Tasks for bonus points:
- Weekly assignment "Question & Motivation"
- Business Process Mgmt with Claes Berlin (RUAG)
- Management tools/KJ-Shiba with Sverker Alänge

In order to get the bonus points you also need to pass the exam and fill in this survey. Do not take into consideration these two tasks when answering this question.

73 svarande

I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus»55 75%
I have done the compulsory tasks but not the tasks for bonus»17 23%
I have not done the compulsory tasks»1 1%

Genomsnitt: 1.26

- The compulsory tasks were really good and helped to keep students interested as for the bonus tasks helped the student to keep the course up to date which is really good» (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- I really liked the tasks but it would have been great to get more feedback on the results.» (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- Business Process Mgmt with Claes Berlin (RUAG) Management tools/KJ-Shiba with Sverker Alänge was very good.» (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- For me, I think it"s great to have some labs on the real cases to illustrate and reflect on what we have learnt in real life. I think KJ Method and Process Management activity should be included in the compulsory activities like DoE. I have learnt DoE, KJ and Process Mangement a lot and understand them much better from performing the labs. Plus, I also like the interactive assessment. » (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- I think that the weekly assignment on the book was a bit redundant when it wasnt necessary to do almost any of them before the last week» (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- I think they were really good to get an understanding for what was said during the lectures. Here I really learned!» (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- I liked this system, it was very effective to attend in the compulsory exercises » (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- I think I would have gained more from Claes" task, if it had read the chapters before, maybe that should be comunicated.» (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- the helicopter lab was a really good exercise, but i would have prefered if then we did a similar experiment with a higher level of complexity» (I have done the compulsory tasks and the task for bonus)
- i want bonus points...but most important is that due to these tasks i remained in touch with book which help me a lot in exam preparation» (I have done the compulsory tasks but not the tasks for bonus)

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

73 svarande

0% - 25%)»0 0%
25% - 50%»5 6%
50% - 75%»17 23%
75% - 100%»51 69%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- I have a study rate of 175% this semester, so sometimes classes collides. Therefore I have been unable to attend to all teachings.» (50% - 75%)
- Exercises and guest lecturers along with Hendry were great. Although Bo has alot of experience it did not reach the students.» (75% - 100%)
- All but no the 2nd bonus assignment» (75% - 100%)


3. What is your general impression of the course?

73 svarande

Very negative»0 0%
Negative»4 5%
Positive»48 65%
Very positive»21 28%

Genomsnitt: 3.23

- Too much to read in the book and to less spesific work for the DoE and SPC.» (Negative)
- Didn"t like that we had math in the course. I"m not very good at it, it spoiled the course for me, which othervise is very good.» (Negative)
- I think it was a good introduction in the area of Quality Management. » (Positive)
- An interesting theme and a up-to-date course. The only negative side would be that it covers "a little bit of everything" and I think that courses on this level should focus more on some fewer topics.» (Positive)
- If was a lot of repition for me, since im an I-student.» (Positive)
- At the begining of henri"s class it was really boring, then I dont know really how he improved dramatically. I liked the class a lot» (Positive)
- Overall very good» (Very positive)
- i learned a lot about quality and economics...hope it will help me in future» (Very positive)
- I have learnt a lot from this course. Thank you. However,in my opinion it"s ineffective to summerize the things before we attend that class. It would be better if we attended the class frist then summerizing or purposing questions later since some chapters I really focused on the wrong points. For example, I partially understood DoE only by reading the book so my conclusion was not actually good.» (Very positive)
- Definitely one of the best classes I have taken at Chalmers» (Very positive)
- One of the best and most educating course I have taken on Chalmers.» (Very positive)

4. How was the structure of the course?

The course consists roughly of seven weekly modules covering different topics within Quality Sciences.

A good structure means that the time spent on each subject is adequate and that the sequence of the subjects is clear and logical.

73 svarande

Very negative»0 0%
Negative»7 9%
Positive»51 69%
Very positive»15 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- The structure was sometimes not clear. The book and the lectures were not well built to each other. » (Negative)
- The switch between Bo & Hendry was not good for the structure.» (Negative)
- It"s ok to have many modules but there has to be something consistent through the whole course, a red line.» (Negative)
- looking at the distribution of the points of the exam the DoE part should have got more attention at the lectures. But it also depends on how the teacher is teaching, if Bo Bergman had been like Hendry, I may would have percieved it different.» (Negative)
- The time to study the control charts other than xbar and rbar was ridiculously little.» (Negative)
- overall it is great but in some lectures need more focus..like six sigma and control charts» (Positive)
- Would be very positive if the sequence followed the book.» (Positive)
- Good structure. But: After taken the exam and studied old exams it is now clear that SPC and DoE was the important parts, why not spend more time on them and reduce some other modules?» (Positive)
- I think Change management and Organisational learning should be presented close to each other. » (Positive)
- QFD should be added in the Exam as well. It"s quite important tool to know.» (Positive)
- According to the scoring on the exam. The importance of DoE should have been deeper and longer analyzed.» (Positive)
- You have to follow through the whole course which is really good.» (Very positive)
- Good with the weekly Q&M hand-ins which made you read the book continuously.» (Very positive)

5. Concerning the proportion of theory and practice:

By theory is meant mainly lectures whereas practice means mainly exercises and group work.

73 svarande

The course was too theoretical»6 8%
The course had a good balance between theory and practice»66 90%
The course was too practical»1 1%

Genomsnitt: 1.93

- to much about calculations» (The course was too theoretical)
- The practical work was too less» (The course was too theoretical)
- If we had so much math I would prefer someone to work more closely with those who have troubles with it - give some additional classes for these few etc.» (The course was too theoretical)
- The doe lab was very good, and also the lab in spc with henry» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- really good....i learned a lot through group exercises...» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- I think all teaching would reach out better if all teached like Hendry. His illustrative examples and exercises was really good.» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- But if there is a possibility to add more activities it would be even better. I learn much more by doing than from siting and just listening » (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- Very good to have exercises on SPC and DoE, but I think there were a lack of information about this in the course book. It is easy to forget how the methods really works and the book should give more guidance.» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- It was very good to for instance have the Helicopter Lab because it was a good way to understand DoE. So Maybe it could be good to have some more practical work, maybe not mandatory, but at least have the opportunity to practice it if you want to.» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- A very good mixture!» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)

6. To what extent did the teaching help you in your learning?

73 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»30 41%
Large extent»35 47%
Great extent»8 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.69

- I feel that Hendrys SPC and other lectures had a clear goal and "red line" through them. The other lectures and assignments was not as much defined.» (Some extent)
- When Hendry lectures it really helped. Claes Berlin talked about something else than we had to learn and Bo Bergman never can stick to the subject. » (Some extent)
- Lectures by Hendry was the far most interesting/catchy lecture during my time on chalmers. Very impressive! Bo Bergmans lectures were interesting but did, to some extent, lack focus... Guest lecturer Cleas Berlin wasnt that interesting...» (Some extent)
- I think that Bo Bergman was a little bit limited by speaking in english and that was unfotunely because he seems like he knows alot about the subject but somehow I feel that much got lost in translation. » (Some extent)
- teachers are great and helped a lot.» (Large extent)
- Teaching guided me how to read effectively.» (Large extent)
- Henry is a very good and energetic lecturer. He really whant"s everyone to understand which is good. Sometimes he talks a litle bit to fast and it can be problematic to understand.» (Large extent)
- hendry was very very motivationg and really made his points clear!» (Large extent)
- Espically Hendry. Bosse lectures was sometimes a little bit unstructured...» (Great extent)

7. To what extent did the course literature and other material help you in your learning?

73 svarande

Small extent»1 1%
Some extent»16 21%
Large extent»40 54%
Great extent»16 21%

Genomsnitt: 2.97

- Reading the hole book was too much affort.» (Small extent)
- A few blocks like DoE and SPC I would like to get all the formulas and relations at one place instead of getting it from slides and excercises.» (Some extent)
- The lectures which I could not understand was not covered in the book enough. The DoE-chapter in the book does not cover what we learnt at lectures.» (Some extent)
- As mentioned before I thought it lack in information on DoE and SPC in the course book. We hade lecture slides on it, but if you missed a lecture it was difficult to get a comprehensive understanding. » (Some extent)
- Only to learn theory.» (Some extent)
- sometimes the book was to complicated.» (Large extent)
- the book and slides are good just need more focus on DoE and control charts problems..which are not explained well in book and slides..» (Large extent)
- The book is really good compared with other books in other lectures» (Large extent)
- I think the book is really good and I will definatley keep it for future use.» (Large extent)
- Its a well written and easy to read book. But why not remove some chapters from the schedule...?» (Large extent)
- I like the book a lot. It"s been a great help» (Great extent)
- The book is really good if one uses it along with the lecture.» (Great extent)
- The book is really good» (Great extent)

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

73 svarande

Very negative»0 0%
Negative»0 0%
Positive»46 63%
Very positive»27 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- After 4 hours of intense lecturing it has been difficult for me to ask for help. But when I did I got one.» (Positive)
- communication via mail have been very easy - quick answering --> very good!» (Positive)
- It was very positive. Mails were answered in one day. Perfect. » (Very positive)
- 1 or 2 more consultation times in the end would have been great. (Maybe not whole class but smaller)» (Very positive)

Course administration

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

73 svarande

Very negative»0 0%
Negative»3 4%
Positive»39 53%
Very positive»31 42%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- beamer??? I had other lectures in Vasa C an there were no problems.» (Negative)
- The book.» (Negative)
- It would be nice to advice the students to read the material for the The Affinity- Interrelation Method before the activity» (Positive)
- There were some uncertaintes where the lectures were going to take place but that was just a mistake from Bo.» (Positive)
- Well done Marco! » (Very positive)
- We were always updated when there were changes in schedule or something else» (Very positive)

Study climate

10. How was the course workload? (relatively to the 7,5 credits for this course)

73 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Adequate / Low»16 21%
Adequate / High»48 65%
Too high»9 12%

Genomsnitt: 2.9

- Did not do bonus tasks» (Adequate / Low)
- It was quite good. I read all the chapters and participated all lectures and studied for the exam the final week.» (Adequate / Low)
- It took a fair amount of time. » (Adequate / Low)
- It was a bit to high, not the work during the weeks but rather the information you should know for the exam, things like ISO and the awards feel a bit redundant compared to much of the other things. » (Too high)

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

73 svarande

Very negative»0 0%
Negative»1 1%
Positive»46 63%
Very positive»26 35%

Genomsnitt: 3.34

- there was no much group work to do» (Positive)
- group tasks helped a lot in getting cooperation with other students» (Very positive)

12. How was the relationship between you and the people involved in the course?

Some aspects of this relationship are: friendliness, openess for questions from students, arriving on time, respecting time for breaks, etc.

73 svarande

Very negative»0 0%
Negative»1 1%
Positive»51 69%
Very positive»21 28%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- Once again, Hendry is amazing. (how can you memorize all names Hendry?)» (Positive)

Examination process and grading

13. Did the exam reflect the course in a fair way?

73 svarande

Not at all»0 0%
No»12 16%
Yes»29 39%
Yes, completely»3 4%
I have not taken the exam yet»29 39%

Genomsnitt: 3.67

- It is not fair to say that what is being showed at the lectures are the most importance and therefore should be paid most attention to when this did not reflect the exam. During the lectures the focus was on e.g. Xbar-R chart and all exercises was witht R-chart and at the exam it was asked about the s-chart. Another example is that more or less all exercises was on full factorial experiement and once again the exam had focus on fractional factorial. We also had one weeks lecture with QFD, this didn"t show up at the exam. We were also told that the exam was suppose to be more broad. Check you points for DoE and SPC with the rest of the points. I think it is very unfair to go out and say something about how the exam is going to be and than do the opposite of this.» (No)
- Practice more the fractorial design. » (No)
- The exam (including old exams) focus much more on SPC and DoE than the lectures. » (No)
- I think the focus on the exam was too much on SPC and DoE. Some of the "modules" werent even on the exam.» (No)
- It was two calculating assignments, and i thought it was too much since we don"t have had any materia to practice on,only some few examples during a lesson and in the course book.» (No)
- Although there was to much focus on design of experiment.» (No)
- Too mutch DoE!!» (No)
- Not in a fair way. I didn"t have time to complete it. It took too long time and was much more difficult than the exams we had practiced on.» (No)
- You divided 80% of lecture time to theory, but 80% of exam to practice.» (No)
- To much with 8 point on the exam on roubust design, that was not in focus at all during the lectures...» (No)
- I did not had the feeling that 40% of the course was DoE - but it was on the exam!!!» (No)
- To much focus on DoE and SPC and also robust design. I felt that much of the focus was on the cornerstones of tqm and there were no question on that part. I felt that at many occasions it was emphasise on this part an the interaction between the cornerstones. But the main part of the exam was on a totally different part.» (No)
- The question about Robust Design was very unclear, it was very hard to understand what was asked for. It was not similar to what we had done in the lecture. Further, the exam was way too long, the amount of text was huge, reduce the amount of text so that it is easier to find the questions!!» (Yes)
- Yes, to some extent. I think the questions on the DoE part were a bit tricky, due to I could not find very much info about the subejct in the book as well as the OH-slides did not cover it all.» (Yes)
- ISO9000 has not been discussed in lecture, but gave 4p on the exam. » (Yes)
- There are too many questions in the exam paper. I suggest that the number of questions should be put at the first page of the exam paper. It will be better if the difficulty of the exam is increased and the number of questions are decreased. For example, DoE with Robust design is really good question. I am really impressed.» (Yes)
- It was very long though, one would have to write almost half a page in some questions to recieve 1 point, there is something very wrong with that, the amount of points must in some way reflect how much time you spend answering the question?» (Yes)
- It had way to many questions and it could have been a bit more calculations (it would also have been good to give out example exams that represented the real exam better)» (Yes)
- but perhaps it is good to have an opportunity with a calulation exercise for control charts and DoE-else than the laborations. Perhaps just 2h or something. » (Yes)
- 20% of the exam was from robust design and design of experiment, I think it was to much compared to older exams. I didn"t manage to finish the last part (12 points) even though I had the knowledge to do it» (Yes)
- But as mentioned earlier, There DoE where like 22 points in the exam... According to the exam: I didn"t manage to do all questions. There where to many with to much information. Q. number 9 especially was hard to understand, even more when within limited time.» (Yes)
- Robust design in Design of experiments got a too big part on the exam and did not reflect the lectures or course literature. Putting 8 out of 50 points in that small subject on the exam was a bad choice. The amount of points for the question should be lowered.» (Yes)
- There were a couple of questions that were not so obviously given in class» (Yes)

14. Would you change the examination process and grading system for this course?

For this course there were two compulsory tasks and some optional tasks that could give the student three extra points.

72 svarande

No change is needed»61 84%
I suggest my system below in the comment field»11 15%

Genomsnitt: 1.15

- I like the way it is.» (No change is needed)
- but more fair distribution of the points on the exam would have been nice.» (No change is needed)
- when we did a lot during course ...then there should be no exam at the end...may b you can add another project...» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- Better preparation to the exam» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- Pass and Fail» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- the 3 bonus points are not related to the efford the reading of the book took a lot of time. » (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I think that three extra-points is not enough in relation to how much work you have to put into the optional assignments. » (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I think the exam should reflect more subjets.» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I would suggest doing one extra assignment gives you 1 extra point, two extra assignment two points etc. Not all or nothing like now.» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- Remove the bonus part» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I would change the interactive assignment to be just contribute and not based on your performance there. It created more irritation than learning in its current form. » (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I would give either more extra points or - very important! - let people have their extra points even if they didn"t pass. It would help a lot of people to pass. For me the main objective since I learnt that we have math was to *pass*. I worked for extra points. And then I learned that almost for sure I won"t even get them. I think that the system of encouragement should work not only for "good" students, but for all of us, who did bonus tasks.» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I think the extra points should work for grade 3 also. » (I suggest my system below in the comment field)

Summarizing questions

15. Would you recommend this course to other students?

72 svarande

Not, at all»0 0%
No»3 4%
Yes»38 52%
Yes, definitely»31 43%

Genomsnitt: 3.38

- Maybe not all the topics seemed relevant to my specific master program, but still interesting.» (Yes)
- I would definitely recommend the course if Hendry replaced Bo Bergman as he is getting retired. I think Hendry can make this course even better since he can combine interesting/fascinating lectures (just like Bo Bergmans) with the practical knowledge required to pass the exam! » (Yes)
- More because of the good things that you learn than the course in itself» (Yes)
- its great for all kind students especially for the engineering and management students.» (Yes, definitely)
- Bo is very competent and nice! Marco is also very nice when I"ve been in contact with him!» (Yes, definitely)
- One of the best courses I have attended at Chalmers ever!!» (Yes, definitely)
- Good to know.» (Yes, definitely)

16. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The compulsory tasks.»
- Hendry Raharjo!»
- The laborations and the week with the Ruag-dude was very good»
- Helicopter lab Q&M handins Q&M dugga»
- Hendry (give him more topics, preferably the whole course), Practical exercises, internal assessment»
- group tasks should remained...also hand in part »
- all the group works and handins for bonus points»
- Group work as for DoE. Also, I think that you should preserve the link between the course and the book (the student need to know what chapter he has to read before to go to the course).»
- To have guestlecturers every once in a a while»
- heli lab»
- All the exercises and Hendrys lectures.»
- Group activities and invited lecturers»
- Henrys lectures were really good, he really tried to make us understand. »
- the question and motivation every week of the course»
- GroupWork»
- the calculations»
- the helicopter lab and all the activities...and add some more activities.»
- The group work and guest lectures were great.»
- Design of experiments assignment "Helicopter lab" Business Process Mgmt with Claes Berlin (RUAG) Management tools/KJ-Shiba with Sverker Alänge »
- Compulsory tasks, structure of examination.»
- HENDRY!! I think that Hendry should have all lectures. Hendry is an excellent lecturer, he can really catch the audience"s attention and he gives good examples that makes it easy for me as a student to follow. The concept he has, starting the lectures with a overlook of the preceding really makes you remember and his "test your knowledge" is great.»
- Hendry!»
- Very good to have weekly assignments, too bad it was prblem getting the book this year, the purpose of the assignments did to some extent dissapear. »
- The practical exercises.»
- The bonuspoint system. The weekly modules. Make sure that the books are available for everyone from week one though.»
- The labs. Those are fun and help to understand the discussed theory.»
- The question and motivation each week and the group assignments on the ellipsen.»
- Mr. Santos and Mr. Hendry... they rock!»
- Helicopter lab»
- the workgoups»
- Helicopter lab»
- DOE and SPC lectures.»
- The assesment methods and all labs.»
- DOE and SPC was very good to learn but SPC should perhaps exclude the U C P and N chars as they took up lecture time that could have been used to explain the basics better»
- Helicopter laboration KJ-Shiba Claes Berlin or in one way all the exercises and compulsory tasks!»
- Helicopter lab»
- helicopter lab»
- Teachers - all of them were very dedicated.»
- Helicopter lab. and Henry»
- Hendry, the practical "cases" and the structure.»
- Hendry!»
- ruag guest lecture. »
- More help in the teoritical part»
- DOE practical session,and generally all practical works»
- The practical stuff, helicopter lab, KJ shiba, BPM. »
- compulsory tasks and the bonus points are good because you start to read early.»

17. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The guest teacher, Sverker (or svante) when he presented his model, the assignment we had. I think he focus to much do to exact as he wanted, and less in how it could be a good tool. I think you could drop him for next year. I think that he was not pedagogic that one can exect from a university. »
- try to make the lectures stick to the point. Sometimes it was hard to understand what is important and not important»
- If Bo Bergman is retireing, maybe Hendry Raharjo could be in charge of even more of the course.»
- nothing what i can think of»
- Could have some kind of "räknestuga" for the DoE and SPC part»
- Bo»
- exam ...»
- group works can have some points»
- Information regarding the interactvie assessment and what you need to do to pass it should be enlightened more (i.e how much you need to study in advance)»
- Process lab»
- Many people liked the activities, maybe add more activities»
- Bo becomes a little bit philosophical sometimes. Try to avoid that, he has probably a huge amoung of knowledge and must try to adapt his level to ours.»
- SKF lecture later in the course. Deming prize and History should not be in the course.»
- I thinks is not necessary to speak about history during the lectures.»
- less calculations»
- add more group work»
- The order of theory. It is better follow the book in the same order and not to jump through the chapters»
- Have an exam that reflect the focus of the lectures! Skip a few of the chapters in the book. There is no need to read chaper 3 or about ISO-standards and environmental impact. »
- Skip the interactive assessement. It gives nothing of value. Maybe it would be better to have a dugga instead.»
- Less theoretical, more pracitce work»
- Claes Berlin, alright, the lectures he held was fun to listen to, but I did not learn a thing! He talked about the system they have a Ruag, how is that suppose to learn me something? Let him have only 2 hours, that would be enough.»
- Don"t use the hole book, the chapters regardning awards, organization specific improvement programs and such is not very relevant. Use the time to DoE och SPC instead since this is much more interesting (and obviously more important considering the exam)»
- Would like more info about SPC and DoE»
- The notes that Henry wrote on the Powerpoint slides during the lecture wasn"t in the slides on the course homepage»
- I think there should have been some questions on for example house of quality, PDSA/DMAIC, 7QC/ / management tools, aswell as the SPC and DoE questions on the exam. »
- More exercises regarding the statistical things..»
- The exam... the focus on design of experiment. Or change the course and make design of experiment a larger part of the course»
- Bo Bergman has to change his slides. First of all, on his lectures, some bit of the slide was off screen. Blue background and BIG black disney handwriting text is very difficult and annoying to read. All slides were awful and not easy to learn from. That"s a major factor I didn"t go to the lectures later in the course plus that I thought I just as easy could learn most from the book.»
- the problem with the books occurred must be managed in advance in order to avoid the same next year»
- Interactive assignment. Was not so giving. »
- >> Some workshops of how to use NPP software and SPC software. >> I don"t like KA lecture hall at all. It"s too far away from the teacher. VASA C is great but the projector problem is needed to be fixed.»
- The exam had way to many questions, very hard to answer all in the given time and because of this some questions that you could give a long answer to got a short answer or a almost incomplete answer. The interactive assignment was bit strange, to write questions that you cant answer and then answer them. I dont think it should be something that you get a grade in (even though it was just pass or not passed). It should be a mandatory exercise where you perhaps should write down questions two and two and then continue with answering them ect. »
- it is good to have an opportunity with a calulation exercise for control charts and DoE-else than the laborations. Perhaps just 2h or something. »
- extend the helicopter lab so that one have time to finish it!!»
- Less math! As little as posible.»
- DoE should be emphasised more and deeper.»
- Nothing comes to mind.»
- More clear DoE lessons needed. I would personally also like if there have been a bit wider application area - not all student study in the field of product development.»
- the questions on the blackboard exam was just not cool»
- the distribution for some subjects like DOE should be more,i.e. it needs more than a week to cover.»
- The book has some weak points, like SPC chapter. Where it hardly explains anything. There are also other chapters like DoE that are not satisfactory. Which means that I cannot in the book learn how to do SPC and DoE for the exam. »
- More help to understand DoE and SPC. And make sure that there are books available. I guess some of the point of doing the bonus points were lost because of the late hand in.»

18. Additional comments

- There was some struggle with the projector all the time. Those thing may happen once but should be fixed until next time. In some cases one of the lecturer stated something like, "if the process is under statistical control, success is assured!" It is very important to keep in mind that non of the mathods, and I really emphasise NON!, ASSURES success. It often comes down to e.g. the engineers to come up with good solutions from the start, which you then can choose from. Though, having a shit product under statistical control will never assure success. It will only result in high quality shit! :P»
- overall its a great course...with great course contents and teaching staff.. i really enjoyed a lot...the bonus points systems helped a lot to remain in touch with book....group tasks are also great...especially helicopter lab...thanks for offering such a good course and best of luck for future»
- liked the course- is structured, the teaching method is well organized»
- I liked very much the course»
- A really good course that I will recomend to others.»
- really good course»
- Overall good, but need improvement (remember PDSA, Quality is always about improvement, once you are satisfied with what you have, you have for sure failed). »
- Henry need to understand questions from students better, he answers wrong things and dosn"t understand what we say.»
- too much calculations. »
- the course was very good, i really like this course and got the basic theme of the quality.»
- Make sure that what is told in the lectures is connected to what we should read for that weak. Bo Bergman had lectures one week thatwas connected to litterature in another weak, if students are supposed to read the material in advance then the lecturer should make us the favour to bring up the topics we have been reading about.»
- All in all an excellent course. I think you should try to spread the concept of bonuspoints that motivates the students to start reading the course litterature early. It really helped me and made the lectures more enyojable.»
- I talked to a few other participants, and we all thought that it would be nice to get some feedback concerning the "question&motivation"s we turned in. I know that this creates some additional work but maybe just a sentence or two about the quality of the q&m would be enough. Because it does take some time to write these, so some kind of feedback would be nice.»
- TQM rocks»
- some more exercises about control charts during the lessons would be helpful»
- Nothing»
- I wouldn"t take the course if I knew it has any statistics in it (my fault, I didn"t notice that while applying for it). I personally don"t think that this is necessary for everyone from my specialty. As opposed to general TQM which, I think, is important for everyone. I wouldn"t divide so much time to statistics.»
- Thank you!»

Kursutvärderingssystem från