Visa resultat

Management of open innovation and network-based markets ICM-C, TEK305

Overall impression

1. Content

- I think the level of difficulty was appropriate. However, I felt I lacked some content, especially in the lectures. Some kind of introduction to open platforms (well, this was answered in the lecture by Emilie Kuusk but this was first after we had have the hand-in related to platform). Neither was there any content related to this in the reading list (Särefjords master thesis did not explain it good enough) Regarding the pirate bay case lecture with Kristoffer Scholin, we had this exact same lecture during our first year. Repetition is good and Scholin is also very knowledgeable but it would have been more interesting to hear about some other relevant topic. »
- My general feedback is that the course, lectures and assignments covered the concept of open innovation and I found most of the assigments to be very stimulating. My largest critique is that I think that to much of assigments and lectures takes the perspective of a lawyer. The literature list was too long. There is a tradeoff between keeping it academic or practical and a very long readinglist is what I would call a "hit and miss" since the student will miss important reading in favor of less important reading. Most of the lectures were interesting and I would like to highlight the leadership and strategy part provided by Gregory as very good input alongside the "Open innovation" parts. What I would recommend for next year is even more focus on the creative parts in building platforms and how to create openness etc. I think this could be a substitute to writing a licenseagreement for the tech.mgmt students (although I recognize that it is good to know the building blocks of a license agreement and think that the negotiation was a good learning experience)»
- As usual the link between lecture assigment and reading is not linked in any clear way, it rather gives a wide view of certain areas in open innovation, although the content important was not in the reading list, rather added later in the course, such as two master thesises»
- I think that the content of the course was unclear. There was a lot of different parts that I didn"t see were connected to open innovation. The reading list was extensive and I had no chance of reading everything once all assignments started since the workload was heavy.»
- I am still unsure what the course was about.... so I have difficulties to decide if the lectures covered the content. My main feeling was that the lectures most often had nothing to do with the content in the assignments (with a few exceptions). The assignments were according to me mostly stressful and I did not learn very much. The focus was to be able to find information to write everywhere in order to have a slight chance to be able to hand in on time, there was no chance due to the timeframes to st down and actually dig into the subject, get an understanding and learn what we were supposed to. I have hardly had time to read a lot of the given litterature, the litterature was not very aligned and we had much more use of google and other articles and the time did not allow us to read both the relevant material we found our self and the one given in the reading list»
- Yes.Lectures were OK.»
- Assignments too focused on the legal side of things. »
- The content was appropriate to the subject, the lectures are well focused on the course plan and are all relevant. the literature related perfectly to the subject aswell.»

2. Work distribution

- My most important comment is relating to the choice of having major deadlines on Mondays (two weeks in a row). The ICM program had so far been very good in making sure the weekends were free. This is something I have really appreciated as a break from the studies during the weekends is something I see as necessary. Apart from this, I think the work load was appropriate. »
- Apart from the actual writing of a licenseagreement I felt that the division worked well.»
- CRAP, monday hand-ins destroyed my life! I have no motivation left after working myself to the bone in this course sitting up all night to get things done in time»
- The week 13-17 of Sept was very hectic since we had a large number of assignments at the same time, and initially not very good coordination between them. I think that it would have been better to have all assignments more closely linked to the open innovation theme, now I felt very splitted.»
- TIME! There are only 24 hours on a day and most of the class has been sitting many many nights far after midnight. I do not now, perhaps it is only me, but I do not learn anything in this way. Please structure the workload so that the lectures and reading are relevant for the assignment and give us enough head up for the hand ins for us to actually be able to learn and understand the issues and questions.... It was never clear to me which module that was what and it felt as the assignments and work distribution changed almost every time anyone spoke about it. Please assign a person that actually keeps tracks of all modules and that take active responsibility for the holistic picture BEFORE it is presented to us so that we have to question it before anything happens! If that is done in advance I think the module way could work out fine and be a good structure. As it was this year it was unfortunately not sufficient, especially not since the first weeks was like vacation and then everything came at once. »
- Yes»
- No, that was a good way to divide it. »
- the work distribution was appropriate although the programming could be improved»

3. Administrative structures

- Except for late cancelations of lectures, I think the communication worked well with the exception being the inconsistency and misalignment between Gregory and Henrik when it came to deadlines/hand-ins. »
- There has to be ONE leader in the team of modulecheifs who can decide up or down when we don"t know or has questions and there was some confusion about the assignments. The good thing was that Henrik did a good job in sorting out the problems with the confusion about the assignments and Gregory gave good support in the preps. before the project assignment hand-in (which made the project assignment into a good learning experience)»
- No-one obviously knew what the other parts where doing, not something you created yourself, only lack of internal communication»
- Ok, but improvements could be made. Henrik did a good job of trying to coordinate everything and helped us a lot.»
- As usual, not very good. We got good replies to questions and when we raised complaints about unstructured administration and several messages about the same thing we did get better answers, but it should not need to go this way. It should be clear from the scratch. I got the feeling the student got the information about the course, but the teachers had different agendas and thought, which made the administration and communication rather complicated. »
- Communication was not upto the mark.Lot of time was wasted due to miscommunication.»
- Last minute communications and late schedule changes were disturbing. »
- The use of the platform is well but i would like to have other technologies integrated to the platform such as e-mail updates or perhaps an interactive calendar.»

4. Other

- I would have liked to have a lecture on the construction of an open platform or at least learn some kind of tools/methods for dealing with platforms. Maybe a hand-in related to this as well? »
- ONE PERSON HOLDING ALL HAND-INS! so we dont get crazy peaks in workload.»
- I think that the overall impression of the course was a bit messy, with a lot of different parts that did not really fit into the open innovation course. All modules were very interesting, but I would appreciate if the Skills and application module could be more focused in the beginning/end of the course, and that the preparation for the AICM would be in the AICM course instead.»
- Go through the holistic perspective of the course and structure up the workload. It should not require to skip lectures in order to even have a chance to hand in on time. Secondly, look through the subject covered and give us more theory in the actual subject. I can feel that I have learnt anything at all and for sure nothing about open innovation....»
- Assignments could be more specific.»
- none»

Specific modules

5. Skills and application module

- Very good, keep as it is.»
- Very good, only negative feedback is that the assignment descriptions are a bit too informal (it works but the number of misunderstandings can be reduced by formal hand-outs) and I don"t see the learning in writing agreements since I feel that there are other thing that could be emphasized for the Tech.mgmt students.»
- Fun and relevant in many ways, but stressful because it was hand-ins at the same time as the rest of the course»
- I think this part was very interesting and good for both self-development and team development. However, I would prefer having this section separate, as one week where we only focus on team development so that we would have time to engage even more in the workshops and team exercises.»
- Perhaps a little bit to much, but a very good intention and appreciated this module a lot! Still, perhaps it got a little bit too many steps in the end and I think you could easily make this module a little bit smaller.»
- Yes,that was helpful specially negotiation.»
- several skills were acquired during the course. as well as the identification of potential individual strengths and weaknesses.»

6. Thematic module

- In general, good lectures. However, I would have had preferred some other kind of deliverable for the hand-ins than all those word documents. I think presentations/ a slide deck is a much more effective way of show what you have learnt. »
- A somewhat lawyerly perspective but otherwise very good.»
- more clear distinction between the three areas is needed»
- Good and interesting content, but I feel that the open innovation content took very little space in the open innovation course, which I think is unfortunate. I did not feel that I had time learning as much as I wanted about open innovation.»
- I hardly know what was actually included in this module so I have difficulties to give feedback. I miss, as in so many other ICM courses, a read tread where the lectures build on each others and has a message. The lectures with Nokia and ericsson here however really good and appriciated, please add more lectures as these one (internally or externally, but concise and clear lectures about a relevant subject for the course!)»
- the most useful module in my opinion with the relationship with the open society that is the trend that the world is tending to.»

7. Project module

- Interesting module. Maybe add one consultation event?»
- Suffered from the fact that the lack of information left us with a too open ended question BUT the strategy workshops really enhanced the learning. The intention of a competition was good but the learning fell short due to lack of case input.»
- too much googling and too little content.»
- The assignment overall was very good, but I would have wished to get the information from Andrew that we would not get any more information from the researchers, not we instead became irritated of lack of communication.»
- To short. It was introduced very late and it felt as this module unfortunately did not really work out as intended. We were left with googling and new real data or interview were possible, which turned this lecture into a google week. We have had too man of these already... The feedback we got were in the end only based on ppt-knowledge and had nothing to do with the fact if you answered the questions or had relevant information for the audience.... If this was the intention, please next year be clear about that this assignment is only about creating a ppt in a good way. (of course you always has to be clear in communication, but if that is the only purpose, give us another type of assignment!!)»
- This helped up in getting background info. of the AICM projects.»
- This project was really useful and had opportunity to apply this knowledge in the real life working at distance with a company in stockholm.»

Specific lectures

8. 01/09, 9-12 Ulf Petrusson

- interesting but same lecture as weve seen before, not the same iconoclastic type of feeling as the earlier lecture»
- Did not attend - summer internship»
- Always inspiring, but not very valueadded»
- quite good»
- as always the introduction by Ulf Petrusson has a lot of information on what is expected of the course anf how can it be applied in the real life.»

9. 01/09, 13-16 Gregory Carson

- ?»
- Did not attend - summer internship»
- Cant remember which was which lecture, but I did appreciate most of them. I am not sure that I see the good reason for spending a week on playing games and build egg-creating, but it was fun.»
- Nice them but this lecture can be moved to first year as these learning takes time to develop as skills.»
- Very important aspect of the skills that have to be acquired by all ICM"ers»

10. 02/09, 9-12 Gregory Carson

- Did not attend - summer internship»
- see above»
- Interesting.»
- the theory put to practice in order to land the knowledge »

11. 02/09, 13-16 Ulf Petrusson

- Did not attend - summer internship»
- Always inspiring, but not very value adding»
- Most helpful lecture for all assignments.»
- Very good lecture. I would like to have ha this lecture a year ago! Would have made things much more clear. »

12. 07/09, 9-12 Gregory Carson

- Did not attend - summer internship»
- Cant remember which was which lecture, but I did appreciate most of them. I am not sure that I see the good reason for spending a week on playing games and build egg-creating, but it was fun.»
- Nice overview of negotiation concepts, good to focus on those. »
- Gregory"s experience in real life negotiations is astonishing and his way to pass on the knowledge unparalleled»

13. 08/09 9-12 Gregory Carson

- Did not attend - summer internship»
- Cant remember which was which lecture, but I did appreciate most of them. I am not sure that I see the good reason for spending a week on playing games and build egg-creating, but it was fun.»

14. 09/09, 13-16 Kristoffer Schollin

- Repetition from last year. Exactly the same lecture.»
- Same as previous year»
- Did not attend - summer internship»
- Really good, but it was very embarrising for both us and kristoffer when he realized that he had had the exact same lecture for us already before. PLEASE make sure you know what we have done in the past! Repetition is good, but not in this setting. It would have been interest to know about other aspects and development of the case, but then kristoffer needs to know that that is the topic of the day in advance!!»
- Much information was already covered in the lecture we had with Schollin a year ago. »

15. 13/09, 13-15 Henrik Rosén

- Interesting lecturewith good content. I would though recommend Henrik to slow down the tempo and talk a bit slower.»
- Good.»

16. 14/09, 09-12 Gregory Carson

- why?»
- Good exercise! »
- Good.»

17. 14/09, 13-16 Nhils Forslund

- Good!»
- Very interesting lecture and good for the assignment on standards»
- VERY GOOD! Interesting and relevant»
- Very good.»
- Very good lecture. Closely connected to the course. Bring in earlier though! The case was almost handed in already. »

18. 15/09, 9-12 Gregory Carson

- Really interesting workshop exercises, and good with the strategy part as well.»

19. 16/09, 13-16 Anders Arvidsson

- Good and interesting lecture. Would however prefer to have it before the deadline on the standards assignment»
- VERY GOOD, the ericsson guy was easier to listen to, but still a very useful lecture that I learned a lot. »
- Vey Good.»
- very good to have exapmles on standards in the real life»

20. 20/09, 10-12 Henrik Rosén

- Difficult to follow the lecture since we didn"t have any projector»

21. 20/09, 13-16 Tobias Thornblad, Emelie Kuusk-Jonsson

- Interesting to the largest extent, but the second part of the lecture was a lot of repetition.»
- Perhaps not too relevant...»
- Felt a bit out of place, connect it more closely to other aspects of the course. »

22. 21/09, 09-12 Gregory Carson

- Good!»
- The strenght finder was a very good tool and I appreciate this discussions and outcomes a lot.»
- Very good»

23. 21/09, 13-16 Tobias Thornblad, Emelie Kuusk-Jonsson

- Interesting.»
- EXTREMELY interesting, make this more of a workshop, it illustrated very well what the problems of open science, focus the lecture on how to think relating to building openness. then encourage different solutions for different groups so you can understand the difference in the needed creation of openness! »
- Very good and fun assignment»

24. 23/09, 13-16 Gregory Carson

- Good!»

25. 27/09, 09-12 Andrew Telles

- fun, but focused too much on making nice presentations for sahlgrenska and nothing about the actual problems and content»
- I think the workshop was good, but I had expected a bit more feedback on the content and not only the structure of the presentations.»
- To short, to undeveloped structure and meaningless workshop if the contest was about regenerative medicine. If the workshop had as intention to teach us ppt, then it was very good but very poorly communicated. No need to be so harch in class when it was so unclear what the intention about the lecture was about, even though I like a teacher that dares to point out mistakes and errors that can be corrected.»
- seemed a loss of time to develop a subject only for a first approach on something that would not be carried on.»