Visa resultat

Management of open innovation and network-based markets ICM-G

Overall impression

1. Content

- Overall really good. Content wise, the assignments were very rewarding with a great space to move for your own thoughts! Excellent structure of lectures - could perhaps have been more linked to each other, but anyway. »
- I am still not sure of what open innovation actually is. »
- Great group cases to work on but miscoordination between lecturers resulted in overworking of students. I think lectures covered open innovation content very well but more time would be appreciated for reading and reflecting time. On other hand Gregory"s lectures sometimes seemed like a filler (thus many people missing them). All guest lecturers were good »
- To some extent I felt that the lectures covered the content. However, 1. I didn"t see the connection to Open Innovaiton and Greg"s negotiation focus 2. I lacked lectures about the open society.»
- - My overall sense of the course was good. - Level of difficulty was appropriate. - The course has to some extent contributed to my concrete understanding and application of open innovation - The lectures could have had a better overlap with the assignments, especially it would have been good with some more explanations on open science it was only mentioned in 1 slide and no literature - especially important if there is no good information to find on your own either - The literature list could be revised, some of the articles didn"t give me much more input on the course goals - »
- Not at all good, the graded assignments had very little connection to what was actually focused on during class. »
- The overall sense of the content was good, however many of the assignments where very abstract. I would have wanted a more applied approach standards. I really liked the google books and microsoft assignments since they gave an increased picture on how standards, open innovation and big platforms are being used in industry and society today. The schedule didn"t however leave any time for reflection and to read all the recommended literature, which I think effected my learnings a bit.»
- I think the content was good»
- Lectures were good and assignments too, but there was little time to actually read the litterature.. The biggest complain were perhaps the many messy situations with uncertainties regarding lectures and assignments.»
- The course difficult enough. I was greatly challenged and learned a lot from it. Yes, the assignments did convey the content in a very structured way and it did provide some more thoughts to reason about. The literature was aligned only about 60% but the management could look into more appropriate literature next time.»
- The course was good and I learned a lot on open innovation as a theoretical concept as well as practical. The assignments were well aligned with the intended content. Unfortunately I did not have much time to read the articles.»

2. Work distribution

- Quite busy weeks, though no overload. I think its good to separate personal development/skills parts from the more ICMish parts, as was done this year. Skills module very good!»
- The teachers need to communicate with each other, a breakfast each monday perhaps? Now we were totally overworked in the middle of the course, but had a chill time the first and last week. »
- I really liked how way hand-ins were linked to skills and applications module. Themes is the way to go in this lab.»
- The work load was to large some weeks, and I had to skip lectures to find time for the assignments.»
- I prefer to work as we did in this course, instead as they did last year. I think the work process was rather well distributed over the course. Good work. »
- Whatever way was decided on by the course management this time, it was not clearly communicated. Thus, whatever way is fine, as long as it (at least seems) thought through and not just thrown at us. »
- I think it was good to separate the themes. However sometimes it was difficult to see the relevance and connection to the overall goal of the course. I felt that the negotiation hand-in was very unstructured and not a good assignment for it"s purpose, or to be more clear, the grading was on the licensing agreement which felt like weird way to grade a negotiation on. »
- Since the course was given simultaneously as other courses, it would have been good if the administrators could comunicate better with eachother.»
- Not very good, at times too many assignments were clustered together.»
- No! I would not prefer to work in a different way. This way is well managed.»
- It is good with connecting themes to speific hand-ins. The work was well distributed. »

3. Administrative structures

- Not very well. Teachers must talk to each other more, there seem to be Chinese walls between CIP-PS and IIE sometimes. Much of this can be fixed easily until next year, which would improve the overall impression of the OIL even more.»
- Way to many schedule problems. And maybe be more specific towards guest lecturers on what to talk about? Was not fun to see Kristoffer Scholins face when we said that he had already held the same lecture for us one year ago. »
- Minor misscommunications here and there but nothing very bad»
- A lot of misunderstanding and unclear communications regarding assignments made my life a complete mess. »
- Not that good. Especially when it came to the hand out of assignments (what they where called, which assignment that was which, new assignments added, grading etc). After clarification this was communicated well, but that is something that would give us less frustration if it was done right in the first place. »
- Not good. »
- Way to many schedule changes and TBD,TBC!!! administration should be much more structured and communicate with each other!!»
- Fine»
- Not very well.»
- The communication and administration did work okay but not excellent. I would advise them to be more proactive and perform in a timely fashion.»
- It worked out fine. There were only some uncertainties in relation to Gregory"s assignment. The simple reason I think was that it was given orally. It was very clear as soon as the written clarification was sent out.»

4. Other

- No 2 day deadlines, more clear administration on what to hand in and when.»
- More time to read articles and balance it with group work»
- During the intro lecture 1. Go through all assignments, their purpose and the grading of them. 2. Let us know who is responsible for which assignment.»
- interesting subject, as always fun and interesting when CIP PS is involved and Gregory"s parts on leadership and personal development was very well needed. The division of the course into three models was a bit unclear. »
- Improved communication and the relation between what is spent time on in class and what is being graded. »
- It was a good course»
- Get better at structuring and communicating and give us info earlier!»
- I would suggest more interaction of the management with the students. Preferably the senior staff to be more engaged in the life of the students and supporting them to find better opportunities.»
- It was good. Keep it as it is.»

Specific modules

5. Skills and application module

- Really good in general - very rewarding especially the negotiation parts. One thing that could be improved: too much playground sometimes. Egg thing was fun, but come on...»
- Really good, started some interesting internal processes which is really good in time now when we will soon apply for jobs.»
- Somewhat messy»
- The division between the modules was a bit unclear for me. If this was Gregoriys part, as I stated earlier I thought it was good, interesting and well needed. »
- The overall grade for the module was good, however I would suggest that you concentrate this module to one week where you only focusing on strenghts, and group dynamics since this part of the course was very different to the other modules. I felt that this module was less structured than the other ones maybe because of the topics handled in this module. I felt therefore that you sometimes focused on other modules which were more structured since they were weighted higher in the grading.»
- I really enjoyed this part. Greg has some really interesting workshops that I have already found useful. »
- Good stuff!»
- None»
- The concepts of the Strengths finder was really great.»

6. Thematic module

- Great assignments! Interesting, rewarding stuff that leaves you with alot of afterthoughts. Open science was however a little bit unclear - was hard to get the "red thread" in that part. Maybe it was too short?»
- ICM theory is often to fluffy, and this was no exemption. However the Google and the Microsoft cases was good, I would have loved Kristoffer S and Henrik R wrapping them up after we"ve handed in. »
- Really great module, very informative and Henrik did a great job. Very dedicated guy»
- I learned some about open innovation and open platforms, but didn"t get a grip of open society. »
- The division between the modules was a bit unclear for me. More theory background on the open innovation concepts, especially open society would have been good. It"s interesting but sometimes it felt like if the teachers didn"t know enough on the subject either. »
- This module was a very traditional module with lectures and hand-ins. I think that most of the assignments filled it"s purpose of increasing the understanding of the "open.."»
- Ok, I think most calsses were relevant, though some were given at a very high pace, at a high level of abstraction without giving enough background. »
- Liked it.»
- These themes were great approaches to grasping open innovation. They were also clearly communicated through the assignments. »

7. Project module

- Instructions were a little bit too general. I see the point in that, but too general can also imply that you dont gain that much from the assignment. Interesting topics though.»
- Interesting, but was frustrating with so little info about our "client". Even if they could not come see us, maybe Andrew could have talked 5 min with each team about who their client is.»
- Was quite good even though Gregory seemed confused a bit at a times of what our projects will be about»
- My point of view is that the grading is like a lottery, and it feels like you are putting in so much effort for nothing. »
- The division between the modules was a bit unclear for me. But the Sahlgrenska project and the work we did around it I see as the best we did during the course. Very well carried out. (Good by Andrew not to give us all information from the beginning)»
- The idea of this module was very good, however due to the very loose assignment I think that most of the class felt very unsure of the purpose of this module. I also think that the lack of input and clearification from the researchers resulted in that many groups interpreted the assignment in different ways. »
- I think this could have been better. It was again a lot of googling and assumption-making around things that could have been answerd during a one hour interview with someone involved in the projects.»
- Good insights from this.»
- It was a great experience. Sometimes it felt that the management wasn"t engaged enough. »
- It was good but i did not gain much new knowledge. Maybe tuned a few skills.»

Specific lectures

8. 01/09, 9-12 Ulf Petrusson

- Excellent as always - try to give more concrete examples though.»
- Fluffy»
- Really good, inspiring as always»
- The framework was good.»
- Good»
- good»
- Ulf is always Ulf, the man, the myth..»
- Great lecture. It laid effective foundation for the course. Ulf is just perfect ,)»
- Great»

9. 01/09, 13-16 Gregory Carson

- See skills module.»
- The egg game? Innovative...»
- I don"t think we need introduction to this subject after so many years at business school and TBE course last fall»
- Good»
- Good!»
- good»
- Gregs lectures have all been very interesting and fun, it"s clear that he spends a considerable amount of time preparing and I really appreciate this.»
- Gregory is very effective lecturer but one thing to advise here is to be more prepared.»

10. 02/09, 9-12 Gregory Carson

- See skills module.»
- Good»
- Good!»
- good»
- See above.»
- In this course Greg was very interactive with the class. This is something that other lectures should think about.»
- Strengths finder was great»

11. 02/09, 13-16 Ulf Petrusson

- Don"t remember»
- Very good»
- Interesting as always, a little bit more examples could have helped us understand the concept even more. »
- Good!»
- good»
- Good, we have heard it before, but the structural stuff is good to hear many times.»
- No comments. Ulf is great!»
- Great»

12. 07/09, 9-12 Gregory Carson

- See skills module.»
- Very good»
- Good»
- Great!»
- Good, intresting points. Learnt a lot of new, intresting concepts.»
- See above.»
- Very efficient in refreshing what we have learned from the last years lectures. He helped us build upon»
- Good concepts to know»

13. 08/09 9-12 Gregory Carson

- Good»
- Good!»
- Good»
- See above.»
- Gregory was very helpful in facilitating the teamwork. »

14. 09/09, 13-16 Kristoffer Schollin

- Good, but very much repetition.»
- We have had the same thing before, afterwards a few of us stayed and talked about the Google case, and Kristoffer had some interesting thoughts about it, aka he knows more than just Pirate Bay. »
- Good insights»
- Was like a repetition from last year.»
- Much repetition from last year until we told him he had lecture for us before, then he adopted it all more to our present understanding in a skilled way (better communication to him would probably have prevent this). Krisfoffer is a good lecturer and talkes about interesting things, even though it felt like if this lecture perhaps didn"t fit into the course. »
- Interesting, but we had the same lecture last year (embarrasing for Kristoffer and boring/waste of time for us)»
- Quite the same as last year. »
- Have no comments here.»
- Kristoffer is very good in simplifying the content of the lectures he does. He is capable of explaining the essential pieces of the material he lectures. Great guy as well.»
- Good but some repetition. He took it a bit further though. Could be made more connected to open innovation.»

15. 13/09, 13-15 Henrik Rosén

- Talk slower!!! Try to involve the class, ask questions. »
- Henrik is a top lecturer to learn from»
- Could have been enough having 2 hours theory and the last our for questions/discussions»
- Good»
- intresting. A good lecture!»
- Good, but perhaps a little too much a little to fast.»
- Henrik did perform better comparing to last year. He got better in lecturing slower than usual. »
- Good and useful»

16. 14/09, 09-12 Gregory Carson

- Eggdrop devices? Really? This should have been filled with lecture on how to communicate in corporate setting (etiquette and such)»
- Good»
- Good!»
- Good!»
- None»

17. 14/09, 13-16 Nhils Forslund

- Interesting»
- Extra interesting if you have a interest in ICT »
- Great!»
- Intresting lecture. I think Nhils is well structured and easy to follow. Very applicable knowledge.»
- Intresting, always nice to get the perspective from people representing different companies.»
- Nhils was lecturing last semester and he is generally very considerate when conveying the lecture to the ICM. Invite him back»
- Good»

18. 15/09, 9-12 Gregory Carson

- I really learnt some stuff from the "trading animal game". Gregorys exercises are pro since they make me realize things myself.»
- Fun»
- Good!»
- intresting.»
- Good!»
- This was a great assignment to support us in getting to know more the negotiation part. »

19. 16/09, 13-16 Anders Arvidsson

- Boring»
- Extra interesting if you have a interest in ICT »
- Great!!»
- Good and intresting lecture»
- Intresting, always nice to get the perspective from people representing different companies.»
- This guys was sharp. Too bad we could not get a hold of his slides :(»
- Good»

20. 20/09, 10-12 Henrik Rosén

- Good»
- Good!»
- Good»
- Intresting.»
- Good»

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

- I got a hang-up on how Emelie presented the "tool" she invented in her thesis, which is really the same as a model Ulf presented in a lecture about a year ago. Otherwise good, both Tobias and Emelie feels like they are committed to make us learn. »
- Very theoretical, especially Emelie"s part, which was also extremely repetitive and boring, quite on "introduction" level»
- Tobias part was really good! Emeilie"s part was also interesting»
- Good!»
- Good»
- I think this was held on a too high abstraction level, and seemed to focus too much on Emilie"s thesis, rather than explaining it.»
- Didn"t get a lot from this.»
- Tobias is very great in explaining the difficulties of Life Science subject matter. »
- Very interesting»

22. 21/09, 09-12 Gregory Carson

- Good»
- Good!»
- good lecture»
- Good.»

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

- Good! I like these types of excersises. When we have so many lectures, actually doing something myself is needed to make me learn.»
- Really good workshop and case, more such cases!»
- Good concept with hands-on from previous theory lecture. »
- Fun!»
- Good»
- Good workshop. Intresting discussions.»
- Good workshop, they did a good job introducing and leading it.»
- Great learning experience. Keep these workshops because they help students learn more.»

24. 23/09, 13-16 Gregory Carson

- Good»
- Good!»
- Good»
- Also good.»

25. 27/09, 09-12 Andrew Telles

- Good, nice with high quality instant feedback»
- Andrew is a great lecturer. Really top notch decision on hiring this guy.»
- Good practice, the practices that we did before between the groups ourselves was also really good - I think it elevated the quality of all groups»
- Good!»
- Really good and constructive feedback!»
- Ok.»
- Good and well structured. »
- Andrew is very precise and he is guy who brings things straight to he point. He does not play around. »