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.

Risk management and safety IPE061, IPE061

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2010-12-01 - 2010-12-16
Antal svar: 39
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 26%
Kontaktperson: Mohammad Shahriari»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Chalmers

General Information

1. Program:

39 svarande

Master Student»32 82%
Exchange student»7 17%
Others»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.17

- Logistics and Transport Management» (Master Student)

2. What is your background, i.e. production development, industry or chemical engineering?

- Chemical engineering»
- chemical engineering»
- Product dev.»
- mechanical engineering»
- economics and management»
- Production background»
- Chemical engineering»
- Industrial Engineering»
- mechatronics engineering»
- Chem E»
- Supply chain management»
- economics and management»
- Environmental Science»
- Computer Science»
- Industrial engineering»
- Logistics »
- Economics and Management (for innovation and technology)»
- industry»
- production development»
- Design Engineering»
- Chemichal»
- industrial design engineering»
- Logistics and transportation management»
- Industry and environment»
- Automation»
- Chemical engineering»
- chemical engineering»
- Production engineering»
- Industrial Engineering»
- Mechanical engineering, the Production Engineering master program»
- Production Engineering»
- mechanical engineering»
- industrial engineer»
- Biotechnology»
- Industrial engineering and management, SCM»
- I study at two universities in Turkey. My departments are industrial engineering and business administration.»
- Chemical Engineering»

3. How did you find out about the course?

- From other students.»
- the student gate»
- okay»
- on the course list»
- from a file provided me by agneta.»
- Its one of the course in Product and Production development Department»
- corse portal»
- interesting course with guest lectures focus for different backgrounds»
- Through other students»
- It was an elective course for us»
- it was suggested by fellow students on exchange in previous years»
- Course selection»
- Student Portal»
- webpage»
- the course itself is very good but the number of students doing it is to high. a smaller, number of students, and more intensive course could be better.»
- It could be chosen among the courses available to us exchange from Economic and Management backgrounds.»
- in the list given by the coordinator»
- it is ok»
- It"s part of my masters programme»
- from portal»
- it is one of the program"s elective courses»
- from the elective courses»
- by friends»
- drop down list when searching for courses»
- I find from the home page»
- from the courses program information»
- Through Production engineering recommended course plan»
- useful in some lectures, but some lectures were so specific»
- It is available as an elective course in my master program»
- Friend recommended, one out of four elective courses for my masters programme»
- Student portal»
- it would be more useful if it fit only one subject, now we also saw very different subjects from all different backgrounds»
- One of the available elective courses to choose from for SCM students»
- Interesting but could have been far better!!»

4. How come you chose the course?

This questionnaire gives you the opportunity to express your views about this course. The result will be used as part of an overall assessment of the effectiveness of this course and for course improvement.

Please Note that you can write your comments about all issues related to the course at the end of this questionnaire. If you like to clarify your answer to the questions below, you can explain it at the end of the questionnaire too.

- I choosed this course bacause the subject seemed intresting and it was a goob break from the courses I have taken early.»
- I thought that the safety aspect of chemical engineering is crucial to have knowledge about.»
- Heard it was interesting and good from friends...they said that Mohammed Shariari was really good!»
- It is simular to one in my home country so i get it transfered.»
- i chose the course after reading the course syllabus.»
- the course really tests the skills and the risks that we are facing daily in day to day life.»
- it didn´,t crash with the other corse I am taking (Multiphase Flow)»
- Interesting subject. I´,ve not taken any courses in risk management before and therefore I wanted to gain some knowledge in this area.»
- Trying to have a broader perspective of how safety is manage on the industry»
- Interested in topic»
- Sounded interesting»
- i was told it was interesting, also because it was not very much correlated »
- Related to my field and more practical.»
- Good but a lot of time taking»
- the issue was interesting even it was not made for us from logistics. on the other hand was the overall view given very good. »
- I found it interesting and really different from the one attended until now in my study path»
- N/A»
- I find risk assessment and management intresting»
- it is one of the program"s elective courses»
- I think risk management is an important part of my major.»
- sounded interesting»
- I interest about safety system and risk management »
- After read the information about the course in the homepage,i was interested to take the course because it"s relevant with my background»
- I have a part time job at a chemical production site and safety there is important, so I choose this course to be better prepared for the future. However, the course did not present this knowledge that I thought it would. Wikipedia is a better source of knowledge than this course.»
- Friend recommended it. It sounded interesting»
- It seemed interesting when reading the introduction.»
- I think it looks good on my CV also and it would be good to see risk management from different subject,for me its so general subject. this is good but not very useful for future»
- The topic is good and useful (however, the course was an organizational nightmare)»
- I understand safety is an important issue and wanted to learn more.»

Course Content

5. What did you think about the workload of workshops?

39 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»7 17%
Good»27 69%
Much»4 10%
Too much»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.97

6. Do you think the workload of home assignment was evently distributed?

39 svarande

Too little»1 2%
Little»9 23%
Good»25 64%
Much»3 7%
Too much»1 2%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

7. What did you think about the workload of project?

39 svarande

Too little»0 0%
Little»4 10%
Good»26 66%
Much»9 23%
Too much»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

8. How useful did you find the study visit to Preem?

17 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 5%
Good»12 70%
Very good»4 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.17

9. How useful did you find the study visit to AkzoNobel?

20 svarande

Very poor»1 5%
Poor»3 15%
Good»11 55%
Very good»5 25%

Genomsnitt: 3

10. What percentage of lectures did you attent?

39 svarande

0%»0 0%
20%»4 10%
50%»1 2%
80%»26 66%
100%»8 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.97

Course Organization

11. Quality of course outline:

(i.e. document concerning course aim and content, organization of teaching, assignments, reading,assessment,etc.)

38 svarande

Very poor»3 7%
Poor»10 26%
Good»22 57%
Very good»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.65

12. Course expectations:

(i.e. what was expected of you)

38 svarande

Very vague»3 7%
Vague»12 31%
Clear»17 44%
Very clear»6 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

13. Organisation of Lectures:

38 svarande

Very poor»6 15%
Poor»7 18%
Good»20 52%
Very good»5 13%

Genomsnitt: 2.63

14. Organisation of workshops:

39 svarande

Very poor»1 2%
Poor»7 17%
Good»25 64%
Very good»6 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

15. Organizaton of Guest lectures:

38 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»10 26%
Good»22 57%
Very good»6 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

16. Organisation of Lab@Risk:

38 svarande

Very poor»15 39%
Poor»12 31%
Good»9 23%
Very good»2 5%

Genomsnitt: 1.94

17. When do you prefer to have deadline for home assignments?

39 svarande

Weekly (as it was in this study period)»36 92%
At the end of the course»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 1.07

18. How did you find the course literature?

38 svarande

Very poor»8 21%
Poor»9 23%
Good»17 44%
Very good»4 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.44

19. How well did the course literature correspond with the course objectives?

38 svarande

Very poor»5 13%
Poor»11 28%
Good»19 50%
Very good»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.52

Teaching and learning support

20. Helpfulness of Teacher:

39 svarande

Very unhelpful»1 2%
Unhelpful»8 20%
Helpful»16 41%
Very helpful»14 35%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

21. Helpfulness of Tutor:

36 svarande

Very unhelpful»1 2%
Unhelpful»1 2%
Helpful»21 58%
Very helpful»13 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

22. Availability of course material

(e.g. website, handouts, etc)

39 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»4 10%
Good»26 66%
Very good»9 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.12

23. How effective did you find the course homepage?

39 svarande

Very poor»2 5%
Poor»4 10%
Good»24 61%
Very good»9 23%

Genomsnitt: 3.02

Week 2

24. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Dioxins: the recurrent history of poisoning family of molecules by Herve Boileau"

(only if attended)

35 svarande

Very poor»4 11%
Poor»8 22%
Good»17 48%
Very good»6 17%

Genomsnitt: 2.71

Week 3

25. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Modelling and Simulation - Applying @Risk by Simon Pallin"?

(only if attended)

38 svarande

Very poor»5 13%
Poor»12 31%
Good»18 47%
Very good»3 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.5

26. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Complexity in logistics systems: controlling chaos using cybernetics by Per-Olof Arnäs"

(only if attended)

30 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 10%
Good»18 60%
Very good»9 30%

Genomsnitt: 3.2

27. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Supply chain risk management by Ulf Paulsson"?

(only if attended)

32 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 9%
Good»21 65%
Very good»8 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

Week 4

28. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Constructing Safety - Obstacles and Supports by Marianne Törner"?

(only if attended)

28 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 7%
Good»22 78%
Very good»4 14%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

29. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Constructing Safety - Obstacles and Supports by Anders Pousette"?

(only if attended)

27 svarande

Very poor»1 3%
Poor»6 22%
Good»17 62%
Very good»3 11%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

30. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "HSE Culture and System by Magnus Berg"?

(only if attended)

31 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 3%
Good»26 83%
Very good»4 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.09

31. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Probabilistic Safety Assessment (PSA) by Carl Sunde"?

(only if attended)

26 svarande

Very poor»1 3%
Poor»6 23%
Good»15 57%
Very good»4 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

Week 5

32. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Risk in Maintenance by Magnus Evertsson"?

(only if attended)

27 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 7%
Good»20 74%
Very good»5 18%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

33. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Control Room design Man-Technology, Organization (MOT) by Per Christofferson"?

(only if attended)

26 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»7 26%
Good»17 65%
Very good»2 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.8

34. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Technical design of equipment and systems design, inherent safety, lay out, components/equipment by Mats Lindgren"?

(only if attended)

25 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»2 8%
Good»20 80%
Very good»3 12%

Genomsnitt: 3.04

Week 6

35. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Why things go wrong by Andrea Menne"?

(only if attended)

23 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»1 4%
Good»18 78%
Very good»4 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

36. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Maintenance, Dependability and safety by Torbjörn Ylipää"?

(only if attended)

22 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 13%
Good»17 77%
Very good»2 9%

Genomsnitt: 2.95

37. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Risk of poor ergonomic in manufacturing by Annki Falck"?

(only if attended)

24 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 12%
Good»16 66%
Very good»5 20%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

38. How do you evaluate the quality of presentetion "Risk management in complex systems by Roland Örtengren"?

(only if attended)

26 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»3 11%
Good»20 76%
Very good»3 11%

Genomsnitt: 3

Your perspective

39. Good features of this course:

- Independence in working.»
- the project and the workshops»
- not too much work to do!»
- Factory Visit, Workshop and project»
- the diversity of topics discussed»
- People from industries gave lectures from practical view.»
- Bit General»
- the idea of the course and the wide of it»
- multiple choice Home assignment that without being too heavy really helped you out in absorbing knowledge»
- »
- tools for find the risk»
- The workshops where basically good. The organisation wasn"t that good which lowers the grade, but there where good problems and helpful tutors.»
- working of variety of majors together»
- it makes us pay more attention to the risk»
- it gives more knowledges about safety system. it was interesting course and there were a lot of guest lectures that can improve my knowledge»
- Workshops»
- The workshops, but all the material for the workshops should be available at the course homepage. This includes the powerpoint presentations that are shown at the workshops (this was not the case this year)»
- It"s good that you use weekly assignments.»
- Learnings of the course, mainly from company visits and guest lectures»
- Everything about this course is perfect.Specially, the course teacher is wonderful person.»
- The structure is good and the goals are good. Use of visual aids seems to work well.»

40. Poor features of this course:

- the lectures are not worth listening to and the class rooms are too small for such a big class, the home assignment is a good idea but needs to be improved»
- not deep understanding....too many guest lecture. »
- Too much workload»
- Not all lectures seemed relevant for me and my program, it seems to be for chemical engineering students. The rooms had not room for everyone so people were sitting in the stairs and on the floor. »
- Poor organisation.»
- timing»
- the lecture in supply chain risk was nothing new for us from logistics. »
- »
- how to use those tools in reality»
- Extremely low level on both the course content it self, most of the lectures (which is the reason I didn"t attend so many of them) and the literature»
- not related or useful lectures, not all lectures was relevant to all student»
- NA»
- to many guest lecturers»
- some of the lectures was so specific for special background (Chemistry, Logistic) and not useful for others»
- The course material - non of it was useful and I did not use it at all during the course. The cours-pm - it gave no information what so ever about the course and what was expected of us. The little information that was in it was not up to date and therefore it did not apply. The home assignments - they did not increase my learning, they did not make me learn anything at all. The language in the questions are not good, which means that I did not understand most of the questions. They did not connect to anything in the course material or the lectures.»
- The weekly assignments should have deadline on sunday.»
- Very unorganized (for instance, where is presentation schedule? project work deadline?), bad administation (for instance, faulty registration for company visits, terrible useless expensive literature, no course evaluation committee), sarcastic teacher ("I told you thousands times..." even though he didn"t tell once!), sudden changes ("you can get 2 points for this workshop" during AkzoNobel visit)»
- The guest lecturers are not able to intrigue the students much. At some point in the middle of the lecture it gets very uninteresting.»

41. Other comments:

- Please inform every guest lecturer about the hourly systems in chalmers. 45 lecture and 15 minutes break, that was most often not the case. And for concentration purposes a 15 minute break is necessary every hour in order to follow the lecture.»
- none»
- More lecture on linking the diverse knowledge.»
- you have to work with this web-survey, this is a poor presentation even if it will be easy to work with those data afterwards in SPSS. a different style will be good to start with......»
- »
- too much assignment tasks»
- the classes on early morning on Mondays was not efficient Classes normally were small and did not have sit for everyone»
- NA»
- It is very contradicting of a course, that is about safety, to book lecture halls that only can take a maximum of 75 persons when there is more than 120 students registered on the course and the lectures are mandatory. The lecture hall was more than once overcrowded and students were sitting on the stairs to be able to attend.»
- This course was a big disappointment and I will not recommend it to someone else. All the different guest lectures, with varying quality, just repeat them self. And the most of them was telling the same stories but with different companies view. The information about the point system was really bad, I do not think anyone taking the course know how the points from lecture and workshops were distributed. The home assignments were written with a very bad language which make them hard to understand. Not that the questions were to hard to solve, but it was hard know what the question was about. Lack of feedback from home assignments, since we didn"t got any feedback there will be no learning from them. A bad decision to wait until the last lecture before telling how many points that are required from the project and home assignments to pass the course.»
- I would never recommend this course to other students, but rather argue for NOT taking this course»

42. How could this course be improved?

- only very few guest lecture. More theoretical lecture»
- Same to be followed as per the structure now but comparatively low work for the coming years.»
- Groups from randomly.»
- maybe divided in two and just for groups that can benefit each other, like logistics and environment etc. »
- »
- how to deal with risks»
- Redo the entire thing from scratch. Make a thorough analysis of what the students actually know from the beginning and try to create a progression from that knowledge. At the moment most information is repetition or quite obvious statements. The only part that actually improved my knowledge where the workshop and the project. the lectures where ranging from boring to awful and the weekly hand ins where strangely formulated and required no knowledge and more skills in "googling" than in analytic thinking»
- Choosing more in common relevant content for everyone»
- NA»
- Base the course on a book instead of a binder»
- By change the whole course (the workshops may be retained). There is no structure in the course, it is not coherent, there is no connection between the lectures, the home assignments and the project.»
- Less guest lectures and more lectures about tools. More feedback and better information early in course.»
- more help or assign supervisors during the project work. the reading material is not very useful during the all course at all. this course try to fit for all backgrounds but ofcourse it is so difficult. it can be divided in two sections for chemical and others as well. but subjects for other should be more specific, »
- Administration: schedule, deadlines, points, maybe some feedback on home assignments, send Mohammad on an appeal course, skip the so called COURSE BOOK»
- Somehow make the course more intersting.»

Thank you!

Kursutvärderingssystem från