Visa resultat

Design for Quality, 2010/2, TEK161

Your own effort

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

28 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		2		7%
Around 20 hours/week»		8		28%
Around 25 hours/week»		6		21%
Around 30 hours/week»		9		32%
At least 35 hours/week»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- High pressure in the first two weeks» (Around 25 hours/week)
- The group have different levels of ambition and in order to compensate for that I have to work harder. Team members also have different foundation in the topic, and in writing reports, which inclines that I have to work harder to correct mistakes. » (Around 30 hours/week)
- A lot of articles to read» (Around 30 hours/week)

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

28 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		1		3%
75%»		9		32%
100%»		18		64%

Genomsnitt: 4.6

- Having classes 8.00 is not a good idea. People get in late, and group mates miss out on understanding which affects my learning. There is an enormous backload of mandatory events which have put extra strain on me. Also, I have not been able to see what happens if I would miss one of those activities. » (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		5		18%
The goals are difficult to understand»		1		3%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		10		37%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		11		40%

Genomsnitt: 3

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

24 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		0		0%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		24		100%
No, the goals are set too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2

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

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		5		19%
Yes, definitely»		11		42%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		10		38%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

- Since the project reports are group work, you actually don"t need to understand those parts. » (To some extent)
- Home exam is a very good way to test our knowledge, but please do not put in compulsory guest lectures during it. And it also had the canary cage effect on the other course. Please try to sync so both courses has home exams in the future!» (Yes, definitely)
- It was really good with a home exam since it boost real knowledge, not just "parrot knowledge" that you normally gain when practicing for an exam» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		6		21%
Large extent»		17		60%
Great extent»		5		17%

Genomsnitt: 2.96

- Over all good lectures» (Large extent)

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

Small extent»		0		0%
Some extent»		4		14%
Large extent»		18		64%
Great extent»		6		21%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- Some of the articles seems to have been put in the course just to give us a lot to read. Do we realy need 3 articles about Kano, and 4 about DoE? And Hendrys article, which I don"t understand, why is it included?.. Hendry did not talk about it in his lecture and we did not have a litterature seminar about it.. » (Some extent)
- One main book would help. All of those articles get all over my crib after a while, and my head. A compendium with all the articles and notes on the lecture would significantly have improved my learning experience.» (Large extent)
- However it would be better if we have more case studies rather than just reading the articles and answering the question. It can be a case based pedagogy for applicable topics» (Large extent)

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

Very badly»		0		0%
Rather badly»		0		0%
Rather well»		18		64%
Very well»		10		35%

Genomsnitt: 3.35

- A compendium with all the articles and notes on the lecture would significantly have improved my learning experience.» (Rather well)
- Hand-outs given in the lectures should be put on the webpage for those who miss the lecture.. » (Rather well)

Study climate

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

Very poor»		0		0%
Rather poor»		2		7%
Rather good»		10		35%
Very good»		13		46%
I did not seek help»		3		10%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Always good and quick answers to questions that were sent by mail, although the scheduled help could have been earlier» (Rather good)
- I would like to have Katarin Brantin"s email to ask questions about the DFSS work in SCA. could you please provide her contact information?» (Rather good) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

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

Very poorly»		1		3%
Rather poorly»		5		17%
Rather well»		12		42%
Very well»		10		35%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

- Change groups between QOM-course and DfQ!» (Very poorly)
- One exchange student couldn"t contribute due to language problems. The option to kick the person out felt mean and time consuming. Since we already had a dropout in the group, the little contribution was offered was considered okay... but we had to rewrite everything.» (Rather poorly)
- Different ambition levels among team members and significantly different skills in writing reports, handling english and "finish" things in time. » (Rather well)
- I do think it is a good idea to change group from the first period to this second. In the end we were a little bit tiered on each other.» (Rather well)
- As always there migth be a bit uneven with the work load when you do team cases between the team members» (Rather well)
- I think new groups after the first study period would be a lot nicer» (Rather well)
- It is quite "funny" that we are studying management, how to divide work, and how to manage people, but that there is problems in most of the groups in the class. To put it simple does it seem as if we cant handle to work in groups over time since there are unsolved problems in most of the group. Perhaps not always severe, but still more then what could be expected on a Management Master. » (Rather well)

11. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		0		0%
Adequate»		8		28%
High»		20		71%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.71

- It seems high, but it is ok. A bit scary in the beginning though :)» (Adequate)

12. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		8		28%
High»		14		50%
Too high»		5		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.82

- But this is probably because Lars was sick and some lectures were cancelled. It is a bit strange that this course and the other course gives us the same amount of points.» (Adequate)
- It dependes on the team, and on the ambition level. Some teams are four persons, while other are 5.» (High)
- It was specifically too high in the last two weeks » (Too high) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

Learning

13. Ida Gremyr

- Good job. Strong committment. I think that it is good to do hands on learning working with specific tools (KANO). MORE OF THAT... Litterature seminars and questions for those I believe are too conceptual, high flying, philosofical, ... It does not add much value to my up coming career. DfSS could also have been explained more hands on. i still don"t see the difference with this and product developement funnels in general. »
- Really Good»
- Overall very satisfied. »
- Ida was very good, easy to understand, though she might talk a little too fast sometimes but if I asked a question she always had the answers needed.»
- Ida is awesome. She can give good and clear advice but never just gives you the answer right away. Her slides are easy to understand, so that you can read up on them later. »
- Case supervision in QFD case was quiet late, and it was hard to change the report then.»
- Great»
- Excellent pedagogical skills. Very well thought out study material and literature studies. Thanks!»
- Good lectures with relevant content. The litteratur review was good to get a hint what is all about. Wants that everone should understand och learn. »
- OK»
- Very good. Lectures with clear goals and easy to follow.»
- Overall good, but I would want more handson examples and more direct feedback after presentations.»
- Overall good, she is a very good lecturer, organized and can always answer our questions, maybe she could smile a bit more»
- really to be appreciated. »
- Very good!»
- Literature seminars are very good and helpful.I think we needed more teaching on RDM/DFSS. the papers for these topics also were not that helpful for a good understanding of the issue.»
- Instead of seminars we could have had the hand-ins and then just complemented it with a lecture with Idas own thoughts since the discussion was useless.»
- Most of the lectures were quite good, but when it came to the home exam did I realise that I still had a Really fussy sense of what DfSS is, and so had my classmates. »
- Dfss, still a bit confusing...but don"t know how to change it. »
- use more references on the slides»

14. Marcus Assarlind

- good job markus. I like your committment and that you are up to answering mails and questions.»
- Very lucid and easy to understand»
- Marcus was very helpful, knew the material well and was very prepared. It was also always "easy access" - wheather it was in class or outside of class he was always ready to explain and answer any questions. »
- Marcus is very good at answering questions. His lectures are good as well, but the topic is quite different from what we"ve studied earlier in the semester. Therefore, you kind of panic since you (or I) dont remember much of the statistics course. However, it got better when you realised that it wasnt that difficult.»
- DoE at the first glance seemed to be thought vague and if you are not intrested in the subject you will loose your motivation at the first seession for DoE however the helicopter test cover almost all parts and at the end you understand the meaning of the subject.»
- Great»
- A bit slow start, turned out very pleasant! Very nice lecture on DoE, good depth and well thought out in the same event! Thanks!»
- The lecture about DoE was at first a little bit fuzzy, but when the experiments was done the second day it all became much more clear. Try to have some examples the first lecture as well.»
- OK Markus and Hendry could be more synced during lab.»
- Also good. Would have like a conclusion/summary on the DoE-lab.»
- Good. More direct feedback after presentations. Durign the lab it would be good if you and Hendry would give the same info.»
- Very good, his lectures in DoE was very good!»
- should spend more time in explaining DoE which are quite complex to apply. other than labs, can have few assignments with qns.- (similar to one asked in exams) in home page with some guidance so that those who are interested can do it individually and ask doubts if needed »
- Seminar and presentations were Quite well managed, the way that we did not feel too much stress!and that is perfect.DOE lab was tiring and I think we prefered to have more time and help for the analysis and conclusion part.»
- Good experiments!!!! :) Good attitude! Made it easy to learn.»
- DoE week was really interesting»
- Good. But could be better to give us the excel-file in the lab before we do our own.»
- more clarity about DoE»

15. Hendry Raharjo

- Nothing to complain about, answers mails and takes time to meet us. »
- Quite Interesting»
- Hendrys lectures were interesting and well put together. The one thing missing was that when asked about something, he sometimes answered something else. But was really trying and once we got an e-mail later on a question we had asked during class. »
- I like that he wants you to reflect on your own. It is a bit difficult to understand what he says though.»
- The QFD was attractive and the lecturer used real product to integrate the knowledge with daily life. »
- Lectures were one of the best. Actually because they were coordinated by several examples.»
- Funny and great»
- Very nice lecture on QFD process. Thanks!»
- Very interesting lecture regarding QFD, I like when you add some humer and engagement in the lectures.»
- The QFD-lectures were very good.»
- Inspirering lecture. Lab same as above, except that -Good.»
- Good. During the lab it would be good if you and Marcus would give the same info.»
- Has a very different styl to the other to, he has more energy which I like. Sometimes he trys a bit to much, and I don"t always understand what he means when he explain things. »
- very good»
- I just loved your enthusiasm, it made the lectures more fun and interesting»
- Inspiring due to hendry"s enthusiasm»
- QFD leccture was very interesting and educational. in DoE lab we could not get any information from him. Sometimes it is a little hard to get what we want from him.»
- Good lecture.»
- Good, not so much to add»

16. Azadeh Najafi

- weak impression. got the question: why doesn"t we add the criticality, likelyhood and probablity of detection instead of multiplying? she could not answer that... I think the validity of a tool like FMEA would be the most vital question to reflect upon before you start using it...»
- Expected some more information and examples.»
- We could have read this. I would have liked a more critical view of FMEA, talking about how a final index actually may be missinterpreted etc.»
- Ok. It was rather late in the afternoon so I was kind of tired and had troubles listening.»
- The lecture was presented in a logical way but it could be better if FMEA was presented together with some other methods as well, so we could see the differences and similarities in different tools in different uses.»
- Great»
- Nice lecture on FMEA. A bit to much information in slides, perhaps needed to simplify it a bit. Thanks!»
- Good, maybe not need so much time next time...or a longer presentation with more examples.»
- OK»
- ok»
- To unstructured!»
- She seems to have a lot of knowledge in the subject which is good, she could try to be more confident.»
- there is scope for improvement.can present it in a more lucid and interactive manner because the ultimate objective is students should remember whats lectured in the class»
- short enough and clear.maybe not that much necessary.»
- Good lecture.»
- The speed was way to low, lost interest after just a few minutes.»

17. Martin Arvidsson

- Good impression. Interesing with hands on examples.»
- Good»
- Good with examples. »
- He"s a good lecturer, but the second part of the lecture was a bit to "technical". »
- Good»
- Interesting toto see how it is used in reality»
- Did not feel totaly relevant. But still ok.»
- OK»
- Good informative lecture.»
- Good.»
- Good lecture, short introduction about himself and the subject which was good. (Sometimes guest lectures doesn"t seem to know what we have read before)»
- was really good despite the less timing»
- I don"t remember this lecture!»
- Good lecture.»

18. Katarin Brantin

- did not change my thoughts about DFSS»
- Very Interesting»
- Too much talking about SCA"s "Happiness" program.»
- This lecture didn"t add much to what had already been tought. Though it was nice to see how DfSS is used in the real world.»
- didn"t attend.»
- Good»
- Very interesting, specially when we had question and discussion in the end. Inspiring to hear from the "real" world with problem that she faced in the SCA organization.»
- OK»
- ok»
- Very good!»
- Talked for almost 1h about SCA and their products. Since it is the third time someone from that company talks to our class she didn"t have to talk about that. The second hour of ther lecture was better. 1h had been enought. »
- was really good»
- The lecture was great but It was so general and not specificly about their DFSS plan. since DFSS I believe needs more teaching I think she"d better emphasize more on their DFSS plan so that we understand how it works in practice.»
- Good lecture!»
- good!»

19. Simon Schütte

- not had the lecture yet...»
- Not yet attended»
- Have not attended yet.»
- don"t know yet.»
- Very interesting on Kansei, perhaps a bit long in the elaborations and side-steppings in subjects. Thanks!»
- Absolutley the best lectture so far! Liked it a lot, the content feel very up to date and relevant. My cup of tea!»
- Very interesting subject! »
- Interesting topic but a bit to bad it was scheduled after hand-out of home exam, I just wanted to get home to write on it.»
- The best lecture during the whole course! »
- Very interesting lecture. Simon was very good. However, a 3h lecture after the home-exame has been handed out is just plain mean. Next year put it in earlier. 2h had been eought for us to understand what the concept is. »
- insightful»
- Interesting lecture but it would have been better to put it earlier.»
- very interesting lecture. but the time of the lecture was not ok, since we were concerned about the home exam. I prefered it to be somewhere in the middle of the quarter.»
- Very interesting lecture! But could have been before the home exam...»
- This could have been said in one, or two hours at the most...became to much of a repetition in the end»
- It was a good lecture in an interesting subject, but it should have come earlier in the course. Not after the handout of the home exam.»

20. Do you think these subjects would be useful to maintain in the course?

- We need to be taught more about the pros and cons with different models. All models lacks in some extent and they are only useful if we know the strengts and weaknesses. »
- Good complements between sub-subjects! Nicely maneuvered to avoid clashing with TEK150...»
- Kansei Engineering was interesting would have been nice to give this more focus (but then you need to cut somewhere else)»
- had some problems with the articles of robust design. could be good do include one more article that are more general and more easier to understand»

Design for Quality
28 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		3		10%
Yes»		9		32%
Definately»		16		57%

Genomsnitt: 4.46

Kano Model
28 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		1		3%
Yes»		4		14%
Definately»		23		82%

Genomsnitt: 4.78

Quality Function Deployment
28 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		0		0%
Yes»		4		14%
Definately»		24		85%

Genomsnitt: 4.85

Design of Experiments
27 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		3		11%
Yes»		9		33%
Definately»		15		55%

Genomsnitt: 4.44

Robust Design Methodology
28 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		7		25%
Yes»		10		35%
Definately»		11		39%

Genomsnitt: 4.14

Design for Six Sigma
28 svarande

Definately not»		1		3%
No»		0		0%
Maybe»		2		7%
Yes»		10		35%
Definately»		15		53%

Genomsnitt: 4.35

Kansei Engineering
25 svarande

Definately not»		0		0%
No»		1		4%
Maybe»		9		36%
Yes»		5		20%
Definately»		10		40%

Genomsnitt: 3.96

21. To what extent did the group assignments contribute to your learning?

- A lot of work getting the group to work together and to correct others missinterpretation of what it actually is about.»
- Would have been more if the rest of the group would have been interested in learning! »
- It has en tendency to become a few hours of work with the actual task, and then twice that time on a report. You do learn deeper when you do the report, but it is not even close to time efficient...and utterly boring to to three of them in a week....»

Kano case
28 svarande

Small extent»		1		3%
Some extent»		5		17%
Large extent»		12		42%
Great extent»		10		35%

Genomsnitt: 3.1

QFD case
28 svarande

Small extent»		2		7%
Some extent»		6		21%
Large extent»		8		28%
Great extent»		12		42%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

DoE lab
28 svarande

Small extent»		1		3%
Some extent»		8		28%
Large extent»		11		39%
Great extent»		8		28%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

Summarizing questions

22. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Adequate»		4		14%
Good»		19		67%
Excellent»		5		17%

Genomsnitt: 4.03

- better than most I courses but it could be improved.» (Adequate)
- A lot of my energy went to motivate the rest of the group to actually contribute with something to the group assignments instead of studing.» (Adequate)
- The learning outcome is dpenedent on the classmates, and MPQOM has to work on improving the english writing and presentations skills of each individual, as well as ambition level, if group work should be considered in the future. » (Good)
- I think not knowing much about six sigma and becoming detail in DFSS IS rather confusing» (Good)
- Perhaps a bit too many compulsory events» (Good)
- If we could have less subjects but deeper I believe would be better. like for RDM, DFSS, DOE I think we needed more information and learning activities.» (Good)

23. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

24. What should definitely be changed to next year?

25. Additional comments