Visa resultat

Management of Physical Distribution, 2011, ITR585

Participation

1. Approximately, how much time per week have you allocated to this course?

40 svarande

Maximum 15 hours/week»		10		25%
About 20 hours/week»		19		47%
About 25 hours/week»		8		20%
About 30 hours/week»		2		5%
More than 35 hours/week»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.12

- n/a» (?)
- Very simple course with little reading material» (Maximum 15 hours/week)
- Only spent time by attending lectures, doing case work and exam study-time.» (Maximum 15 hours/week)
- Hard to estimate» (About 30 hours/week)

2. Estimate the amount of lectures that you have attended to.*

0%»		0		0%
25%»		6		14%
50%»		3		7%
75%»		18		43%
100%»		14		34%

Genomsnitt: 3.97

- The quality was so low, there was no point in going» (25%)
- Most of lectures are hard to follow - no red line most importantly no given conclusions. Most often just stating things without pointing solutions» (75%)
- Many of the classes did not add anything outside the course book and was too slow.» (75%)
- I stopped going to Kents lectures after a while because he just said exactly what the book says.» (75%)
- Was sick week 3 and missed one more lecture...» (75%)

3. Estimate amount of time you have spent on the case studies.*

Less than 20 hours»		1		2%
About 20 hours»		11		26%
About 40 hours»		19		46%
About 60 hours»		6		14%
More than 60 hours»		4		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.02

- Did not put in as many hours because they were rather simple but most off all since I believe few things could be learned from them, even if the second case was better in that regard. The cases could be improved by e.g. focusing more on a more narrow ares and contacting the company for more info. As it was now very little could be said regarding physical distribution with the info from public information. » (Less than 20 hours)
- Like most of the P.hD tutors everyone has their opinion on what is considered to be the right way - just ending up in confusion for us students. Why was both cases presented at the same time? It was just time consuming made things unclear.» (About 20 hours)
- No clear guidelines and it was impossible to understand the purpose with the cases. » (About 20 hours)
- the assignements were to open so it was hard to know what to write. it was also hard to know how the points were handed out and based on what. » (About 40 hours)
- I think it would be beneficial to have a more specified question to solve in the cases. It took a lot of time only to understand what we were supposed to do. I think it would increase our learning from the cases.» (About 40 hours)
- Hard to estimate» (About 40 hours)

Fulfillment of the objectives

4. Did you read and understand the course objectives in the course outline?*

It is hard to understand the course objectives»		2		4%
The objectives could be more clear»		14		34%
I know what I should learn in the course clearly»		14		34%
I have not read the course objectives»		11		26%

Genomsnitt: 2.82 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I still do not understand what the aim of the course is and why it is named management of physical ditribution» (It is hard to understand the course objectives)
- The name of the course and the content are confusing. During the course micro economy from the perspective of transportation is handled more deeply, but management of distribution gives an impression of learning managerial tools and skills of product distribution. Thus the hole course lacks one main thread!» (It is hard to understand the course objectives)
- Not the objective for the course overall, but the objectives of the Cases could have been much more clearly stated» (The objectives could be more clear)
- Not important question...» (The objectives could be more clear)

5. Are the course objectives in line with your background knowledge and the number of points of the course?*

No, the level of the course objectives is low»		7		17%
Yes, the objectives are clear and in line with them»		34		82%
No, the level of the course objectives are too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1.82 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Far to much overlap with other courses in Industriell Ekonomi and the material was too simplistic and most of it in my view irrelevant for the future career of any student. » (No, the level of the course objectives is low)
- We already had obligatory courses at Chalmers covering at least 70 per cent of the content but explained it better» (No, the level of the course objectives is low)
- Have not read the course objectives» (No, the level of the course objectives is low)
- If I look to what we have studied, I feel like its not really a masters-level on the course.» (No, the level of the course objectives is low)
- Not important question...» (Yes, the objectives are clear and in line with them)

6. Do you think that allocation of 30% of the total grade of the course to the case studies is appropriate?*

Not at all»		2		4%
To some extents»		19		46%
Yes, in a high level»		20		48%

Genomsnitt: 2.43 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Since it is a group assignment I don"t think it is appropriate, the ambition of each student can be very diversed. The grading was very unclear and so were the case instructions. It would also be good to get more guidance on appropriate literature to base the cases on. The text book was not to much help when writing the cases.» (Not at all)
- I think 40 or 50%» (Not at all)
- 1/3 of the grading of the case studies shouldn"t be based on the oppositions and presentations, that"s too much.» (To some extents)
- The way you rated case 2 could be changed. » (To some extents)
- In some way yes, but to divide 10 points to the report and 5 to the presentation i case two is not appropriate compared to how much work it is behind the report in contradition to the presentation.» (To some extents)
- Or this is the never ending problem, kind of. The grades are good since they give incentive to work. On the other hand, it becomes stressful and not fun working in a group of students with very different goals and capabilities. Don´,t really like it, but neither can I come up with a better solution.» (To some extents)
- As it is now the case was a bigger part, but I hope the lecture part get better.» (To some extents)
- The course is so much more than the case studies that 30 % is alitte much» (To some extents)
- Not more if the same "cases" is used, but if there will be an improvement with a really good case maybe more. Otherwise I would say that 30% is alright, maybe less 10-20% would be more correct or just pass/fail (with 2 bonus points on each, with 104 as highest score on the course (as in MSCP)).» (To some extents)
- It is good that the cases are 30% of the grade, but we should have had the opportunity to know beforehand that 1/3 of the grade of the cases constituted the presentation and opponement. » (Yes, in a high level)
- Even 40% of the grade could be appropriate, as for instance the second case is really demanding and a lot of time is spent on it, with the very thorough studies of articles. » (Yes, in a high level)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 2.36

Teaching and course administration

7. How much the lectures have helped your learning?*

Very little»		4		9%
Rather Little»		16		39%
To a raher large extent»		17		41%
To a large extent»		4		9%

Genomsnitt: 2.51

- I have been to most of lecture, but it was really difficult to follow them sometimes. I don"t know if it is because of the concept presented which might be difficult to catch or if it is possible to present things another way.» (Rather Little)
- well since the book was close to impossble to reed, the lectures were became essential. Also consepts that were not mentiond in the book or on the extra slides were a part of the exam, attendance to lectures was essential to get a good grade on the course. But i doubt that it is acctualy ok to have exam guestions on stuff that is not mentiond in the litterature or the slides but only in lectures when the lectures were not mandatory. » (To a raher large extent)
- It was good that the lectures were strongly connected to the text book. However, the guest lectures was not that helpful, many times the content seemed more or less irrelevant for the course.» (To a raher large extent)
- They explained the subject to some extent good.» (To a raher large extent)
- Since the lectures follow the book very clearly they havn"t added so much by themselves. However, they clearlify some parts in a good way.» (To a raher large extent)
- They have helped to understand some of the things in the book. However-that is all that they"ve done, go through the book. Page by page, a little more innovation perhaps?» (To a raher large extent)
- The leactures are very good and clarifying! Kent makes a lot of examples from real life and that is excellent. Also the guest lecturers are really good.» (To a large extent)
- I like Kenth as a lecturer.» (To a large extent)

8. How much the course literature and the other course material have helped your learning?*

Very little»		2		4%
Rather Little»		17		41%
To a raher large extent»		17		41%
To a large extent»		5		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.6

- The translation of the book is terrible. It is unpedagogic, the pictures are still in Swedish and some consepts has been translated in different ways in different chapterrs eaven when refering to the same thing. » (Very little)
- The literature is extremly bad with Swedish mixed into the pictures, extremly many misspellings and errors everywhere. » (Rather Little)
- The course book is not really clear.» (Rather Little)
- I did learn the subject by reading the book but the book is really hard to read. There is a great need in writing it again. Had to read the pages many times to get what was being said. Even though the book isn´,t long it took along time to get through it and some pages I never got. I think the book could be longer by explaining the subject more easily. This subject is really interesting and could be explained better and by that increase peoples interest in the area.» (Rather Little)
- Would have been good to have a text to the logistics concepts part as well. The ETS book is somewhat unclear at certain sections.» (Rather Little)
- I dont think the course book was very good for several reasons. 1) Badly built up arguments. When you read it many things doesn"t really make sense. E.g. many of the figures are barely explained. It took a lot of discussions to understand what the difference between pareto-optimum and break even is in a graph. Also Marginal Cost could be better explained. 2) Poorly translated. We had access to a Swedish version which was a lot easier to understand at times. Some of the swedish had been wrongly translated which was very confusing. » (Rather Little)
- 1. The book is full of errors, spelling and just bad english and reasonings that are contradicting each other. 2. It is not extensive enough. I would really like to see another course litterature, that Kent has not written, because he said exactly what the book says, the same examples and everything and this does not help you reach a higher level of knowledge. Things are not explained enough, it just says, this is the way it is, if it also would have a resoning to why it would have given a deeper knowledge. 3. The logistics concepts are not mentioned in the course litterature. So if you missed a lecture you had no chance to read in the concept. Luckily we got help from Vahid and Joakim in doing this. Google was no help since it seems that many of the concepts are Kents own?? I think you will see in the exam that many have missed on the logistic concept questions and I think that this is because of the lack of litterature. - easy to fix!» (Rather Little)
- I think that the book should be better Many concepts or arguments are not well explained» (Rather Little)
- It is a bit difficult question here. We only have a book, and since the lecture were not really clear sometimes, I had to refer to the book. So it helped me quite a lot, but the book can be largely improved. There are many Swedish abbreviation or direct translation from swedish to english that makes it difficult to follow sometimes. Nevertheless, the structure of the book is great, and apart from tis "form" problem, the among of information is rather good.» (To a raher large extent)
- Course material should be without mistakes and more easily readable. The compendium is sometimes not easy to understand (even if it explains easy concepts)» (To a raher large extent)

9. How much did the case study I help your learning?*

Very little»		5		12%
Rather Little»		21		51%
To a raher large extent»		15		36%
To a large extent»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.24

- Very unclear description of what we were supposed to do and the case didn"t feel very connected to the rest of the course.» (Very little)
- The cases which where not cases but group works and was not enough connected to the course, they were more of a training of working in a group and to do presentation which is something we already know. This is not good and needs to be improved! How? By giving out cases which is connected to the "economy of transportation" which we later will solve (look at the SCM course, LF case, and you will understand). Or by inviting industry to create a case for us, that would have been really nice (like Accenture in the SCM course).» (Very little)
- more than case 2 anyway. Joakim gave us good tuition.» (Rather Little)
- I didn"t have so much help from what I learned in the case when I did the exam. » (Rather Little)
- The cases could be a lot better defined.» (Rather Little)
- According to what was asked in exam, the case I helped very little. Cases helped to understand the management part of some types of transportation companies. Case was more close to the reality, more interesting to make. If the case instructions were more clear (it was not clear that analysis part has to be made about utilization) and some more thorough information about performing such an analysis was presented, the quality of the work and the learning outcome would have been better. » (Rather Little)
- I always enjoy case studies. This one was well connected to the litterature.» (To a raher large extent)

10. How much did the case study II help your learning?

Very little»		3		7%
Rather little»		20		50%
To a rather large extent»		15		37%
To a large extent»		2		5%

Genomsnitt: 2.4

- n/a» (?)
- Same as above...» (Very little)
- I didn"t have so much help from what I learned in the case when I did the exam. » (Rather little)
- Got a good understanding in one area but didn´,t help much if you consider the whole course.» (To a rather large extent)
- In the topic we wrote about.» (To a rather large extent)
- As our group performed case II about rather useful method, the studying theoretical background of the method was useful. » (To a rather large extent)
- I feel that it was a bit wierd that we were only told how the points for case 2 (10 for report, 3 for presentation, 2 for opposition) would be distributed the same day as the presentation. Moreover, we felt that we did a much better work at case II, and we really did. Still, we got the same grade as case I. It would be nice if the points awarded would be similar for case 1 and 2, and better instructions on exactly what is expected!» (To a rather large extent)
- We did not use the course litterature as much for this one. But still it was good.» (To a rather large extent)

11. How much have the guest lectures helped your learning?*

Very little»		7		17%
Rather Little»		11		26%
To a raher large extent»		16		39%
To a large extent»		7		17%

Genomsnitt: 2.56

- The only one that was interesting was the old man from Volvo who acctualy had good slides and someting to say. Why the otehrs were there is a mystery to me. they were untrepared and had no real theme for theire lectures. » (Very little)
- Lacked connection to the theory.» (Very little)
- n/a» (Very little)
- They are always interesting but I don´,t think they help a lot. But I would still keep them because like I said they are interesting and could be helping without me knowing it.» (Rather Little)
- Some of the guest lecturers felt a little to "bland".» (Rather Little)
- One where really good but in general I don"t think that "industry involvement" is having guest lecturers. What is industry involvement then? Well, it is like we did in the SCM-course and had Accenture construct two cases for us... Guest lecturers tend to all be the same (but yes, some where very good, like Stena Line) and we already had a lot of these...» (Rather Little)
- The lectures were great! Together they gave a broad and still detailed picture of what we were studying.» (To a raher large extent)
- The lecturers were interesting to listen and gave better overview of management of physical products. Though connection to courses approach through micro economy was little and thus little connection of course material and lecturers could be made. » (To a raher large extent)
- I always think it nice to hear real examples. But as always many put quite alot focus on presenting the company...» (To a raher large extent)
- Very good guest lectures! Especially the guys from DHL and Stena Line.» (To a large extent)
- The guy from StenaLine was really good!» (To a large extent)

12. How much the calculation exercises have helped your learning?*

Very little»		8		19%
Rather Little»		7		17%
To a raher large extent»		17		41%
To a large extent»		9		21%

Genomsnitt: 2.65

- I am already familiar with the equation of the straight line. The excercises were very basic.» (Very little)
- Could not attend them.» (Very little)
- It would be better if there where smaller groups. » (Rather Little)
- Even if the calculations are simple it became more clear what the theory can be uesd for.» (To a raher large extent)
- it was 10p on the exam and good tp know. having a person doing the calculations on the black board is not a good way of learning. maby you could do one example on the blackbord and then we could clculate on our own for an houer with someone there thath could help if we got stuck and then just go through the right aswers in the end. On the exam there was one calculation exersice that wa had not gone throug. that is really bad!» (To a raher large extent)
- Of course calculations help you understand the subject a lot better, but they were really easy. Then there could have been calculation that helped you at the exam, there was a question about inventory turnover that we hadn´,t gotten into in the exercise calculation. I know they were in the slides but considering how many exercises we did calculate of the same on it would have been good to have calculated that one.» (To a raher large extent)
- Calculation could be a bit more advanced. But they are a really examples and they really help to understand the different concepts.» (To a raher large extent)
- They helped, but the excercises were at high school level, not master"s degree at a technical university. I hope students from other universities don"t think this is the level of maths at Chalmers.» (To a raher large extent)
- I think these were good to get an understanding for all the graphs in the course.» (To a raher large extent)
- A calculation exercise in allocating goods between the different parts of the supply chain would have been great!» (To a large extent)
- Very good to help dealing with, and understanding, the graphs.» (To a large extent)
- Very good. Though they did not go through the calculations of Total inventory which was a question on the exam, why??» (To a large extent)

13. How was the course administration, course homepage and the handed out material ?*

Very bad»		1		2%
Rather bad»		2		4%
Rather good»		21		51%
Very good»		17		41%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- The case descriptions, and what was expected of us, was far from clear. Need to be clearer whats expected and what will be graded. For example, the point distribution of case II was only given to us druign the presentation of the case.» (Very bad)
- As said, the amount of mistakes could be cut!» (Rather good)
- Very good commitment from the supervisors, which was encouraging and facilitated the studing to a large extent.» (Very good)
- Really nice that we got the book for free, much appreciated.» (Very good)

Study environment

14. How were opportunities to ask questions and to get help from the teachers of the course?*

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		5		12%
Rather good»		20		48%
Very good»		16		39%

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- The only time I had to email questions I had to e-mail to 3 people to finally get the answer! And when I asked for help in the case II I didn´,t get to much that got us going, had to talk to another lecture (that wasn´,t in charge of case II) to get us going.» (Rather bad)
- Fast answers to e-mails.» (Very good)
- It was great that we were able to ask questions via mail. Maybe next year the questions and answeres could be posted(anonumously) on the student portal, so that you can check if your question is already answered before emailing. » (Very good)
- It was very easy to get in contact with the teachers. Very much appreciated the immediate response.» (Very good)
- Really quick response on email (especially Joakim). Appreciated!» (Very good)
- I think Vahid and Joakim were really good at answearing questions and taking time for case-meetings. But I felt that Kent almost avoided the questions he recieved on the lectures.» (Very good)

15. How was collaboration between you and the other students in the course?*

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		3		7%
Rather good»		8		19%
Very good»		30		73%

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- Did not collaborate.» (Rather bad)
- It helped a lot to discuss different things with others.» (Very good)
- As always, the Chalmers spirit works well...» (Very good)

Lecturers and the examiner

16. How is your total assessment about the amount of effort Professor Kent Lumsden put on the course?*

Very bad»		3		7%
Rather bad»		5		12%
Rather good»		25		60%
Very good»		8		19%

Genomsnitt: 2.92

- It is in general difficult to understand what we are suppose to learn when attending the lectures and reading the book. However, some lectures with Kent were very good.» (Rather bad)
- A great professor, and down to earth, but to see all his pictures/graphs (from the book) on the slides during the lessons, made me loose the interest and respect for him. He may be great in explaining everything with maths, but it would be much more interesting with a better book and interactive learning. Maybe games, seminars etcetera...» (Rather bad)
- He is fun and a good lecturer» (Rather good)
- Sometimes it is difficult to get clear answers to questions. » (Rather good)
- Kenth is a very nice person with a lot of knowledge. He´,s very funny as well!» (Very good)
- Kent was great! He put a lot of effort in trying to make us understand the concepts in the leactures, and he did a great job with a lot of examples from real life.» (Very good)

17. How is your total assessment about the amount of effort Vahid Mirzabeiki put on the course?*

Very bad»		1		2%
Rather bad»		7		17%
Rather good»		25		60%
Very good»		8		19%

Genomsnitt: 2.97

- Wasn´,t happy that I needed to e-mail Kent for him to answer my questions. And the answers weren´,t that helpful even though they helped to some extent.» (Rather bad)
- Suggestion for improvement, be clear from the beginning on how the points are distributed on case 2. But otherwise good job!» (Rather good)
- Excellent that we were able to ask many questions, both concerning the case and the exam. It would have been good to know about the allocation of points in the cases beforehand, i.e. that 1/3 of the points constituted the presentation and opponement.» (Very good)
- Academic straight forward in a professional manner!» (Very good)

18. How is your total assessment about the amount of effort Joakim Kalantari put on the course?*

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		3		7%
Rather good»		22		53%
Very good»		16		39%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- He put a large amount of effort into the case but didn"t necessarily provide the right type of help.» (Rather good)
- Excellent that we were able to ask many questions, both concerning the case and the exam. » (Very good)
- He had a good calculation exercises and was helpful with the cases.» (Very good)
- Very helpful and answers e-mails quick.» (Very good)
- I felt that Joakim was really investing his time and put a lot of effort in helping us and used good examples.» (Very good)

19. How much is your total assenssment about the amount of effort that Gunnar Stefansson put on the course?

36 svarande

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		6		16%
Rather good»		20		55%
Very good»		10		27%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- Dont know!» (?)
- n/a» (?)
- I dont really know why we had it. » (Rather bad)
- I did not see the connection between economies of transport and SCOR...» (Rather bad)
- Hard to follow, but thats probablly my own fault» (Rather good)
- good, but too little to understand SCOR» (Rather good)
- It is nice with real cases but this was not done very well, the case was good but the "administration" did not work well. There must be a greater work to integrate this with the rest of the course» (Rather good)
- This was by far the best part of the course.» (Very good)
- Interesting to learn about SCOR but I don"t see the relevance and connection to this course.» (Very good)
- Great lecturer» (Very good)

20. How much is your total assenssment about the amount of effort that Kjell-Åke Hvittfeldt put on the course?

34 svarande

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		1		2%
Rather good»		22		64%
Very good»		11		32%

Genomsnitt: 3.29

- Unfortunately I couldn´,t attend this class.» (?)
- Could unfortunately not attend.» (?)
- n/a» (?)
- The content did not provide any further understanding of the course content. This holds for more or less all the guest lectures. Too much irrelevant company information that lacks connection to the theory.» (Rather bad)
- Very good lecture!» (Very good)

21. How much is your total assenssment about the amount of effort that Carl-Johan Westas put on the course?

35 svarande

Very bad»		1		2%
Rather bad»		3		8%
Rather good»		25		71%
Very good»		6		17%

Genomsnitt: 3.02

- did not attend» (?)
- n/a» (?)
- Boring slides... Could be much more interesting and passioned about this future work of ours.» (Rather bad)
- Very good lecture!» (Very good)

22. How much is your total assenssment about the amount of effort that Niclas Gemfeldt put on the course?

37 svarande

Very bad»		3		8%
Rather bad»		9		24%
Rather good»		24		64%
Very good»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- did not attend» (?)
- Hopefully this is the same person i think of....i was really dissappointed, i had looked forward to listen to someone from IKEA, a company which i think is very interesting, but since ikea sent a person whos english is as bad as i dont know what, and whos lecture is boring, i just get the impression that ikea doesn"t care so much about this lecture. » (Very bad)
- Very interesting topic but the presentation/lecture were very poor.» (Rather bad)
- Interesting to get an insight, and they are for sure cost efficient, but the lecture was too much IKEA-spirit. IKEA is good in what they do, but after the TV-documentary about Ingvar Kamprad, and the IKEA-top, they lost a lot of my interest.» (Rather bad)

23. How much is your total assenssment about the amount of effort that Cleas Berglund put on the course?

33 svarande

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		1		3%
Rather good»		17		51%
Very good»		15		45%

Genomsnitt: 3.42

- Could unfortunately not attend.» (?)
- n/a» (?)
- Fun and interesting lecture» (Rather good)
- Very good lecture!» (Very good)

Concluding questions

24. What is your total assessment of the course?*

Very bad»		5		12%
Rather bad»		9		21%
Rather good»		22		53%
Very good»		5		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.65

- Probably the worst course I have attended at Chalmers, rather boring and not useful at all» (Very bad)
- Why is this an obligatory course??? » (Very bad)
- Too much Kenth Lumsdens own perspective (way of thinking) and his effort to put everything in math-variables. Bad book, really bad with Swe/Eng name on variables combined!! So many chapters, so many perspectives on the subject, but still so hard to follow in a good way. A red thread would be highly recommended! Maybe a good framework to base the course on, like in the SCM- or Manufacturing Planning and Control-course.» (Very bad)
- I think this course could be so much better, this is an interesting subject so it would be possible to do so much more with it. The book is really bad mostly because it is really hard to read it. » (Rather bad)
- The main thing is that I did not like Kents lectures and the reading material. Its almost that I did not trust that the book was telling me the right things because some of the reasonings did not hold. To next year I would suggest: 1. new course litterature 2. A better integration of the logistics concepts - did not really feel connected to the rest of the course 3. Pimp Kents slides, I always try to read the slides on forehand, this would be easier if the slide had a heading describing the content of the page and some small descriptive notes. 4. remove the SCOR lecture 5. add an allocation exercise to the 7 examples and an ambulance problem maybe 6. the port slides (single, several, feeder, loop), this was in Dans course so I dont see a reason to have this again.» (Rather bad)
- Book to hard to understand» (Rather bad)
- Too little to do.» (Rather good)
- it is an interesting subject. » (Rather good)
- I would like to have something written about the logistical concepts otherwise, good course!» (Very good)
- Great course! Very good to explain the concepts with basic models, so it is easy to understand them. » (Very good)

25. Do you recommend the course to the students of the next year? If NO, please motivete your answer*

Yes»		24		58%
No»		17		41%

Genomsnitt: 1.41

- just becouse the subject is interesting and the workload is not so big. » (Yes)
- Because it is an interesting subject and can be really good to know, but I would also say NO cause it could be so much better» (Yes)
- It is a mandatory course» (Yes)
- Too similar to freight transportation» (No)
- Should be merged with Freight transport systems, and only focus on vital parts. Would be far more useful with a course in procurement or supplier relationship. » (No)
- No clear line - course does not even follow the syllabus. It was my first course during my period at CTH where I felt that i did not learn a thing.» (No)
- I like the subject as such, but feel that the Freight transport systems course and this course could be combined into one 7.5 hp course where only the essence of the two courses is taught. This course had a too low work load and the Freight transport systems course contained too much non-useful information.» (No)
- The course needs to be developed further and be made more clear. Right now it feels like it"s too close to Freight Transportation but more theoretical. Practical applications of the course would be much appreciated.» (No)
- You will learn very little useful things especially if you take the SCM master. » (No)
- I still do not understand what I was supposed to learn and bring with me. I really do not see the need of having one Freight Transport Systems course and this course» (No)
- I would actually be neutral. The learning, and objectives are very interesting, but lectures and literature material are unclear which make difficult to reach the objectives» (No)
- I am not going to tell people that they should not read this course, but I will neither recommend it. The reason is that I think the course was a little bit too easy. I could have figured out most of the learning by myself and the level of the exercises were really too low. The cases were good for deeper learning of one topic, especially case II, but since we wasted a lot of time by discussing what we were supposed to do they could even given me more if it would have been more clearly instructions.» (No)
- As I am representative of other program, I would not recommend the students of my program to take this course, as it will not give additional value to the studies. As to the Value Chain Management program students, this course may be of some value» (No)
- Mostly because the book is horrible, it"s hard to understand the language in it, a lot of errors and stuff. Could be very interesting if the book would be better!» (No)
- Not now. I hope it get better though, by totally changing the pedagogic part of the lectures.» (No)
- I dont think it"s good enough compared with other electives, and its a bit too alike Dans course.» (No)
- The book is not appropriate» (No)
- The content of the course does not go deep enough into the different parts, microeconomics, flow netwroeks etc. The case studies were very broad and ill-defined. » (No)
- Better then the FTS course (which doesn"t deserve to exist, only general knowledge) but not much, needs many improvements... An idea from my side is to merge this with the FTS and call it a transport course and try to dig deep on the transports and still cover the economy side (Kajsa did put up a panamax and none did know this on the CR course, not good!). But you must change the cases, construct a case with transport economy problems to solve and it would be much better! Also the last part of the course (logistic concept) was very badly covered (Lumsden don"t agree I would guess but that is what every student says). Where was the course material on logistic concept? None... Real industrial involvement (not guest lectures) but like a case from a company would have been a good investment...» (No)

26. Any comments?*

Yes»		10		24%
No»		31		75%

Genomsnitt: 1.75

- The compendium needs to be revised. There are several swedish in the förkortningarna on the digram etc. It"s confusing» (Yes)
- The topic is important but the course must be much more tied to practical usability or at least improve the socio-economic view. Furthermore the book is not good at all, the language is at the level of compulsory school students, the actual information could be condensed to a chapter in a book and some more structure is needed. » (Yes)
- you have to change/inhance the book. also you can not include information on the exam from lectures that are not mandatory. this could be an interesing subject. » (Yes)
- Kenth Lumsden rules!» (Yes)
- The text book needs to be reviewed, a lot of printing errors exist which makes it unnecessarily more difficult to understand the content. » (Yes)
- This course should be gathered with freight transport as they have many things in common» (Yes)
- The instructions of the cases could have been much clearly written. Good with a lot of guest lectures with different views. » (Yes)
- The exam was not that good. Old exam questions, and it didn"t test our skills in conceptual/analytical or structural thinking in advanced way.» (Yes)
- The cases distribution of points wasn"t clear from the beginning and should have been so. For example that in Case 2 a speciel amount of points wasn"t for the case but presentation and opposition. There was also different ideas from the tutors about how to write references that was not the same as the guidelines presented by Chalmers University. Since this is a course within Chalmers it should be streamlined.» (Yes)
- Listen to the students, change the course!» (Yes)
- Think I have said all I wanted to say above. Mostly I think the book needs to be better translated, that is the biggest problem with the course. But it is an interesting course and I learned a lot but I know I could have gotten more from it.» (No)

* obligatoriska frågor