ENKÄTER
 

Utvärderingar

Aktuella utvärderingar
Administrera
Hjälpsida

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.

Management of open innovation and network-based markets (ICM Chalmers), TEK305

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2011-09-28 - 2011-10-05
Antal svar: 5
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 27%
Kontaktperson: Anna Tullsten»

Overall impression

Content

1. What was your overall sense of the content of the course?

Was the level of difficulty appropriate for your learning process? Has the course contributed to your concrete understanding and application of open innovation?
- Did the lectures cover the content appropriately?
- Did the assignments convey the content in a relevant way?
- Did the literature list facilitate your learning experience and was it aligned with the lectures and assignments?

- Not many lectures, the ones we had were food. too much reading, too little creation.»
- I think that the level of difficulty was quiet ok, but hard to assess since we do not have any grading»
- the lectures covered the content appropriately assignemns were also appropriate»
- I have the feeling that the lectures was more directed towards Open source and standardization. Not so much on open innovation»
- I was disappointed with the course in many ways. There were not enough lectures to cover the content. 10 hours of lectures (+ intro & presentations) is way to little for a course of 7.5 hp. This could have been less of a problem if we would have gotten feed-back on our assignments, as this would help the learning process. However, the course is now over and we still haven"t received any kind of feed-back on any of the assignments. How are we supposed to know if we are focusing on the right things/learning what we are supposed to learn without feedback and lectures?»

Work distribution

2. How well were the work processes distributed over the course?

This is the second year we’,ve run the open innovation lab in parallel with the pre-Applied ICM project evaluation process. We’,ve tried to streamline and standardize the evaluation process, and reduced some of the workload in the open innovation lab sections. Would you have preferred to have worked in different ways?

- Good»
- Workload was completely fine, although the reading material was a bit too much it is impossible to read all the given material »
- The workload was quite OK, however I personnaly invested much more time in theoretical part of the course and did not use much time for actual project evaluation, So i think that it would be good if in the future that the workload for the two parts of the course (theoretical + project assessment) should be incoporated and there is only one schedule.»
- I think that the workload has been quite low since there has not been that many lectures»
- Having the two courses together was OK. The last week was significantly tougher than the ones before.»

Administrative structures

3. How well did the communication and administration of the course work?

Please explain if relevant whether you are describing communication and administration of the project evaluation, or the open innovation lab.

- Schedule in PDF is so 2002.»
- The communication was working very well from Project evaluation consultations where also provided»
- I did not notice, so I think it worked OK. absolutely no complaints.»
- There has not been any feedback from the assignments that we have done which makes it hard to learn from misstakes»
- Communication was OK, new Moodle platform was working well. However, some bad (and rather rude) communication about the first lecture at Sahlgrenska. After one year at ICM we are getting pretty used to lectures changing...»

Other

4. Other input on the overall course, as well as overall changes you would suggest for the future development of the Open Innovation Lab.

- Give as feedback on assignments as soon as possible!!! That is the only way we can assess our performance and improve ourselves for the future assignment. I think this is a very serious issue you necessary need to work on»
- I liked the idea of seoarate part on projects evaluation and I feel it should be inmproved in terms of administration (single schedule, tasks are not overlapping) The thing I feel should be significantly improved is the feedback. It is the last week of the course and there is no feedback for the first assignment yet. As a result you don"t know whether you are on the right track or not and what to improve. I don,t like the situation when the feedback comes post factum.»
- Slightly more lectures and cases like assignment 4b instead of having assignments where the task is to review the litterature »
- Either more lectures or quicker feed-back on assignments (preferably both).»

Specific modules

For 2011, the September period was divided into two parallel layers –,, the project evaluation process and the thematic open innovation lab. This is the second time we try this structure, which we’,,ve refined from last year, and we would therefore appreciate your input on how well you think this approach facilitated your learning processes, how well managed it was, and what changes you would suggest for the further development of the lab.

5. Project evaluation process

The project evaluation process was intended to allow you to apply real, practical skills to innovation and group work, to get a head start on the project pipeline, and to lay a foundation for the practical work you will continue in Applied ICM.

- Didn"t work out that good administratively. »
- Really interesting work, I liked it»
- see above»
- I think that this part has been good, especially after we got the scorecard. However there is some redundancy in the scorecard that leaves room for improvement»
- A bit hard to understand exactly what we should do.»

6. Open Innovation Lab

The open innovation lab, while somewhat revised from previous years, was built on three major themes relating to and explaining open innovation: building the Open Society on private and public structures for sharing information and building the public domain, creating and managing Open Platforms for joint development and market design, and Open Science for fostering innovation and utilization of research results in the public-private interface. It was then concluded with a license-focused exercise.

- ok»
- Good»
- see above»
- Many parts have felt like repetition from last semester and I think there has been to much focus on standardization.»
- Very interesting subject»

7. Open Innovation Lab

The open innovation lab, while somewhat revised from previous years, was built on three major themes relating to and explaining open innovation: building the Open Society on private and public structures for sharing information and building the public domain, creating and managing Open Platforms for joint development and market design, and Open Science for fostering innovation and utilization of research results in the public-private interface. It was then concluded with a license-focused exercise.

- Good»
- Same question as the one above...»

Specific lectures

It is also useful for us if you can provide feedback on specific lectures, whether in terms of content, administration or other aspects. This helps us learn which lectures to include, which lecture formats are most appreciated, and allows us to communicate results to out external lecturers, who are almost always interested in hearing how their lecture went. Try to comment on as many lectures as you can, note that project evaluation lectures are not included in this evaluation.

8. Introduction to the September period

02/09, 10-12 Henrik Rosén, Andrew Telles

- Quiet interesting»
- the best lecture in my life»
- N/A»
- Good to get a clear introduction!»

9. Open IT society

09/09, 10-12 Jan Ljungqvist (IT University)

- Interesting»
- lack of practical applications»
- N/A»

10. Patent transactions and market design

14/09, 12-15 Anders Arvidsson (Zacco)

- Good and practical information»
- Excellent lecture / really practical»
- N/A»

11. Introduction to standards

15/09, 10-12 Henrik Rosén (CIP Professional Services)

- good»
- Interesting more examples»
- good and comprehensive lecture, all the questions answered»
- N/A»

12. Open innovation in the intersection of industry and university

19/09, 10-12 Ulf Petrusson (Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship)

- as always good. should not use ppt though.»
- Very interesting and visionary»
- Good»
- Good framework to use for the assignment! (I think, haven"t got the grade yet...)»

13. Open source software

23/09 10-12 Kristoffer Schollin

- Who was this guy, he didn"t present himself. good content.»
- Good discussion»
- The name of the lecture does not correspond to its contents.»
- Good, nice with a lot of discussion»

General input

14. Any other input or suggestions that you have in relation to the course:

- I will tell again that we need more frequent feedback on our performance in assignments and other activities. This is crucial for us and for the education»

Kursutvärderingssystem från