Visa resultat

Production System PPU160, PPU160

Your own effort

1. Approximately how many hours per week did you work with the course?

33 svarande

At most 10 hours»		2		6%
About 15 hours»		15		45%
About 20 hours»		9		27%
About 25 hours»		3		9%
About 30 hours»		2		6%
At least 35 hours»		2		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.81

- Lectures + assignments + reading the book + a lot more few weeks prior to the exam week.» (About 15 hours)
- No working at home - only group assignments» (About 15 hours)
- Mostly is for the hand-in.» (About 25 hours)

2. How much of the teaching offered did you attend?

33 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		1		3%
50%»		1		3%
75%»		12		36%
100%»		19		57%

Genomsnitt: 4.48

- Was one lecture I couldn"t attend due to sickness» (100%)
- Even though some of the lectures were bad. Extremely bad. Sometimes one could wonder if the lecturer did no what he was talking about?» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

3. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		0		0%
The goals are difficult to understand»		3		9%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		18		54%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		12		36%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- The goals are very general and it is hard to see excactly what you are supposed to learn, which makes the approach very wide» (The goals are difficult to understand)
- Goals became more understandable when actually reading/listening to the topics. Goal "Analyze how product, ... interact to influence..." is very generalistic and could mean everything, somewhat summarizing all the course, but in a vague way.» (The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn)

4. Are the course goals reasonable considering the number of credits?

yes, I think so»		28		87%
hesitant»		3		9%
no»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 1.15

- I dont know» (?)
- Since it is a introduction course it should not be to detailed about the different topics.» (yes, I think so)

5. Did the examination (assignments + written exam) assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		3		9%
To some extent»		12		36%
Yes, definitely»		17		51%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.48

- The course is at many points of no use as it doesnt really gives any useful knowledge, just "this is what you can possibly learn in other courses". One really bad thing about that is the name of the course, as a graduate from the program Production Engineering no one want to have a low grade from the course Production Systems. The name of the course should be "INTRODUCTION TO..." As it is not a course in production systems. » (No, not at all)
- See above comments, it was hard to relate examquestions to goals and vice versa» (To some extent)
- » (To some extent)
- Especially the exam reflected the course content in a good way.» (Yes, definitely)
- I liked the exam in the sense that you didn"t have to memorize anything. Instead the exam seemed to test the level of understadning of the subject quite well.» (Yes, definitely)
- But was it necessary to have that huge exam? Is an exam necessary at all in this course due to all different hand ins?» (Yes, definitely)

Teaching and course administration

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

Small extent»		2		6%
Some extent»		19		57%
Large extent»		8		24%
Great extent»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- Not much learning at all.» (Some extent)
- I learned much from company visit and the first three assignments. Lectures did not give me so much because most of them were unstructured. » (Some extent)
- Many of the lectures left me with more questions than answers. Also the objectives of the assignments were not that well explained.» (Some extent)
- Most important for learning was reading through the slides, second the information in the book. Teaching itself was least important, only some additional information. It wouldn"t have been necessary to attend all the lectures to reach the learning outcome. Lectures partly also confusing and fast.» (Some extent)
- Always good to get the powerpoint. The performance during the lectures though, could be better I think...» (Some extent)
- Some lecturers better than others. Some things recurred in many lectures, which is good for repetition, but sometimes it felt like the lecturers didn"t really know what earlier lecturers had talked about.» (Large extent)
- Looking at the slides before reading the E-book did the trick basicly. So the lectures was really good.» (Great extent)

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

Small extent»		7		21%
Some extent»		12		36%
Large extent»		10		30%
Great extent»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- Course bok were not so good, hard to understand» (Small extent)
- The book was not good at all and i really cant understand who or why it was written. The doesnt really mention any theori, just that there is theori by others, and their names. haha...» (Small extent)
- Svävar på ämnet, går aldrig rakt på sak Vissa kapitel försår man inte vad författaren vill få fram.» (Small extent)
- Very few reading instructions considering that one of the guest-lecturers was the author. Did not get the feeling that I needed to read more than I did though.» (Small extent)
- The PPslides gave some guidence for the learning goals specified in every slide, but still hard to see what was especially important for the exam.» (Some extent)
- The book was filled with very useful and valuable information, but it was very heavy and hard to read. The book seemed to be a very good handbook for a production manager of a company, but for students with little to no actual experience from production/industry it might be too heavy reading. Still, many things were made clearer in the book, it just was overly laborious to extract that information.» (Some extent)
- It"s a lot of information to read. It"s good when trying to learn by labs etc instead.» (Some extent)
- I liked the book. Easy reading and understanding.» (Large extent)
- Learning mostly focused on slides, only some further background by the book.» (Great extent)

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

Poor»		2		6%
Fair»		1		3%
Acceptable»		10		30%
Good»		15		45%
Excellent»		5		15%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Tycker det var dåligt att ena kursen använda studentportalen och andra pingpong. » (Acceptable)
- I know it is not this course "fault" but I think it is unnecessarily confusing that teachers use Pingpong OR the student portal.. You should decide on one to use. (I prefer pingpong of the two) » (Good)
- Ping Pong a good way for exchange.» (Excellent)

Exercises

9. How would you grade the factory visit?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		2		6%
Acceptable»		2		6%
Good»		14		42%
Excellent»		15		45%

Genomsnitt: 4.27

- Maybe one more lecture before so you have a bettet understanding what to look for» (Acceptable)
- Personen som visade oss runt och besvarade våra frågor hade inte riktigt koll på området vi skulle fråga om. Vore nog mer intressant om vi fick träffa en ingenjör i arbetet.» (Acceptable)
- It was fun» (Good)
- It was in the second week so I had no good idea of the purpose of the visit. We heard KPI"s in a lecture but I think we could have got some more examples or preparations to really know what to look for.» (Good)
- The factory visit was great, » (Good)
- The visit could have been done lately, when we already had some knowledge about production systems so we would pay more attention to those details during the same.» (Good)
- I would prefer doing the visits not in the first week. Maybe 2-3 weeks later.» (Good)
- The opportunity to go out to factories like this was great and should be a part of this course. Good inspiration, gives motivations and good practice with presentation.» (Excellent)
- Extremely valueable for the whole course understanding» (Excellent)
- I learned so much from the factory visit and it was very good that it was in the beginning of the course. I understood better how a production system is built.» (Excellent)
- Väldigt bra upplägg med besöket i början av kursen.» (Excellent)
- One of the best parts of the course, very interesting. But could be a little bit later, with more background input.» (Excellent)
- The factory experience was excellent, though the goals of the A3 assignement should have been better stated. The limitations felt a bit unclear. It was hard to know if we should focus on flexibility or low cost when designing a solution. I think this part needed a better problem formulation in order for us to have a more realistic approach to the assignement.» (Excellent)
- Even though it maybe could has been improved by in advance telling the guy we met what the students were supposed to do during the visit.» (Excellent)

10. How would you grade the automation exercise?

Poor»		1		3%
Fair»		4		12%
Acceptable»		12		36%
Good»		13		39%
Excellent»		3		9%

Genomsnitt: 3.39

- no clear feedback, » (Poor)
- Clearer instructions are needed. And I dont think anyone was prepared to do a presentation instead of having a seminar (even though it was called a seminar). I suggest that you do smaller groups (for example one member from each group) and have a discussion so that it becomes a real seminar.» (Acceptable)
- The instructions were not that good and it was only after studying for the exam that I fully understood what we had done.» (Acceptable)
- Something more technological could have been chosen for the exercise instead of the bookshelf.» (Acceptable)
- Was OK, but somewhat confusing. Tasks were not totally clear, especially HTA. More input and EXAMPLES before excersize would simplify understanding a lot and save time that is lost for doing things wrong.» (Acceptable)
- But it was hard to see the what the analysis was going to be about. Maybe it had been better to give an explination in the beginning of what the exercise was going to result in.» (Acceptable)
- Bättre introduktionsanvisningar» (Good)
- Different presentation style. More like a seminar you walk the presentation and discuss with each other instead of hearing 12 similar presentations» (Good)
- Nice exercise. Maybe a bit more information about how to do the HTA.» (Good)

11. How would you grade the Line balancing exercise?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		5		15%
Acceptable»		8		24%
Good»		16		48%
Excellent»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- expected more Lab time + supervisor to learn the software in some extend get an result example from supervisor could be good to compare and get more understanding » (Fair)
- Rörigt..» (Fair)
- I felt more time was spent on fighting with the program than learning about line balancing.» (Acceptable)
- The exercise was ok, but the lecture connected to this? Why telling students to start balancing the line before telling us how to do? However, it was good to do a balancing exercise to hand in.» (Acceptable)
- Introduction not good enough. Good to work with Avix.» (Acceptable)
- Gave us a good understanding about what line balancing is and how to do it.» (Good)
- Instructions were good to follow step-by-step.» (Good)

12. How would you grade the DES exercise?

Poor»		2		6%
Fair»		3		9%
Acceptable»		5		15%
Good»		18		54%
Excellent»		5		15%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- very low guidence in class and in PM.» (Poor)
- Given information about the task and the manual were very poor. I didn"t understand what they wanted us to do. Very unclear PM.» (Poor)
- A bit to simple» (Acceptable)
- Bättre introduktionsanvisningar, som ges på plats i datasalen» (Acceptable)
- Good to be able to use a new software, but it was a little random and try and error analyzis of the way to improve the line. More guidance should have been provided.» (Acceptable)
- too much Lab Time, » (Acceptable)
- We should have used autostat so that we got statistically correct results. Now a change meant to do no difference on the amount of output could look like it did a significant difference.» (Good)
- After understanding how the program worked, the great potential of DES was made very clear.» (Good)
- VERY interesting, experimenting with all the scenarios and watching/analyzing the situation. Unfortunately some parts were not clear, both task (point out that not every investment has to be checked, just follow TOC, give a hint for changing buffers and batch size) and program. Even mistakes in program code (comments), for example units (seconds/hours etc.). Corrected during the exersize, but should be checked before next time. Task gets more time efficient with deeper knowledge of the program, that was only shared on request (e.g. multiple runs with automatically changing variables). Some mor tips for the program would help a lot.» (Good)
- Nice! But what about WIP?» (Good)

13. How would you grade the LCA exercise?

Poor»		7		21%
Fair»		5		15%
Acceptable»		8		24%
Good»		9		27%
Excellent»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- IT was really bad, the PM was not very well prepared, and it was boring and just not of interest» (Poor)
- This exercise did not give me anything at all but took my time. Counting with all those small numbers hasn"t given me a better view of LCA.» (Poor)
- The instructions must be improved! It wasn"t possible to understand anything at all... Has anyone proofread this exercise? Was it possible for you to identify what to do? What was the meaning of the exercise? Sitting down "calculating"?» (Poor)
- Introduction about the task absolutely not clear enough!! Information should be better prepared before. We wasted a lot of time with too much unnecessary literature scanning. » (Poor)
- Instructions was very bad. It was not clear enough that calculating GWP and AP was the main task of the assignment. We thought it was just a sub-task. It felt like I was only looking for some random values in different databases. At one point we even found three different numbers of the same type of emission. The A3-report format was not suitable for this exercise. It took much too long time to fit the answers to this format. I can summarize my used time for this exercise like this: 50% of the time was spent to actually understand what to do. 25% of the time was spent finding numbers and to calculate. 25% of the time was spent to fit everything into an A3-page.» (Fair)
- More introduction about how to make the exercises maybe. i.e. Little more help.» (Fair)
- It was ok to look into the matter, but very confusing and annoying. A lot of time just for collecting and writing down data, no learning effect there. We didn"t always know what to do, transport was confusing for example. Very easy to make mistakes, too, because of so many numbers and units.» (Fair)
- Somewhat confusing. I can"t blame the exercise in it"s own for this. Maybe I wasn"t prepared for such a calculation or the information before the exercise lacked. I do think there is a need for one of these exercises but maybe more explaining before it.» (Acceptable)
- Bättre introduktionsanvisningar, som ges på plats i datasalen» (Acceptable)
- The assignement was good and quite easy when you knew what to do. The problem was that you didn"t know how to find the sources and the questions in the A3 rapport were difficult to understand. The teacher was of great help but I think a better guide is needed.» (Acceptable)
- Allowed us to have an idea about LCA and emissions during the whole phases of production of a real product.» (Good)

14. How would you grade the supervision during the exercises?

Poor»		2		6%
Fair»		6		18%
Acceptable»		3		9%
Good»		18		54%
Excellent»		4		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- Too few teachers, to poor guidence/knowledge» (Poor)
- Tycker den kunde vara bättre. När man fråga om hjälp fick man vissa riktlinjer men det blev att man var tvungen att lägga väldigt mycket tid åt hitta rätt.» (Fair)
- Long time to get help and no list so people got help in "the right order".» (Fair)
- De senare övningana var röriga. Har dock överseende i och med att Jon var ny i rollen.» (Acceptable)
- Jon had the whole exercises with the computer by himself almost all the time which could be improved, all got their questions answered but could take alot of time.» (Good)
- Always available to clarify our doubts.» (Good)
- Questions were answered the way it really helped to go on. special requests were also possible, e.g. in DES exercise (advanced program functions).» (Good)
- I like all of the exercises.» (Excellent)

Study Climate

15. How was the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Poor»		2		6%
Fair»		2		6%
Adequate»		5		15%
Good»		19		57%
Excellent»		5		15%

Genomsnitt: 3.69

- Always possible!» (Good)

16. How has the cooperation been, between you and the other students?

Very bad»		1		3%
Rather bad»		1		3%
Rather good»		9		27%
Very good»		22		66%
I have not tried to cooperate»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.57 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- All the necessary communication was handled without problems. But being an exchange student I didn"t really mix that much with the locals.» (Rather good)
- Very good teamwork and atmosphere.» (Very good)

17. How was the total workload during the entire study period

Too low»		2		6%
Low»		11		34%
High»		19		59%
Too high»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- I do not complain for a course where the load is lower for once, but without clear goals and something too work with like studyquestions you get confused and stressed over the low load.» (Too low)
- As an introduction course this fits really well with repsect to the workload for me. Maybe it was cause of good cooperation it went as good as it did. But I wouldnt try to higher up the load cause with the other course Manufacturing processes it is enough.» (Low)
- It could be higher, at no doubt, but it has to be a purpose with it. Like a question a week to solve that is not mandatory.» (Low)
- I would say average» (Low)
- Answer should be: appropriate. Some hours every week for group assignments, but no home reading, very acceptable. compared to other courses less constant workload.» (Low)
- If you actually read what you were supposed to read, then I think the credits match the workload.» (High)

18. How do you evaluate the workload of labs for this course?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		3%
Adequate»		16		48%
High»		15		45%
Too high»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 3.48

- see above question» (Adequate)
- Too many exercises even if they were not so difficult, they took much time.» (High)
- The LCA-assignment was the one taking most of the time, the other assignments did not take to much time.» (High)
- at least at the end of the course.» (High)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.57

Course Team

19. Johan Stahre

30 svarande

Excellent»		5		16%
Very Good»		9		30%
Good»		13		43%
Poor»		3		10%
Very Poor»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.46

- Professional!» (Excellent)
- I didn"t see Johan that many times. » (Good)
- Was able to communicate contents and answering to question, but a little bit too "calm" and monotonous.» (Good)

20. Peter Almström

29 svarande

Excellent»		4		13%
Very Good»		8		27%
Good»		14		48%
Poor»		3		10%
Very Poor»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.55

- Don"t really remember...» (Good)
- unplanned» (Poor)
- He talked too quiet! It was really difficult to understand him acoustically.» (Poor)

21. Tommy Fässberg

30 svarande

Excellent»		4		13%
Very Good»		9		30%
Good»		14		46%
Poor»		3		10%
Very Poor»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.53

- borde prata mer och gå djupare i ämnet då han blir klar snabbt.» (Excellent)
- He really cares! Even though the lectures are possible to make even more interesting?» (Excellent)
- Ät inte under föreläsningarna! Annars väldigt bra.» (Very Good)
- pleasant to listen to. good lecture. sometimes more details and structure possible anyway.» (Very Good)
- excellent as a responsible person of course very good help and participation on Lab good lecturer» (Very Good)
- It is not encouraging when the lecturer tells the class how boring it is to have the lecture.» (Poor)

22. Åsa Fasth

25 svarande

Excellent»		2		8%
Very Good»		6		24%
Good»		11		44%
Poor»		6		24%
Very Poor»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.84

- Ok, but not clear all the time. more explanations could help.» (Good)
- Talked quietly, nervously» (Poor)

23. Peter Domini

29 svarande

Excellent»		7		24%
Very Good»		4		13%
Good»		18		62%
Poor»		0		0%
Very Poor»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.37

- » (Excellent)
- Best lecture I"ve ever heard! Very interesting and perfectly communicated. Brilliant!» (Excellent)
- One of the best lectures I"ve ever heard. Keep him in the course!! It was really great.» (Excellent)

24. Kristina Säfsten

29 svarande

Excellent»		2		6%
Very Good»		6		20%
Good»		15		51%
Poor»		5		17%
Very Poor»		1		3%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

- SPEEK TOO FAST» (Very Good)
- I cant evaluate her cause of sickness.» (Good)
- The book is not so good, it is very general» (Good)
- too much review » (Good)
- A little bit boring, only communicating contents of the book, industry relation lacking. Reading through the slides on your own would have the same results.» (Poor)
- This lecture was like reading the book.» (Poor)
- Not much better than the book...» (Very Poor)

25. Jon Andersson

30 svarande

Excellent»		2		6%
Very Good»		3		10%
Good»		10		33%
Poor»		11		36%
Very Poor»		4		13%

Genomsnitt: 3.4

- Prepared? English? :)» (Good)
- Maybe not most obvious lecturer but when looking at slides and the labs, he had it all prepared and well planned out. Only minor flaws.» (Good)
- Hope to explain the content of lectures more patiently,because students are from different background. Sometimes didn‘,t use the full lecture time.» (Good)
- Needs more experience in lectures. Not well structured, rushed through some topics without people understanding it. Then setting up tasks assuming we had understand, leaving us totally confused. Definitely clearer points are needed.» (Poor)

26. Lars Almefelt

28 svarande

Excellent»		4		14%
Very Good»		8		28%
Good»		16		57%
Poor»		0		0%
Very Poor»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.42

- At first it was difficult to understand what he said.» (Good)
- Was OK. Nothing special to critisize, nothing special to emphasize.» (Good)

Summarizing questions

27. What is your general impression of the course?

Worst course ever»		2		6%
Fair»		1		3%
Adequate»		8		25%
Good»		16		50%
Excellent»		5		15%
Best course ever»		0		0%
No answer»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- Worst course ever is a hard statement, but this wasnt really what was expected from the beginning.» (Worst course ever)
- When covering this many areas, is it then necessary to examine in both lab reports (A3), oral presenations, AND an exam? Sometimes this course felt very messy?» (Fair)
- I think the cointain of the course is important for further reading and educaton for us, but the approch was very poor, sadly.» (Adequate)
- lab part is very good. Need some home exercise» (Good)
- The course was a good introduction to all the tools one can use when developing a production system. I do not like the e-mail we got one day before the examination where it was said that you will get different scores for the assignments and presentations. Perhaps we should have got that information the first week?!» (Excellent)

28. What shoud be preserved for next year

- Everything»
- Factory visits, seminars, labs with some improvements to the lca one and all the fun lectures from different guestlectures. Åsa was really good on the lecture, LoA. »
- I think the factory visit was the best part of the cource, because we got a good overwiev of what the course would contain. »
- Factory visit, des, and line balancing was about the things that was new and intressting. »
- 4 labs and factory visit»
- Labbarna och fabriksbesöket»
- Company visit and first three exercises.»
- Peter Dominis lecture, the exercises.»
- The factory-visits»
- Factory visits!»
- The assignements and the factory visit should be kept in the same topics.»
- A really good factory visit and the exercises were also great. I love when you have more practical work in the courses. More help with LCA exercise. There werent so much information about this in the lectures but it was one of the exercises. Also a better information about the bonues points for the students =)»
- Factory visists, Line Balancing and DES exercises. TOC, including movie.»
- Factory visits and presentation Fist lab with level of automation »
- numbers and variety of Labs was great»
- I thinl that it is good now»
- Factory visit. »
- dont know, it went good for me»
- The invovlement from the teachers. Good PDFs»
- Factory visits & Tommy Fässberg.»

29. What should be changed to next year?

30. Additional comments