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.

Quality Management - Autumn 2012, IEK312

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-10-19 - 2012-10-31
Antal svar: 19
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 40%
Kontaktperson: Marco Santos»

Teaching and course administration

1. How did you get to know about this course and what made you apply for it?

- open for exchange stundent and it was fitting my schedule»
- Via Studentportal / Schedule. Was recommended to me by a former student. But now I cannot see why...»
- It is equivalent to the courses of my home bachelor program. I found this course and about its content in the course list»
- it was a selectable course at my programme IDE and i though it was in interesting perspective on PD»
- other students at chalmers interested in the field»
- Im an erasmus student. I needed the equivalent course to quality in my home university and this course was the most similar one.»
- Was one of mine electable courses»
- It was one of the elective courses on my master"s programme.»
- a friend told me»
- Course choices at Chalmers hommage.»
- The information-lunch in Vasa and I was told that from some classmates that took the coruse this spring that it was it was good. »
- I am an exchange student and Quality Management is a compulsory course within my studies.»
- This course is one of the recommended course in my program. I am now looking for job in Sweden and outside Sweden. I have found this course has a great value today"s job market. That makes me enthusiastic for having this course.»
- I had to choose a course of management for this semester and the course seemed interesting from the management point of view.»

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

19 svarande

0-25 %»0 0%
25-50 %»2 10%
50-75 %»1 5%
75-100 %»16 84%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

- it is always easier to study something that you heard about before» (75-100 %)

3. What is your general impression of the course?

19 svarande

Very negative»0 0%
Negative»0 0%
Positive»16 84%
Very positive»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 3.15

- Well organized and many practical work and examples» (Positive)
- my impression is more neutral....the teachers are very friendly, but the most of the topics teached in a too philosophical way.» (Positive)
- I would like too answer okay... since I hade higher expectations since I had heard abou the great feeback from privious years.» (Positive)

4. How was the structure of the course?

A good structure means that the time spent on each subject is adequate and the sequence of the subjects is clear and logical.

19 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»5 26%
Good»11 57%
Very good»3 15%

Genomsnitt: 2.89

- the course is structured like the book....but i think we have spent to much time for process management and to less time for DoE and SPC. » (Poor)
- The reason for why I find it poor is because I find it hard to se a red thread. While the good thing is that you learn about many different things.» (Poor)
- The more difficult parts like SPC should have been more to the beginning, process management could be at the very end because it"s not that difficult to learn for it.» (Good)

5. Concerning the proportion of theory and practice:

By theory it is meant mainly lectures, whereas practice means mainly exercises and group work.

19 svarande

The course was too theoretical»1 5%
The course had a good balance between theory and practice»17 89%
The course was too practical»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 2

- I like that we had mandatory lectures on Thursdays.» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- the group works are really important to understand the theory and also fun to do» (The course had a good balance between theory and practice)
- It was neither really practical nor theoretical. It was more like philosophical!! Only a lot of talking but nothing concrete that you could really use for work or the exam.» (The course was too practical)

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

19 svarande

Small extent»0 0%
Some extent»9 47%
Large extent»8 42%
Great extent»2 10%

Genomsnitt: 2.63

- SPC slides were very good (with in-deep comments on each slide) while the other ones were not self explanatory at all and sometimes it was difficult to complement them with the book.» (Some extent)
- I liked the lecture notes from the lectures while the book was not that good.» (Some extent)
- I do not think that the book used is good. It presented the different models and tools but did not explain how to use them.» (Some extent)
- Some slides (e.g. DoE) are not self-explanatory. » (Some extent)
- Much to read in the book to get all additional knowledge» (Large extent)
- The book was really easy to read but some part lacked substance.» (Large extent)

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

19 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»0 0%
Good»8 42%
Very good»11 57%

Genomsnitt: 3.57

- Good with some teachers, poor in others» (Good)
- The try to answer every question....but somtimes they don"t knew the answer.» (Very good)
- Very easy to ask question, liked it a lot» (Very good)

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

19 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»12 63%
Very well»7 36%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Sometimes slides were online on the morning of lecture day or after lecture, so not easy to print to write comments during lecture in the slides» (Rather well)
- Some slides like SPC were one week later available. So, we had not the change to make notes on printed slides. Some other uploaded the slides at the day of the lecture or one day before in the evening...that is too late. I have no printer and i am forced to print it e.g. in the libary.» (Rather well)
- Worked perfectly.» (Very well)

Feedback to teachers

If you have attended at least one lecture of the teachers below, please provide some strengths and opportunities of improvement for each teacher. If you have trouble recalling names, you can check the photos available on the backside of the excel schedule.

9. Hendry Raharjo - strengths

Quality in product development (week 1) and design of experiments (week 2).

- was very motivated, tried to teach us a lot, had good examples.»
- writing and marking in the slides helpes to understand relations and importances.»
- his motivation ---> great»
- The powerpoint-slides of his were useful for studying for the exam.»
- Pedagogical, the computer where you wrote on is really good. »
- Really friendly and wants to help when you ask questions.»
- knows how to engage students but we were not very prepared for the DoE questions in the exam»
- Good teacher. I really liked the DoE part. Would liked to learn more in that field. »
- Numerous good examples! Good explanations too.»
- very good at explaining»

10. Hendry Raharjo - opportunities for improvement

- sometimes it became a bit messy, for example when he was painting on the lecture slides too much. and his talking was sometimes very fast.»
- sometimes speed of lecture was hard. Not so easy to stay concentrated then.»
- english skills»
- more details about factorial design before going into practice more examples for factorial design»
- Was a bit all over the place, sometimes it went very fast and it was hard to follow what he was doing when he wrote on the computer screen, the erased it and so on.»
- When having the house of quality experiment, better introduction!»
- Talks a little bit too fast and it is hard to keep up.»
- It is hard to keep up with Hendry when he writes/draws on his computer since he only adds things to the slide and thoses who uses pen and paper have to copy the things on the slide in addition to what Henry has added. It would be better to have more info on the slides from the beginging (also since people might get sick ect. and cant attend the lectur and it is really hard to get anyting out from the slides afterwards). Also, it hard to listen to 4h of DOE.»
- Nothing that I can think of :) »
- Please save your handwritten notes and provide them to us!»
- his slides should be more complete because the book does not have so much the practical part of exercises»

11. Henrik Eriksson - strengths

Introduction to quality management (week 1) and lean, six sigma and business excellence (week 3).

- i cannot remember any strengths. ok, he was very friendly.»
- discussion and reflection during lecture»
- his way of presentation. involve the students good.»
- Very good lecturer and easy to listen to and involve the audience to participate. Had relevant and good examples.»
- Good, very brief explanation but not that you need to evolve them»
- Really engaged and interesting lectures.»
- Very good and a positive teacher. "Come on, it will be fun!" is a catch phrase we will remember :) »
- very good at providing examples in real life»

12. Henrik Eriksson - opportunities for improvement

- lecture slides were completely useless, no explanations. mostly pictures and you could not see the relation to the subject. was only talking about some theoretical/philosophical concepts. very poor, you did not learn anything, only from the book. disappointing if there is no appeal to go to the lecture.»
- his practical examples ---> let somebody know that he has not so much work experience. »
- more detailed information to lean or six sigma»
- The powerpoint slides conatined many pictures and not so much text to explain the pictured, this could have been useful later on for studying.»
- the business excellence part could be clearer.»
- I think it would be good for Henrik to take the Lean cource with Christian and Carl. Why is it important to have a lecture regardning awards?»
- Nothing that I can think of :) »
- I would add more content to the Lean Management part in order to balance the different sections!»
- a less monothonous speech sometimes would be better to keep focused in class»

13. Ida Gremyr - strengths

Robust design (week 4)

- the speaking was clear and understandable but really really fast! Maybe you can to improve that a little bit»
- was friendly.»
- Very good lecturer and easy to listen to.»
- Noticed that you really know your field.»
- This lecture was one of the best. Ida is a really good lecturer. It was easy to follow and it was really interesting to listen to.»
- Easy to understand and clear structure.»
- An excellent teacher, talks to the student like equals and had a good understanding of our knowledge. Liked the tempo in her class about Robust design. Got to the point in a good and an understandable way.»
- was really comfortable with her subject»

14. Ida Gremyr - opportunities for improvement

- nearly the same es henrik. nothing concrete was presented. introduced the lecture by saying she is very tired??? is that my fault?»
- should be slower and not so hasitated»
- Due to that is only one lecture about robust design, it feels kind of "fastly", it does not sink in like the other subjects. »
- Nothing that I can think of :) »
- it was hard to listen and understanding, despite the fact that her english is really good, because Ida talked really low and fast»

15. Kristian Siverbo - strengths

Process Management, management systems and ISO9000 (week 5)

- sorry, im too tired to write more. but was better then ida and henrik.»
- Good knowledge and examples. Very great slides»
- good lecture slides good connection between theory and examples»
- Had very much info in his slides which were helpful when studying for the exam. Tried to involve the audience which is good.»
- Good knowledge about the subject»
- Really good slides. And Kristian is also very friendly and helpful when you ask for help.»
- Very positive and a good teacher. Talks to the students in breaks and gets their opinion witch I think is great. »
- Good structuring throughout the whole section. »
- really keen on teaching»

16. Kristian Siverbo - opportunities for improvement

- Sometimes opinion differ from the one in the book. No problem, but which is the "right" opinion for the exam?»
- Sometimes during the process management lecture he jumped back and forth between the slides and a software, this was quite confusing sometimes.»
- Nothing that I can think of :) »
- focus more in facts than in subjective things»

17. Marco Santos - strengths

Statistical process control (week 6)

- For me the slides are not that informative at first. I wish there would be a step by step introduction for the calculations. You explained it cleary on the board, but i thinks its better to have it on the slides the right way.»
- Explains everything twice or more if possible until everyone got it»
- very good in explaining. he was the best teacher.»
- good explanation of the topic during the lecture, but because of the late availability of the lecture slides one couldn"t make additional notes on them»
- Was very pedagogical and good at explaining the SPC and wanted to make sureeverybody understood. Took relevant exaples easy to connect to and help in the understanding.»
- Good knowledge about the subject»
- Really good excercises within the SPC subject, really educational and structured lectures.»
- Good, tries hard to explain the students and help them with their douts»
- Very good teacher, an excelent approach to bring coffee to students on a Thursday afternoon :)»
- Excellent slides and great notes/explanations. »
- very good at explaining and waiting for everybody to understand»

18. Marco Santos - opportunities for improvement

- maybe a bit more information about spc on the slides. only the numbers is not really helpful by preparing the topic for the exam»
- In some way try to make students more active in the lecture.»
- The notes in the powerpoint was great when studing but it might be better to have some of this text on the slides so we can read it during the lecture.»
- Nothing that I can think of :) »
- more practical exercises in his class since it is more mathematical»

19. Sverker Alänge - strengths

Change management and learning (week 7)

- Quite easy to listen to.»
- The Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle was really good explained.»
- This lecture was intresting»
- detailed explanations»

20. Sverker Alänge - opportunities for improvement

- on the bord writing are many letters in the words missing. »
- Sometimes got a little too deep in discussiona and then it was hard to keep the attention up.»
- Took a rather long time getting to the point, when he started out by talking about the P-D-S-A circle. I lost interest as the exams were coming up in 2 days... »
- very hard to follow because of his way to teach (it is really dull)»

21. Vanajah Siva - strengths

Quality management and sustainable development (week 7)

- Good lecturer and easy to listen to.»
- Really engaged and involved the students in the lecturing and it was a really interesting lecture. I thought that it would be really boring before I went to the lecture but it was the opposite.»
- Very good and a nice teacher. The class was really impressed! »
- Review of the course so that we were able to connect with her subject»

22. Vanajah Siva - opportunities for improvement

- We how have studied at Chalmers have taken 7,5hp of sustainabel development and hence this lecture (as always when we how studis the I-program has SDlecturs) felt like we had to listen to the same thing for the 10th time or something...)»
- Nothing that I can think of :) »
- more objective talking»

Feedback on assignments

If you performed the assignments below, please give your opinion about each assignment"s relevance for your learning, way it was conducted, etc.

23. Assignment "Design of Experiments - Helicopter Lab"

- was funny. but it was hard to understand the statistical thing because we have not been taught before. that would have been better. as i already said, the lecture was more bla-bla than usefull»
- good and helpful for the future»
- to less theoretical information before the assignment»
- Good for the understanding of DoE but due to the large lab it felt kind of rushed all through the lab and thus you did not have enough time to process what you were doing.»
- Good, maybe explain more thoroughly of what is happening»
- Took too much time to do the helicoptors and then we had only a limited amount of time to do the DoE calculations and theory.»
- really good to help understand the lectures»
- Fun, Good Way tog learn»
- Interesting and I got some understanding about DoE. But, might be better to devide the lab inte two part and instead have lecture for 2h, lab for 2h on dag and 2h lecture and 2h lab another day.»
- My favorite assignment. Would like to learn more about DoE»
- very good to understand but the last part needed more things to know than we knew at the time»

24. Assignment "Affinity and Interrelationship Method (AIM)"

- what was this? write your ideas on post-its and organize them? whooooaaa, very innovative - at least when you are in elementary school in first year. use edding nr. 250 and write on the blue post-it... 20 pages of writing for simple brainstorming with a fancy name? come on.»
- not the main part of quality management, but though a helpful tool.»
- was more like brainstorming with post it"s! »
- very goood»
- Good and very helpful for lerarning and understanding.»
- Good one, liked it a lot»
- Interesting assignment and we really get to know the benefits of using AIM.»
- good»
- Too easy»
- Might be better if the groups and the question was stated before the class so one has time to think about the question.»
- Good assignments, my group did well as everybody were prepared. »
- good to understand the method and way of thinking»

25. Assignment "Interactive assessment" or "Oral examination"

- was ok»
- Interesting way of assessment but helpful to already sum up stuff of half term long before exam»
- new for me, but nice experience»
- Was good becuse it forced you to read and be in phase with the reading and not fall behind. Also it was helpful to see it from the perspective of asking questions instead of answering them.»
- Good»
- Really good because then you start study from the beginning of the course.»
- good»
- Good»
- A bit odd... the oral part was good but the other migh only have caused unnecessary stress. »
- Good milestone in the course. Did not know what to expect so I studied hard for it. Would have prefer more feedback in the group work afterwords. My groups" topic happened to be an old exam question (witch I didn"t know at the time) and our 5 min presentation would not have been a good answer on an exam... »
- good way to make students study during the semester»

26. Assignment "Business process management"

- The assignment itself can be useful, but its really hard to think of inputs, outputs and companies processes if you dont know them in detail. Maybe its better to give an example of a company (including information) to work on.»
- learnt nothing new. was fun but nothing more. only things you would have known before just by logical thinking.»
- Interesting to work on a real company!! Didn"t learn such many new things but repeat and deepen theory»
- very good»
- Helped a lot in the understanding of the process management methodology.»
- Liked this one as well»
- This assignment was really good as well because you really understood the model for mapping the processes this way.»
- good»
- Difficult»
- good for the learning.»
- I though it was all right, as we just made up a company. A useful technique to know in the future. »
- good way to understand which processes we have to deal with (it was not so clear in lectures)»

27. Assignment "SPC - Maryland cookies"

- very helpful for the furture»
- wasn"t there»
- Fun and good lab that helped in the understaning of SPC. Also a plus was that we got cockies and coffee :)»
- Good»
- On of the best assignments because it aided in learning the SPC tools and calculations.»
- good to help understand the lectures, very helpful»
- good for the learning»
- Did not attend... »
- learnt about details that could not be seen in lectures»

Study climate

28. How was the course workload?

19 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»3 15%
Adequate»12 63%
High»4 21%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.05

- Many chapters to read.» (High)

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

19 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»3 15%
Very well»15 78%
I did not seek cooperation»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.89

30. How well has cooperation between you and the people involved in the course worked?

19 svarande

Very poorly»0 0%
Rather poorly»1 5%
Rather well»4 21%
Very well»13 68%
I did not seek cooperation»1 5%

Genomsnitt: 3.73

Examination and grading

31. Did the exam reflect the course in a fair way?

19 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
No»2 10%
Yes»6 31%
Yes, completely»3 15%
I have not taken the exam yet»8 42%

Genomsnitt: 3.89

- I think the theoretical questions were good and tested the learning good. However, I think there was too much focus on calculation on the exam. It was both multiple choice questions on SPC and DoE which was too much. This doesn"t test what I have learned in the course, plus it is easy to choose wrong on multiple choice questions.» (No)
- I was really dissapointed when I saw the exam, I think the foucus was really strange. 20 points on DoE and SPC. This was two weeks out of seven and still it represented 40 % of the exam. Especially the DoE part which we only had had the chance to do during the group work. Also it did not seem to be that important as it was later in the exam. Another thing is the question about the lean game, it was not a compulsary excersice but still it was a question on the exam worth 6 points. I studied really hard for this exam and do not feel like I had the chance to show my knowledge at all.» (No)
- It was herd to know how to do some questions, because it was not explained in the lectures or in the book» (Yes)

32. Would you change the examination process and grading for this course?

For this course there were four compulsory tasks for you to be able to get a grade. The compulsory tasks were assessed on the basis "Pass", "Non-pass".

17 svarande

No change is necessary»14 82%
I suggest my system below in the comment field»3 17%

Genomsnitt: 1.17

- But it is really strange that everyone can see everyones result, I think that it should be private. » (No change is necessary)
- I would change it a bit. For the practical classes we should get 1.5 credits and for the exam 6. » (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I think it would be a good idea to give some points to the asignments, just if you past you get points extra or something like that» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)
- I think these four tasks should add some value in the final examination by 2-4 points extra.» (I suggest my system below in the comment field)

Summarizing questions

33. Would you recommend this course to other students?

18 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
No»2 11%
Yes»14 77%
Yes, definitely»2 11%

Genomsnitt: 3

- I dont really know. For engineerings not, because its sometimes to philosophical. For the others yes. » (?)

34. Would you apply for other courses in the field of Quality Management?

At the moment this is the only course in quality management available to students that are not in the master programme "Operations and quality management". Thus, we would like to know if you would be interested in a "Quality management II" or courses more focused on specific areas, such as DoE, SPC, etc.

- Since i am studying computer science i will not do that.»
- not necessary for my bachelor »
- More focus on SPC. It would be good to apply the learned knowlede at real practical issues in coopartion with campanys.»
- maybe, but i dont have time to take morre then one.»
- Six Sigma would be an interesting course»
- I think the field of SPC was interesting and could consider reading a course within this field.»
- I don"t think that I would be interested, but I would be interested in a course where you could get a six sigma -belt in some color.»
- Yeah, I would like to take an course in SPC for example.»
- Yes, absolutely! I want to apply for a masters program next year here at Chalmers and would like to take more courses in this field. »
- i wish i could but i am going to finish my study very soon.»
- No just because it is not my main area (management)»

35. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- SPC, DoE, Lean (but in more detail) ... and the coffe breaks ,)»
- the wide variety of subjects»
- The labs each week as they were very helpful for the learning and understanding.»
- The compulsory moments»
- The leangame. It was really a fun way to experience how lean works in practice.»
- the group assignments »
- The exercises »
- The Lean experiment! »
- Assignments!»
- the labs»

36. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- The content itself should be changed. It"s not up to date. Further you should think about a cooparation with the belt organisation. At my home university I must listen to a qm-course and a six sigma course to get a green belt. --> lead to a higher motivation to do two courses in your department.»
- It could be beneficial to get the opportunity to go deper into one or two areas of personal interest.»
- more preparation for DoE »
- I understand that it is good to have a general knowlege about DOE and SPC but why should be have calculations and tricky multiple-choice questions in the exam? I think it would be better to focus on when and who to apply the tools/methods rather then on calculations and specific knowleage about a small part here and another part here.... I would think that it would be intresting to know about how comanies work mith TQM, so mayby some kind of project would be sutibel where each group gets a comany and make interviews and compare the comanys quality-management with the theory.»
- I would prefer more of "Real world examples" but maybe that is more appropriate on the next level of QM (e.g. If QM 2 will be an option) »
- just the comments about the teachers»

37. Additional comments

- sorry for the harsh criticism. i think everyone was at least motivated (except from ida) to give a good lecture. you could feel it. but pleeeaaase: less philosophical words, better (explanatory) slides with more writing, and something concrete and useful stuff! calculations for example. its like henry said: its about doing the right things right. unfortunately this cours was more like doing the wrong thing right. that is crucial!»
- The curse id very theoretical, the labs are good, but to really grasp the understanding in the most important areas, for example six sigma or lean. A case study would need to be executed on a project where the QM system was implemented. Right now, when leaving the course, I don"t feel secure enough in my knowledge to give any advice in an actual implementation.»
- Wrong focus on the exam: too much focus on calculations!»
- I"m mentioning it again, I would like that the course in some way could get a six sigma - belt.»

38. Comments on this survey

How much time did it take for you to complete this survey? Was it too long? Were some questions unclear?

- 15 min»
- very extensive, but some are better then none :)»
- everything was good »
- 10-15 min. No, it was alright.»
- A bit unnecessary to evaluate lecturers that we only had once, feels like that you do not have enough information to give a valid evaluation»
- It took too much time. It took me 20 minutes and I did not even answer all the questions. To many questions and I did not have time to answer them all. A survey like this should at the most take 5-10 minutes but to answer all of these question would take 40 minutes which I consider is too much for a course evaluation.»
- I little bit too long... »
- not very long for answering with our answers»

Kursutvärderingssystem från