Visa resultat

Strategy Creation and Change, 2012, TEK280

Overall impression

1. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		0		0%
Ok»		3		7%
Good»		20		47%
Very good»		19		45%

Genomsnitt: 4.38 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Overall, the administration must improve and classes in discussions smaller. » (Ok)
- If the seminars had been conducted in smaller groups it would have been very good. » (Good)
- Smaller classes. E.g. four groups instead if two with 45minuters instead of 90. Easier to get all the things out instead of having other students say the things you want to highlight since it is grade-based.» (Good)
- Perhaps one of the better courses in my five years at Chalmers.» (Very good)
- Overall it was a good course. enjoyed discussing various aspects of change.» (Very good)
- High academic level» (Very good)
- Great way of teaching and interacting with the students. I learnt a lot of interesting aspects of strategic creation and change that I will take with me in the future, regardless of what I"ll do and where I end up.» (Very good)
- Excellent to have a course where the main reason to have student work is to actually learn and not necessarly work hard.» (Very good)

2. Would you recommend this course to other students?

Yes»		42		100%
No»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 1

- You get a more solid overview of an organization which no other course have given me before» (Yes)
- It"s a good course which wraps up all the previouse knowledge we have learned throughout MEI in one big bundle.» (Yes)
- Gives good insights in how to break down problems» (Yes)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.38

Your own effort

3. Which master program do you study?

MPQOM»		9		21%
MPMEI»		12		28%
MPSCM»		6		14%
Other»		15		35%

Genomsnitt: 2.64

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

42 svarande

At most 5 hours/week»		1		2%
Around 10 hours/week»		8		19%
Around 15 hours/week»		16		38%
Around 20 hours/week»		16		38%
At least 25 hours/week»		1		2%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

- Roughly around 15 hours but easily could have put in more time. I dont think I was lazy but with these hours I managed to prepare the cases and write on the group assignment» (Around 15 hours/week)
- Since my project was made together with three exchange students who all said from the very beginning that they didn"t care about their grade - and worked far less then the other two of us - it became a lot to do since we aimed at a higher grade.» (Around 20 hours/week)

5. How many of the six case discussions (Mondays) did you attend?

Totalt:

none - 0»		0		0%
1»		0		0%
2»		0		0%
3»		0		0%
4»		3		7%
5»		18		42%
all - 6»		21		50%

Genomsnitt: 6.42

Fördelat på olika grupper:

I was in the early session, Mondays 13-15: (23 st)

none - 0		0		0%
1		0		0%
2		0		0%
3		0		0%
4		1		4%
5		8		34%
all - 6		14		60%

Genomsnitt: 6.56

- Sadly missed one due to real life commitments.» (5)
- Missed out on one session when in Stockholm for Nova Forum. Would have been great if a written hand-in would have been possible. Other professors have done it that way very successfully.» (5)

I was in the late session, Mondays, 15-17: (19 st)

none - 0		0		0%
1		0		0%
2		0		0%
3		0		0%
4		2		10%
5		10		52%
all - 6		7		36%

Genomsnitt: 6.26

- Too short time to discuss the cases» (5)
- I do feel that monday class sometimes got boring because every one gets the oppertunity to say what they think, even though they sometimes say same stuff over and over again. However it is good that you manage to give every one the chance to speak. Also, I really think this session was good training for some people. I find it really annoying hearing that some people (those who never raised their hand up to speak) have trouble speaking up even though they are 23+ years old. I know some people who missed out on next session just because you offered them a chance to speak, by directly asking them a question. That is just silly of them. They are the ones that will talk a lot of negative stuff about monday class. Not because monday class was bad but because they have issues, not being able to speak up front and taking a stand. I mean, come on, grow up! Good job!» (5)
- it"s been brought up before. the group size was too big to have a proper discussion as such. often, by the time it was my turn, the point i wanted to make had already passed, e.g. a counter argument» (5)
- The only poor comment I might have on this course is that the case discussion groups were too big. Although your grading system might be solid, as a student it still felt quite un-personal to be one amongst many.» (all - 6)

6. How large part of the lectures (Thursdays) did you attend?

0%»		1		2%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		4		9%
75%»		20		47%
100%»		17		40%

Genomsnitt: 4.23

- Lower than 100%, More than 75% though. Interesting topics.» (75%)
- Conflicting schedule» (75%)
- I wan away on elk-hunting one session and in Italy another one. I didn"t skip any classes other than these.» (75%)

7. How engaged were you in the teamwork?

Not active at all»		0		0%
Not so active»		0		0%
Participated (but was not very engaged)»		4		9%
Quite active»		12		28%
Very active»		26		61%

Genomsnitt: 4.52

- » (Quite active)
- We had a great, great group!» (Very active)
- I beleive that everyone in our group was very active and worked well together. This is the first time that I have been in a group where this has happened» (Very active)
- Since three out of five group members thought a 3 in grade was enough, the other two of us did most of the work even though we repeatedly tried to involve them in different ways.» (Very active)
- I think that we were all very active in our group» (Very active)
- We had some difficulties finding times to meet with the whole group, as we all had full and very different schedules.» (Very active)
- I believe it is better to divide the groups by the students. We had some difficulties working with one person in my group, which might have impeded the outcome of the two cases. Since it is grade-based, I belive it is of high importance to be with students who can deliver a high set of output according to the grade you want to have.» (Very active)
- We had a great team where everybody did about equally as much of the work.» (Very active)

Examination and fulfillment of course aims

8. To what extent do you think that the aims of the course where fulfilled?

42 svarande

The course did in no way reach those aims»		0		0%
Only to a small degree did the course reach those aims»		0		0%
The course have partial, but poor success»		0		0%
The course reached some of those aims»		14		33%
The course reached many or all of the aims»		28		66%

Genomsnitt: 4.66 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I am not sure if we really discussed the concepts in the context of cases. There was a lot of info discussed in the cases but it was never clear what concepts were applied.» (The course reached some of those aims)
- The cases were very different and spread light on many aspects of strategy creation. the lectured helped afterwards to dig deeper in these areas.» (The course reached many or all of the aims)
- The one aim that i believe was only partly fulfilled is the "discussion of concepts in the context of cases". For me we missed out a little bit on that one since we discussed the cases first and then the models. I believe that the connection to the cases on the thursday lessons could have been clearer. » (The course reached many or all of the aims)
- A perfect course tying everything from I and MEI programmes together!» (The course reached many or all of the aims)
- the connection between cases and concepts could have been more explicit» (The course reached many or all of the aims)
- Difficult to develop professional judgement, little gain of experience as a lack of context, noise and solutions. No need to assess new/unknown situation.» (The course reached many or all of the aims)
- I really like that the focus was on the use of the models rather than the models per se. » (The course reached many or all of the aims)

9. What would you have preferred as examination form?

42 svarande

(på denna fråga var det möjligt att välja flera svarsalternativ)

Written term papers (team)»		30		71%
Indivdual term papers»		12		28%
Short papers (team)»		8		19%
Individual short papers»		8		19%
Performance in case discussions»		21		50%
Team presentations in class»		9		21%
Exercises (other than cases) in class»		2		4%
Smaller diagnostic tests»		7		16%
Large traditional written test»		4		9%
Large exam based on case analysis»		29		69%
No opinion»		1

- How you did it now was quite good. However, the grading at the case studies might not be such of a good idea with how they worked. Maybe if there were smaller groups with more time, but yeah, you explained why that"s not possible.» (Written term papers (team), Exercises (other than cases) in class, Smaller diagnostic tests)
- I did not like performance in case discussions evaluation because perceived as unfair, it would have been better a set of short individual papers» (Indivdual term papers, Individual short papers, Smaller diagnostic tests)
- Some courses is better to have an exam but this course I believe that it is better to have it this way, although I would rather see a take home exam or other individual paper that would be the basis for examination instead of an written exam.» (Written term papers (team), Indivdual term papers, Performance in case discussions)
- Able to choose your own groups - or at least divide people with the same ambitions in the same groups.» (Written term papers (team), Individual short papers, Large exam based on case analysis)
- Could be good to have one case analysis that is written and graded before the exam so that you have some practice in writing a case which was very different than talking/discussing a case.» (No opinion)
- Only thing to change would be the length of individual pieces that the group write» (Short papers (team), Performance in case discussions, Large exam based on case analysis)
- Could you not make an examination that not only focuses on one BIG case but also has some theorethical questions? A bit of a mixture of both theory and case.» (Indivdual term papers, Performance in case discussions, Large traditional written test, Large exam based on case analysis)
- The case exam was the only exam I have ever taken on Chalmers where I actually enjoyed writing it!» (Written term papers (team), Indivdual term papers, Short papers (team), Individual short papers, Performance in case discussions, Large exam based on case analysis)
- case analysis exam only works if the case discussions are maintained» (Written term papers (team), Individual short papers, Performance in case discussions, Team presentations in class, Large exam based on case analysis)
- Cases in class is excellent, as a learning tool where participation is essential. But I have difficulties with the grading and how to access performance.» (Written term papers (team), Large exam based on case analysis)
- I think the examination form was good except for the individual performance in case discussions. There are too many people in class to have the possibility to equally divide the time. Maybe a grade per group where only the team leader has the possibility to talk for the whole group could work.» (Written term papers (team), Large exam based on case analysis)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.66

Teaching and course administration

10. To what extent did the Thursday lectures help you develop deeper knowledge about strategy creation and change?

To a very low extent - I did not learn anything»		0		0%
The lectures were of marginal use»		2		4%
To some extent»		14		34%
The lectures gave new insights»		21		51%
To a very high extent - I learned a lot»		4		9%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.65

- Some of the information was not new to us, why it didn"t help me.» (To some extent)
- Hard to really relate it to the cases» (To some extent)
- Actually, more interesting than "helpful". We didn"t use or work with much of the stuff that we were taught there, so it didn"t stick that good.» (The lectures gave new insights)
- I think they were good although more focus could have been applied back to mondays case discussion. » (The lectures gave new insights)
- i liked the "soft" issues that were addressed as these are not very often dealt with in textbooks etc.» (The lectures gave new insights)
- Great mix of theories and connection to current events and general expansion on interesting points» (To a very high extent - I learned a lot)
- I like that there were many good guest lecturers and i really appriciate the opportunity to listen to experts. At the same time i think that Tobias was a good lecturer and i enjoyed his classes as well. » (To a very high extent - I learned a lot)
- Fantastic lectures. Very much enjoyed the guest lectures as well and felt that much time was put into the preparations for the lectures and the class as a whole. I would look forward to my other Chalmers classes using this same model for lectures. » (To a very high extent - I learned a lot)

11. To what extent did the Monday case discussions help you develop deeper knowledge about strategy creation and change?

To a very low extent - I did not learn anything»		1		2%
The case discussions were of marginal use»		0		0%
To some extent»		9		21%
The case discussions gave new insights»		16		38%
To a very high extent - I learned a lot»		16		38%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.09 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The biggest part of the case discussion was spent summing up / pointing out faxts from the paper, which was not really interesting. The last 30 to 20 minutes were generally more interesting, but the size of the room made discussion difficult (sitting in the back, I could not here people from the 5 front rows talking,which made participating more difficult)» (To a very low extent - I did not learn anything)
- Would prefer smaller groups» (To some extent)
- However, I did not like the format they where done in. Smaller groups of max 10 people would enable a much better discussion and interaction.» (The case discussions gave new insights)

12. What did you think of the fact that cases played a major role in the course?

Very bad»		0		0%
Bad»		0		0%
Ok»		9		21%
Good»		9		21%
Very good»		24		57%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.35 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- I guess that I realize why it is like that. However the facts took such long time that it excluded several other important topics.» (Ok)
- It would have been a good system for smaller groups. Using cases was good, as it gave us an exemple of "what really happens", but the way it was used (discussions) was really not efficient to me. » (Ok)
- The fact that case discussions are part of the course is something i think is good. I didn"t however like the way in which the discussions were conducted. I find it hard to have a discussion in such a large group and when you don"t face the persons you"re discussing with. For me it would have given more to have smaller groups. i know there was some schedual restrictions, but then it might have been better to splitt the class in four and let two groups have discussions every second week or so. Moreover, the fact that someone is taking notes on everything that you"re saying and the judge you on it is something i believe is quite discouraging for the discussison. » (Ok)
- practical aspect to learn from theortical models» (Ok)
- nice change to the usual teaching modes. these and their (partial) lack of connection to concepts/theory showed how difficult it actually is to put the strategic concepts/theories in practice» (Ok)
- I want to know the points I got from each case before the exam!» (Good)
- for example hand in a short individual paper before discussion rather than testing in class performance» (Very good)
- But once again, more time and/or smaller groups.» (Very good)
- If you want to contribute to the knowledge of Industrial Production and Management students - who have done similar things both once and twice before - you need a new and more challenging approach or they won"t be motivated.» (Very good)
- They were a reference which can inspire me when thinking about a strategic issue, a model,...» (Very good)
- Some people might find it difficult to speak their mind in an open discussion, so this examination form is to some extent biased. However, the case discussions are a good learning opportunity for this aspect. » (Very good)

13. How well did the course administration via the course portal PingPong work?

Very badly»		4		9%
Badly»		11		26%
Ok»		19		46%
Well»		3		7%
Very well»		4		9%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- Complete mess - must be redone. Definitely affected the perception of the course administrators negatively. » (Very badly)
- I"ve used Pingpong in one course before and to be frank - I don"t know really how it works and how to get notifications. Also, obviously no one looks at the page everyday so don"t send out messages near deadlines, be proactive!!» (Very badly)
- Communicate via a proper channel instead, Email!» (Very badly) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- email is better» (Badly)
- For me, as for many of the other students, this was the first course ever where pingpong was used. Therefore we have no routine in using it, and the student portal would have been better. Also, important information was not uploaded on pingpong in time. » (Badly)
- A lot of us chalmers students are not used to ping-pong, and i know a lot of the exchange student weren"t as well, so i think it could be good for the next time to explaing how the communication will be made to avoid misunderstandings. I also was a little bit disappointed in how some information was given and i actually think some of the PIMs were disrespectful. » (Badly)
- relying on pingpong as sole means of communication is a poor choice. not many students i know are used to it and hence do not check it regularly.» (Badly)
- Don"t come with important information/changes 2 days before hand-in and only post it on pingpong. That is not acceptable.» (Badly)
- Perhaps you shouldn"t use PingPong for urgent messages. No one really reads it frequent enough for that.» (Ok)
- I never use ping pong. » (Ok)
- Ping pong is very useful to get back the slides, but I am less connected to it than to our mail boxes for example.» (Ok)
- No one really reads the PingPong. Use the other student portal instead.» (Ok)
- The main problem is with PingPong as a system and not the administration as such.» (Ok)
- Oscar did a great job at responding immediately if myself or anyone in our group had questions and was easy to reach by email. » (Very well)

14. How well did other aspects of the course administration work (apart from PingPong)?

Very badly»		3		7%
Rather badly»		4		10%
Ok»		8		21%
Rather well»		17		44%
Very well»		6		15%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 3.5 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- 1. instructions and criteria for the team assignments were most fuzzy. a clear PM or guidelines for the assignment(s) would help. that would also circumvent the need to send last minute PIMs on pingpong which nobody reads anyways 2. following the point above, i think insulting students is not on, no matter what the reason - especially not non-reading of messages 3. changing deadlines of assignments between different means of communication is not good (cf. lecture slides due times are 9.00, Oscar"s communications state 8.00 as does the course PM for paper 2) 4. most lecture slides were uploaded very late, i.e. could barely be utilised for the assignments» (Very badly) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- Even except from PingPong, there where many mixed messages. There is really no point in looking at your own perception of the messages you give out (as administrator) - look at how the receivers perceive them!» (Rather badly)
- This was an area of dissapointment. Oscar wrote a message trying to micromanage the way we organized the group work. This made him lose credibility but also directly contradicted what we learned in class.» (Rather badly) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
- There was a lot of info that were copyrighted and such, hard to handle within the groups.» (Rather well)
- I still think that you should hand out the material before. I like to have the ability to write comments on the slide on my computer» (Rather well)
- It was a little bit confusing some times about which case we were about to read for the case discussions, but nothing major. .» (Rather well)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4

Lecturers

15. What is your general impression of the set of lecturers that were engaged in the course

Poor»		0		0%
Fair»		1		2%
Adequate»		6		14%
Good»		18		42%
Very good»		17		40%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 4.21 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Some of the guest lecturers should have talked more about their experience with their work and less about theory.» (Adequate)
- They were all good, but I actually preferred Tobias" lectures! » (Good)
- The lecture by Petra Palmgren Lindwall was very interesting and she was a very good lecturer in my opinion. The topic of her lecture was very interesting.» (Good)

16. How would you rate the lecturers/case discussants in the course?

- Petra made a big point out of presenting her CV to make herself credible and then continued to use the time for advertisement for that specific way of constructing a business model (even a specific iPad app - that the author profited from!!). She didn"t even try to hide that facts so in terms of credibility - she pretty much failed it. Not that the lecture was bad - but compared to the excellent level of the rest of the course, this was a real low-water mark.»
- It was very interesting to learn and to enjoy the experience of professionnals»
- didn"t get much out of magnus, really what about björn? he was ok too...»
- I missed Alexanders lecture.»
- Over all very interesting lectures and i think the majority are very good at teaching what you know. » (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)

Tobias Fredberg (main lecturer)
42 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		0		0%
Ok»		0		0%
Good»		7		16%
Very good»		35		83%

Genomsnitt: 4.83

Petra Palmgren Lindwall (business model development)
39 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		3		7%
Ok»		6		15%
Good»		22		56%
Very good»		8		20%

Genomsnitt: 3.89

Aleksander Rosinski (Schibsted case))
36 svarande

Very poor»		1		2%
Weak»		3		8%
Ok»		11		30%
Good»		15		41%
Very good»		6		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

Fredrik Dahlsten (market strategy)
38 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		1		2%
Ok»		7		18%
Good»		18		47%
Very good»		12		31%

Genomsnitt: 4.07

Magnus Stenson (Ericsson case)
39 svarande

Very poor»		0		0%
Weak»		1		2%
Ok»		10		25%
Good»		19		48%
Very good»		9		23%

Genomsnitt: 3.92

Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 4.21

Study climate

17. What did you think of the quality of the case discussions?

42 svarande

The discussions were very simple, e.g. on a too low level»		1		2%
The discussions were on a comparably low level»		2		4%
The discussions were average in comparison to other courses»		15		36%
The discussions were on a comparably high level»		21		51%
The discussions were advanced, e.g. on a very high level»		2		4%
No opinion»		1

Genomsnitt: 3.51 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The first discussions were to focused on facts, I am aware of the rationale behind this, but the later discussions were really good and included several interesting ideas and opinions. » (The discussions were on a comparably low level)
- The discussions were good even though some students use the shotgun approach and try to say as many things as possible to get some points. I believe that you Tobias should force the students even more to present a short statement and then take it on further, instead of the student rambling on. » (The discussions were average in comparison to other courses)
- The level fluctuated quite heavily but Tobias moderated the discussion very well » (The discussions were average in comparison to other courses)
- I kind of felt that the most interesting part was always in the end. And by that moment we had no time to speak about the real interesting stuff because class was over. » (The discussions were average in comparison to other courses)
- huge differences in quality of comments between different students» (The discussions were average in comparison to other courses)
- To general, a lot of time went to agree on external factors etc. and too little on strategic choices.» (The discussions were average in comparison to other courses)
- It"s hard to put an answers to this in my opinion, they started out lower than they ended.» (The discussions were on a comparably high level)
- It would be interesting to have the lecturer"s opinion on some subjects that were presenting a dilemma.» (The discussions were on a comparably high level)
- Smaller groups and longer time for discussion would improve this factor, but Tobias explained the tradeoff.» (The discussions were on a comparably high level)
- I believe it was important that the case studies progressed in some form from the first ones being more about background and getting an idea of what is important to read into during these case studies. Then the later case studies building on this experience and challenging us to think hard about the strategic options for the organization in the case. So overall, excellent format for the case studies. » (The discussions were on a comparably high level)
- More elaboration about how they reached the desired state. The first cases were only fact-talk. Students attending this course should have clear knowledge about this kind of work. There shouldnt be any "introduction" to case solving. From case 1 - focus on analysis.» (The discussions were on a comparably high level)
- I believe some comments were very interesting while others were less interesting. I believe the fact that we were graded on our participation lowered the level of the discussion. Sometimes it felt that people were just talking in order to say something. » (No opinion)

18. What did you think in general of the work in your teams?

Very bad»		0		0%
Bad»		4		9%
Ok»		12		28%
Good»		16		38%
Very good»		10		23%
No opinion»		0

Genomsnitt: 3.76

- Extremely hard to get response from the exchange students, took no own initiative and their english was adequate at best. Thus, it became much more to do than otherwise had been. » (Bad)
- No one was engaged even if people said they were aiming for a five» (Bad)
- There are too many exchange students (here for only 6 months) that do not have a proper background to be in this course. It was very obvious that they struggled, which made group work very hard and lowered the quality of the course. Better evaluation should be done when admitting exchange students to the course. » (Ok)
- Since 3 of 5 members of our group was exchange students, who only could get "pass" as a grade from their home universities and no more, we had very different incentives with the cases. I think this needs to be taken into consideration since now only two people in our group were willing to work for a high grade. » (Ok)
- Like stated earlier, we had trouble finding time to meet all together which made things harder.» (Ok)
- Unclear direction, did not have time to reach performance stages in group-dynamic.» (Ok)
- The team did not put an equal amount of effort into the paper.» (Ok)
- We hade some coordination issues in the first case but we improved it a lot for the second case. » (Good)
- i personally was very lucky with my team because the supposed effort of creating diverse teams did not work. in our team there was no gender diversity, very little nationality diversity and essentially no course/program diversity. for us it was ok though since we did not experience any of the numerous issues other teams had to deal with» (Good)
- More direction or possibly some scheduled time with one of the instructors to see how the group is getting on with the tasks would be helpful. » (Good)
- Good team with very different backgrounds that united well and performed well in the end.» (Good)
- As mentioned above, students should divide the groups by themselves.» (Good)
- This was one of my best groups. Really, good job! :D Good thing you prechose the groups.» (Very good)
- Nice team with many different backgrounds....got along very well and had some good discussions» (Very good)

19. What would you suggest as the fairest way to form teams?

1.		Place stud. of diff. backgrounds together		1.5
2.		Randomly place students in teams		1.8

- However, in the document that was sent to you in beforehand, ask about the goal in terms of grade. Those that aim for a 3 should not be working with those that aim for 5.» (?)
- Again, there are too many students in the course. And it seemed some students that are still in the bachelor level at their home university. There should be a higher standard or better background check for admitting students to the course. It"s unfair to the students who struggle because they don"t have a proper background and lowers the quality of the group work and course. » (?)
- It"s good if people that takes the same second elective course or have the same modules booked in the new module schedule adopted by Chalmers. We could never find a time to meet, there were always someone having class...» (?)
- I had really good luck with my group because they were all on the same level as me when it came to how much effort they put in. However I know that some of the other groups had problems because some, not all, students from abroad did not have the competence to deliver high quality stuff. » (?)
- if you do the background method, do it properly!!!» (?)
- Different background --> learn groupwork and collaboration. Free choice (same background) --> Learning focused theory/course subject» (?)
- The fairest way might be to simply apply random sort students into teams but the best work and most rewarding learning outcomes comes from allowing the students to form their own groups. » (?)
- Placing students of different backgrounds together is also better for mixing Swedish students with exchange students. » (?)
- If it should be fair, you should place students randomly. BUT since we focus on the learning process, a mix of students in the team is preferable.» (?)
- The best option is probably to let everybody choose teams but with a quota for example 4 swedish students and 2 foreign in each group.» (?)
- If different backgrounds go on different bachelors I can agree. » (?) (den här kommentaren har blivit redigerad i efterhand)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.51

For next year...

20. What was the strongest thing about the course for you (if anything)?

- Cases from this century! I cannot state this enough. 99% of the material we get to read in other courses is so extremely outdated.»
- Case discussions on Mondays »
- case studies»
- Case discussions. However, would have preferred to have written and sent in a half page reflection before the discussions because it was hard to always get the word and someone else sometimes was faster and said something good that I wanted to bring up.»
- Great discussions»
- Cases were very interesting to read - a good selection of cases. »
- Case discussions»
- Tobias was superb as lecturer and moderator. Oscar was a good administrator but could work on the procedures. »
- the team paper is a really good way to get a grasp on the models »
- That the course gives an overall picture of strategy and practical examples on how it works. It is easy to understand and Tobias is a good lecturer.»
- paper 1 and paper two was good. the group work that is.»
- The way I learnt about companies and their strategies from a new point of view.»
- I think the thought about the case discussions are good, but it needs to be conducted in smaller groups. Although, I believe that Tobias held the discussions in a very good way.»
- I think the variety of lecturers were very good and it was interesting to listen to people with different backgrounds. I think the case discussions is a good idea but that they should be conducted in a different way, see above. »
- schibsted was the best case»
- Tobias was the strongest thing about this course, superb work!»
- somewhat seeing what variety of factors influence the implementation of concepts and models. usually looks so simple on paper but ain"t, really»
- The focus on cases as a basis for learning.»
- The relation to the cases of the lectures. I think the case studies were most valuable for the course.»
- The focus on cases as a basis for learning and that the importance was on how you use models. »
- The case discussions is a very good way of training real competences and at the same time learn a lot from other students. »
- To participate in the discussions on monday (too many people, big pressure)»
- Case discussions»
- Tobias engagement in the class is obvious and makes all of us perform better.»
- The case discussions and term papers»
- I love the enthusiasm that you as a lecturer show in class. This in combination with a great knowledge (academical and from the industry) improves the participation and willingness to learn among us students.»
- The subject is very interesting, the cases are very nice to read since it gives good empirical insight.»
- The disscusions, would have loved to have fewer more intense disscusions were each student is given more time. Considering however the course size the disscussions were great.»

21. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

22. What should definitely be changed to next year?

23. Additional comments