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.

Creating new business 2012, TEK010

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2012-12-17 - 2012-12-24
Antal svar: 51
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 83%
Kontaktperson: Marcus Linder»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Industriell ekonomi 300 hp

Your own effort

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

We mean total time, that is, it comprises the time you spent in class and the time you spent on your own work. Try to estimate the average time over the entire study period.

51 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»3 5%
Around 20 hours/week»11 21%
Around 25 hours/week»18 35%
Around 30 hours/week»14 27%
At least 35 hours/week»5 9%

Genomsnitt: 3.13

- Interviews for the project took a lot of time to arrange and go to. 6 people in a group adds a lot of overhead time, next year, please have a lecture on effective meetings etc for working in large groups, be it in CNB course or when you actually CNB» (At most 15 hours/week)
- The project took time» (Around 25 hours/week)
- very high workload due to the complex project.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- A lot of the time went to the case. It was quite unpropotional to the points awarded and the time put in to it.» (Around 30 hours/week)
- The project took a lot of time» (Around 30 hours/week)
- Lots of work with the project, but it was quite good fun and very educational.» (At least 35 hours/week)
- We spend almost all time that there were no class the first couple of weeks to interview and do the project, it took too much time. » (At least 35 hours/week)
- The project took very much time. Too much time actually. I think just working with the project took the majority of all time spent on school this reading period. Hence, I think the project was very unbalanced.» (At least 35 hours/week)
- Lots and lots of time on the project.» (At least 35 hours/week)

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

51 svarande

0%»0 0%
25%»6 11%
50%»8 15%
75%»17 33%
100%»20 39%

Genomsnitt: 4

- Found that what was said in lecture was pretty much the same as written in the book.» (25%)
- too busy with other stuff to prioritize quite dull and slow lectures» (25%)
- Lectures was not as giving as the course material» (50%)
- Lectures were not very well prepared and did not always talk about the reading, apart from the Andersson and Moore lecture. Even though i went to the class i did not feel that i understood the book, too large parts were not covered in lectures becuase of too many fun stories.» (50%)
- I think Sörens lectures were a little bit too unstructured, not following a red thread but focused too much on "sidospår" that popped up.» (50%)
- 90%» (75%)
- Good lectures, and relevant guest lecturers.» (100%)
- And attended even two more sessions when no teacher was there...» (100%)
- missed one because of a customer interview.» (100%)
- very interesting lectures» (100%)

3. Relative effort compared to average courses

Please select your background.

51 svarande

Low effort - an easy course»2 3%
Average amount of effort»17 33%
A high effort course»28 54%
I almost never put this much effort into a course»4 7%

Genomsnitt: 2.66

- The group assignment was, time wise, very demanding. » (A high effort course)
- High effort, but interesting subject and very educational.» (A high effort course)
- due to project work.» (A high effort course)
- As all courses on chalmers» (A high effort course)
- all on the prohect» (A high effort course)
- The case took A LOT of time» (A high effort course)
- between average and high» (A high effort course)
- In particular, the case demanded a lot of effort.» (A high effort course)
- Due to the project.» (I almost never put this much effort into a course)
- Very high effort because of the project.» (I almost never put this much effort into a course)

4. Overall the course was*

51 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Poor»8 15%
OK»21 41%
Good»15 29%
Very good»7 13%

Genomsnitt: 3.41 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- The structure of the course could be more stringent. Also the content of the course, and more importantly the way the course was conducted seems more as a elective course than a mandatory one. » (Poor)
- i put so much time in the project without learning something besides listen to your customers problem. If the projects should be this large, consider having just a "dugga" for 20 p on the articles and rest on the project. » (Poor)
- uninspiring lectures and a project were I only learned a little bit about customer development and interviewing» (Poor)
- The subject is highly relevant and interesting but I simply cannot give the course an OK due to several circumstances, mainly: very disorientated project work with unclear expectations, different guidlines AND deliverables depending on which group you belonged to, no supervision of you were unlucky with which supervisor you had and an exam where it was impossible to answer properly (even if the knolwedge was there) due to time constraints.» (Poor)
- It was interesting doing the project for a real start-up.» (OK)
- The content and project was really good, reconnects quite nicely with the other courses. The lectures was however a bit porer» (OK)
- I really liked the project part» (Good)
- Great guest lecturers» (Very good)

5. Of the required reading, I approximately read

51 svarande

Nothing»2 3%
25%»7 13%
50%»11 21%
75%»20 39%
100%»11 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.6

- Not the whole start-up manual but all the articles and most of crossing the chasm. The start-up anual is extremely slow and repeating everything ten times. They could have just written a book with maximum 100 pages instead.» (75%)
- Not all of the 2 books, but all articles.» (75%)
- Read or skimmed everything» (100%)
- Some really good materials, some bad. the books were great» (100%)
- Even if it was painfully clear at the end that much was on a way too high level of detail to be valuable in the project work and the exam. Further, I really dont think its good to give a reading clarification as to what one should read and how one week before the exam when serious students have already read evertything.» (100%)

6. My background is

50 svarande

Industrial engineering and management at Chalmers»38 76%
Another programme at Chalmers»3 6%
Another Swedish university»4 8%
Unitech»0 0%
Erasmus»0 0%
I"m an international master student»5 10%
Other»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.72

- and Industrial engineering» (Another Swedish university)
- Industrial engineering other university in sweden» (Another Swedish university)
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.41

Goals and goal fulfilment

The course syllabus states the course goals in terms of learning outcomes, i.e., knowledge, skills and attitudes to be acquired by the student during the course.

7. How understandable are the course goals?

50 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»19 38%
The goals are difficult to understand»2 4%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»21 42%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»8 16%

Genomsnitt: 2.36

- Surely have read them but I dont remember them now.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- I don"t agree with "commercialization of new tecnology" as the course"s focus is products. Nor do I think the cases are very numerous as many cases related to in the lectures are from the Start-up manual book.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- It"s hard to know what to learn before the course.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

8. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

Answer this this question only if you do know the course goals.

42 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»4 9%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»36 85%
No, the goals are set too high»2 4%

Genomsnitt: 1.95

- Could have been more of them. like the traditional business plan. so a deeper understanding of pros and cons of the different appraoches.» (No, the goals are set too low)

9. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

Answer this this question only if you do know the course goals.

47 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»13 27%
Yes, definitely»4 8%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»30 63%

Genomsnitt: 3.36

- Have not done the exam jet but looking at other years questions and thinking of what I learnt from the project I would say "to some extent".» (To some extent)
- The project had a poor fit with the course objectives. Instead of providing me with generic valiuable tools and knowledge the project mainly gave me specific insights into an industry I"m not that interested in.» (To some extent)
- The exam tested ability to write quickly a little bit too much in my opinion. Almost no time to think, and the last question was a lot about thinking in my opinion.» (To some extent)
- I did not have time to finish the exam the way I wanted to, I felt that I new more than I had time to write down, even if I wrote for almost the whole examination time. » (To some extent)
- time pressure on the exam resulted in bad content and lower possibility to show what you know and how "smart" you are in CNB.» (To some extent)
- I think the examination improved my understanding of challenges for new businesses etc. but it is difficult to know how much you should learn. This is especially true of the project, where you have no idea how much you are expected to do.» (To some extent)
- unfortunately I am doing this before the exam. » (Yes, definitely)
- the exam was to big for a 50 % it was to little time for to many questions. » (Yes, definitely)
- have not been examined yet» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
- I sincerely hope that there will be put more focus on the pure academics and exam-preparations next year. I sense very much frustration because no-one knows where to focus their efforts regarding the exam. The short sheet about what to read from the articles is not enough. I dont ask for an easy exam, but somewhat clearer guidelines in order to focus and prepare properly. » (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)
- Based on older exams in course. Looks allright!» (I don"t know/have not been examined yet)

10. I learnt about


- Only one business model. Could show more of the other side, what was there before Osterwalder.»
- All clear, all good. »
- The content of this course has really been good. I really appreciate the fact that is very hands on and relevant for aswell startups as big corps. »

The customer development process
51 svarande

I fully agree»29 56%
I agree»21 41%
I agree some, but not much»1 1%
I disagree»0 0%
I totally disagree»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.45

Crossing the chasm
51 svarande

I fully agree»19 37%
I agree»22 43%
I agree some, but not much»9 17%
I disagree»1 1%
I totally disagree»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.84

Venture financing
51 svarande

I fully agree»11 21%
I agree»24 47%
I agree some, but not much»13 25%
I disagree»3 5%
I totally disagree»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.15

Business modeling
51 svarande

I fully agree»15 29%
I agree»28 54%
I agree some, but not much»7 13%
I disagree»1 1%
I totally disagree»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 1.88

Entrepreneurial marketing & sales
51 svarande

I fully agree»9 17%
I agree»20 39%
I agree some, but not much»18 35%
I disagree»4 7%
I totally disagree»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.33

Teaching and course administration

11. To what extent have the guest lectures been of help for your learning?

50 svarande

Small extent»8 16%
Some extent»23 47%
Large extent»14 29%
Great extent»3 6%
No opinion»2

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- Johan was very good» (Some extent)
- Valuable information from the guest-lectures, but there has been to much focus on it. » (Some extent)
- just fun stories, could not connect to the litterature. » (Some extent)
- Should have been tested in the exam in my opinion, it was clarfied as important during the lecture.» (Some extent)
- Sköld was a good lecture.» (Large extent)
- Great guest lecturers! More inspiration than learning though.» (Large extent)
- Sköld was good and inspiring, even though I can not remember what he actually said. SCA was a nice perspective too to get. The IK lecture was of no help, very basic content delivered in an uninspired way» (Large extent)
- They"ve increased my interest in the course as a whole.» (Large extent)
- The guest lecturers in the course were great!» (Large extent)
- Brilliant! Best guest lecturers ever. Pleas sören, dont interrupt them to much..!» (Great extent)

12. To what extent has the regular lecturing been of help for your learning?

51 svarande

Small extent»13 25%
Some extent»25 49%
Large extent»11 21%
Great extent»2 3%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.03

- There has been to few, and they lack academic focus. It has been very unclear what to actually remember for these lessons.» (Small extent)
- Structure and content on slides could beneficially be more stringent and structured. » (Small extent)
- This is the Akilles-heal of the course. Sören is not a good lecturer, and it do not interest me to hear about who he knows or how big boats VC"s have in america. New business should not be started with dreams of the Riviera, so please stop bragging. » (Small extent)
- the lecture did never cover the readings. » (Small extent)
- Not providing very much outside the litterature.» (Small extent)
- Quite disorderly at times. I think that the slides could be improved with great effect when it comes to clarity.» (Small extent)
- A bit incohesive, could have been more clearly in line with reading material. » (Some extent)

13. To what extent has the supervision been of help for your learning?

51 svarande

Small extent»19 37%
Some extent»18 35%
Large extent»9 17%
Great extent»5 9%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2

- We were only allowed to have two supervision meetings, which is far less than other groups. And apart from that our supervisor did not know what the guidelines where for the project and good not give feedback about process or report. i have no idea if the project is U or 5, » (Small extent)
- We did not have very much supervision. Heard from other groups that they had meetings scheduled every week, we only had two. This needs to be fixed and communicated better to supervisors so it becomes fair.» (Small extent)
- We barely got any supervision.» (Small extent)
- which is partly our own fault for not being more structured and proactive in using our supervisor» (Small extent)
- The supervisor had very little time to meet, even if we always asked well in advance. We were not given the promised 1hr per week which strongly contributed to a feeling of disorientation.» (Small extent)
- A bit "unmotivated" supervisor.» (Some extent)
- Our supervisor was very busy during the project and rarely had time to see us.» (Some extent)
- We did not have much supervision, since we were told only to ask for it if we ran into any problems. The supervision we got was good, but we would have benefited from more help and guidance.» (Some extent)

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

51 svarande

Small extent»5 9%
Some extent»13 25%
Large extent»26 50%
Great extent»7 13%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- Bad articles, and very little help in order to understand them. Should have been more academic articles to learn the basics.» (Small extent)
- Felt like reading the same thing over and over again, did not like the books as course material for the exam (too repetitive so I am not able to study it for the exam) but good for using while working with the project. However, that means that I might have missed parts that are in the exam because it was not applied in our project. Dont think it should be part of a sit down exam. » (Small extent)
- Especially the articles.» (Large extent)
- Good articles. good content. books, naaa. to much of just two things, cross the chasm and customer discovery..» (Large extent)
- Overall good literature, but the Blank and Dorf book is somewhat difficult since you do not know how much of it you are suppose to learn. Some things are very detailed.» (Large extent)
- Nice articles, and good amount of articles (other master courses have a tendency of including way too many articles).» (Great extent)

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

51 svarande

Very badly»0 0%
Rather badly»6 11%
Rather well»29 56%
Very well»16 31%

Genomsnitt: 3.19

- No information regarding changes in Schedule. It does not update iphone calender contionously, so removed lecture does not remove by it self. Guidlines for reading came 3 weeks before end of course. Do that better next time! :)» (Rather badly)
- Schedule related problems, gust lecture moved a couple if times. Course schedule was updated late a couple of times and i had a static calendar..» (Rather badly)
- Studentportal havent been working properly » (Rather badly)
- unfortunate update of LPC significantly decreased usability of site due to old data becoming un-editable.» (Rather badly)
- Get rid of launchpadcentral. It doesn"t work very well and it hinders more than it helps» (Rather badly)
- No complaints but no positive suprises either. It worked fine.» (Rather well)
- Launchpad was not the easiest tool, took very long time to fully understand (how assumptions and connections after interviews should be handled), which had a negative effect on the project work» (Rather well)
- No problems there.» (Very well)

Study climate

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

51 svarande

Very poor»0 0%
Rather poor»2 3%
Rather good»19 37%
Very good»21 41%
I did not seek help»9 17%

Genomsnitt: 3.72

- Our supervisor was a bit to busy» (Rather good)
- We got help when we asked for it, but were also told only to ask when we had problems, som both good and bad. » (Rather good)
- Seems like sören is very engaged and motivated to help us students the best he can!» (Very good)
- not including supervisors» (Very good)

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

51 svarande

Very poorly»3 5%
Rather poorly»5 9%
Rather well»16 31%
Very well»27 52%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.31

- Poorly motivated team members dragged the combined team efforts to the bottom of the ocean» (Very poorly)
- We had totally different opinions on how to run the project we worked on and could not find any common ground. In the end we just had to hand something in, and I cannot say that I am pleased with how it turned out. We did a lot of work for something which ended up pretty poorly.» (Very poorly)
- The groups of six are too large. » (Rather poorly)
- Over all good, but the assignment required new ways of working and the cooperation took a lot of efforts. The problem was mainly due to constantly trying to reach consensus in all the insights and desire for proceeding development of the project. I think it contributed to good results, but it was demanding in terms of time spend on it.» (Rather well)
- cumbersome process with groups of six. very hard to administrate and achieve efficiency in work.» (Rather well)
- Some friction in the case work, I think that the groups are to big. Creates a bit of a free rider problem.» (Rather well)
- Good to choose own groups. It could however be difficult for the international students, as they are not that integrated in the class.» (Very well)
- Got into a nice group of people. had a great fun time interviewing firms!» (Very well)

18. How was the total workload this study period?

51 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»14 27%
High»27 52%
Too high»10 19%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 3.92

- Too few days between the final deadlines and the exams.» (Adequate)
- Very high workload (as was last study period), but much more interesting subjects in this period.» (High)
- A lot to do. Interviews and project work was extremly time consuming. Did not leave much time for the rest of the course.» (High)
- Some things, like the interviewing, was veeery time consuming and thus there was not time for proper reading.» (Too high)
- due to the project. » (Too high)
- Not much to say, it was extremely high. The project in this course was very very high workload.» (Too high)

The project

The project, including the report and the presentation, was an important part of the course - both in terms of learning and grades. Below are a number of questions aimed at evaluating this part.

19. My project was based on the below assignment

51 svarande

Greenbyte»4 7%
Proj-Tools»4 7%
Vauni 1»5 9%
Vauni 2»4 7%
Customized ERP»5 9%
Detectify 1»4 7%
Detectify 2»5 9%
Hawc»6 11%
Help-IT»5 9%
I do not wish to tell»9 17%

Genomsnitt: 6.07

- Nicest contact-person.» (Proj-Tools)
- Fun!» (Vauni 1)
- Nice project with good supervision.» (Vauni 1)
- I think it was hard to determine for whom you were supposed to write the report. It was a clash of interests here. HAWC wanted while the super visor wanted something else. » (Hawc)

20. Was the task to be performed in the project clearly communicated?

This question tries to measure if you understood what you were supposed to do for the project early in the course. Fill in the alternative that most resembles your answer.

51 svarande

I never understood the task»0 0%
I understood the task to late»5 9%
I understood early, but had to ask several questions»35 68%
I understood clearly from just reading the project pm»11 21%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- It has been revealed that the company has had important information that they did not provide us with until late. This should not have happened, as we could have gained much from it. Bot in the form of a better report, and we would have been able to focus our project much and provide the firm with a much better end result.» (I understood the task to late)
- it should have been communicated clearer what our goal function was, to really understand customer development and use a real case to learn or to actually do something valuable for the company or something else. I "m still not sure how the grading actually will be done» (I understood the task to late)
- Would probably got better results if we all understod it earlier.» (I understood early, but had to ask several questions)
- The project PM did not present the soft ware program well. It could be communicated and presented better. As a second package of "information/presentation" to the group that got the project.» (I understood early, but had to ask several questions)
- But did not understand exactly. It felt like it was up to the group to some extent.» (I understood early, but had to ask several questions)
- The task was rather clear, but based on very loose assumptions which soon turned out to be incorrect, we therefore had to pivot.» (I understood early, but had to ask several questions)
- Me and my team members did not use the LaunchpadCentral enough, poor choice. It was evident when we wrote the report that we should have used it more extensively.» (I understood clearly from just reading the project pm)
- But the PM does not correspond to your expectations, You asked for 15-20 interviews (I think) and 5-10 pages long report but your expectations in terms of how well every statement and/or hypothesis was to be supported required much much more. For example we were told to make an investigation on the international potential but only that would have required a single project to make tit valid. » (I understood clearly from just reading the project pm)

21. Was there a good tradeoff between supervision and lecture resources in the course?

51 svarande

Way too little supervision, increase by removing lectures»2 4%
Not enough supervision, I suggest some rebalancing»11 23%
Good balance between supervision and lectures»31 67%
Too few lectures, unnecessarily much supervision»1 2%
Supervision was mostly a waste of time, prioritize lectures»1 2%
No opinion»5

Genomsnitt: 2.73

- The greenbyte group would have appreciated more feedback on launchpadcentral» (Not enough supervision, I suggest some rebalancing)
- If we had got mroe supervision, I think we would have done better. As it was, it was way to uncoordinated and it felt like we were just making calls and not really learning much about customer development.» (Not enough supervision, I suggest some rebalancing)

22. Rate your supervisor in terms of relevant competence

51 svarande

Lack of competence was a problem»4 7%
He/she knew enough»13 25%
Definitely competent in the relevant fields»23 45%
Very competent!»11 21%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.8

- competence is wrong word, he is very competente but he lack understanding about the course. He did not know what we supposed to do, or give us guidance about the process or the report. » (Lack of competence was a problem)
- Main problem was his time i think. Perhaps we could have bothered him more but we felt able to make decisions ourselves too. Its difficult not to behave like this when the supervisor is under high workload elsewhere. I do not feel yet that it impacted the project very negatvely but thus if course depends a little bit on the end grade.» (He/she knew enough)
- Joakim was great and gave relevant feedback» (Definitely competent in the relevant fields)
- Henrik is competent in a theoretical perspective. On the other hand, he devoted too little time and interest to us and our project to be of much help.» (Definitely competent in the relevant fields)
- Competent yes but too few meetings and not available enough. » (Definitely competent in the relevant fields)
- And the commitment was highly appreciated. » (Definitely competent in the relevant fields)
- Very competent, but as previously mentioned, we would have wanted more continuous feedback» (Very competent!)
- however, very busy.» (Very competent!)
- God supervisor. » (Very competent!)

23. Rate your supervisor in terms of commitment & engagement

51 svarande

Lack of commitment and/or engagement was a problem»8 15%
Somewhat unengaged but professional about it»16 31%
Adequately committed and engaged»13 25%
High level of commitment and engagement»14 27%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.64

- Was there to provide good feedback towards the end. » (Somewhat unengaged but professional about it)
- Told us at the first meeting that he did not have much time for us, and to only contact him when we ran into problems. Would have been better to have more supervision. We did however have weekly meetings with our contact from HAWC which lead to a very strange balance of power, since it felt like we were basically consultants for him, and not really doing the work to learn about customer development. » (Somewhat unengaged but professional about it)
- He had a lot to do beside us, but Joakim is a sharp guy » (Adequately committed and engaged)
- just to little time» (Adequately committed and engaged)
- Felt a bit rushed during supervisions due to time constraints.» (High level of commitment and engagement)
- Great!» (High level of commitment and engagement)

24. Overall assessment of your supervisor

51 svarande

Not good enough»6 11%
Adequate»21 41%
A good supervisor»21 41%
One of the best I have had»3 5%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.41

- wasn"t listening and supporting. was acting very bossy and sometimes arrogant. » (Not good enough)
- Bordering on not good enough if you choose to see his other workload as a big problem.» (Adequate)

25. How much did you learn from the project as a whole?

Here we try to measure if you learned enough from the project to make it worth the effort you and we put into the project

51 svarande

Did not learn much from the project»11 21%
Like an average project in a course»17 33%
I learned unusually much in this project»19 37%
One of the most valuable course projects I"ve done»4 7%
No opinion»0

Genomsnitt: 2.31

- The main thing is to make a lot of calls and then think a little about the canvas and positioning the company. This is nothing that really adds knowledge to the student. It is rather a question about gaining experience rather then learning.» (Did not learn much from the project)
- Could have learnt more, thought it was really fun to get out and talk to people.» (Did not learn much from the project)
- On an general basis I percieve this to be a inappropriate project. I think it has little relevance to the course. The Customer Development process could be condensed and thought in maybe one-two lectures. The project only provided me with insights into a specific industry, thus little generic (and for other purposes valuable) knowledge» (Did not learn much from the project)
- I learned some but considering the time we spent on it I learned too little --> not worth it!» (Did not learn much from the project)
- the industry was to complex and the product idea very vague. had to prioritize to get knowledge about the industry and didn"t learn anything about customer validation. » (Did not learn much from the project)
- I think the whole launchpad thing was a huge problem. It felt like we were thrown into that way of working without really understanding how to carry out the whole process. It wasn"t until the project was largely over that we got a good understanding of the whole process and how the canvas should be used. It"s not easy at the start, when you"re not really sure how everything works and you"re being rushed into conducting as many interviews as possible as soon as possible, while you don"t really understand how to use launchpadcentral. And from a technical standpoint, I would not let students use an unfinished service. We experienced detrimental bugs that took a couple of days to get fixed. There were a few things changed in an update that made us interpret the whole "thumbs up or thumbs down" thing differently, and thereby skewing our results. I really hope that launchpadcentral was solely used for our benefit, and not the developers.» (Like an average project in a course)
- Learnt a lot from interviewing, very interesting.» (Like an average project in a course)
- felt as the prject scope could be a little less as it just a lot of the work felt like alot of work with little learning» (I learned unusually much in this project)
- I learnt a lot, unfortunately it was mostly related to how to work in a dysfunctional group and not about the actual goals of the course.» (I learned unusually much in this project)

Summarizing questions

26. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

- The Blank book and the guest lecture by Johan Sköld. Mostly because, as a classmate put it, this is the first time during our study time someone tells us it pays off to be a good guy.»
- The projects»
- The project and the guest lectures! And the lussefika at the course ending!»
- Most things.»
- Project is interesting, but a group work should NEVER be half of the grade, its rather stupid! the grades should be individual.»
- Customer development is a very good approach to this course I think, so it should be kept.»
- The project.»
- I liked that we could chose the projects and the groups by our own. »
- the projects»
- the concepts and the litterature (also the slides) »
- Being able to use your own idea for the project.»
- The project.»
- Guest Lectures»
- I think most of the course should be maintained. I think it could be kind of interesting to introduce the concept of the flipped classroom a bit and maybe use udacity and Blank"s own lectures as a prerequisite for some of the lectures and then have a more thorough discussion about the main parts during the lesson.»
- A case related to the BCM and launchpadcenter.com, even if the site should be upgraded with more features»
- Guest lectures and Sörens witty remarks»
- All content is relevant. »
- crossing the chasm»
- The project in some shape or form, but consider either reducing the amount of time having to be spent on it (one could sink an infinite amount of time into the project). Or, more closely tie the lectures to the project work. Try to draw on examples from students perhaps?»
- The Crossing the Chasm book. The guest lectures.»
- I think that the project is interesting, fun and good. But it definitely needs more clear guidelines or more frequent supervision. It feels very difficult when you try and try to meet deliverables criteria and hear that other groups have different guidelines, so a measure of communication among the supervisors could be warranted. The guest lecturers were very good!»
- The project, but put the deadline a little bit earlier.»
- The projects»
- Project»
- Johan Sköld should definitely come back.»
- the project is ggod but could be reduced»
- Good guest lecturers!»
- The project»

27. What should definitely be changed to next year?

- I would like the project to be a little more focused, now it feels a bit like we end up with no really worked through parts. Also, I didn"t like the existence of the leaderboard in Launchpad. I mean, some groups were actually competing in number of customer interviews which is ridiculous because they added all kinds of shit there and it can also make other groups feel stressed out.»
- A little strange situation when Sören is personally involved in some of the projects, maybe this could be changed»
- Presentation of projects, could perhaps be done in even smaller groups?»
- Christian Sandström interrupts his lectures by displaying mini-cases (old exam questions etc.) for the class to discuss in pairs (typically five minutes discussion in pairs, followed by five minutes discussion in the whole class). These sort of cases are very valuable and could be implemented in the lectures.»
- Sören should NOT use his own companies in the projects. Its amazing that he is grading his own company,grading his own thoughts and even his own #¤," text! ofc the student working with vauni get good grades. Also giving his own group a higher limit of papers to handle in is really unfair towards the rest of the groups which had a very strict number of pages to work with. Also, letting the vauni presentation take 1 hour and 10minutes is so stupid it is insane!»
- The project wasn"t very engaging in this format, mostly because it felt like doing the dirty work for someone else for free. I think it would be more engaging if teams would have to come up with their own ideas and work on those.»
- Should be more focus on the companies to engage more and support as much as possible.»
- Don"t like guest lectures that much. Seldom relevant to the rest of the course.»
- I beleive that the learnings for the cource exame could be clearer stated. The power point on the lectures could sometimes be a bit messy (röriga). »
- Remove or change the project. Perhaps provide a focused course on VC and PE instead. Also, the way the course is teached. Now I percieve it as too little focus on challanging given theories and argumentation. Rather, the course aims a provide a set of framework which should be accepted without questioning.»
- Sören, do not comment so much on your guest lecturers! - it was hard to follow when they got interupted. All in all, it was a good course!»
- make groups of max 4 people instead. it"s way to complex to administrate a sex person group, especially when everyone are taking different courses, finding time to meet and work together etc.»
- Stop bragging about money in lectures. Lecture faster, dont spin out so much in the lectures. Revise the articles, some are brilliant some not. Kill off vauni in the course, it is not okey to use students in own projects.»
- The size of the groups. It would have been better if the course was longer, the project is too extensive to be done in a couple of weeks. »
- Project grouping»
- Make the groups smaller in the group work and be extremely clear about what is to be judged in terms of grades. From our previous courses people are relatively used to producing theses" that not necessary correlate with a functional solution, and I think it is of great importance to be clear about what is going to be rewarded - "theoretical bs..." - or well-informed information based on empirical results. »
- the projects and the exam, could not be too big parts. »
- The level of engagement between supervisors and project leaders in the different projects, differed between the case groups. This should be thought of and considered next year»
- Restructure the projects.»
- I don"t think the launchpadcentral website was very helpful. It rather created a high degree of stress and competition.»
- Better focus on "useful" course material during lectures. Sören should not digress so much that he does.»
- get smaller groups in projects, give clearer value proposition to companies, consider paying students for their work for the companies. Remove the mandatory intro to the project. Fundamentally change the format of the lectures, look to the TCIT-course for inspiration. Add depth to the VC-part, it is way to basic»
- The wording of the project basis for grading. As I read it it states that grades are based on how much the information benefitted the company, in contrast to how "well" one would conduct their work or follow the customer development process. Also consider involving the supervisors in the grading. Since they have been involved in the work, and guided it, it should only be fair that they are involved in setting the grades. Otherwise what is to say that the advise they give benefits me in the end if it is someone else that decides if it was good or not?»
- Make the lectures provide more than the litterature. Have less emphasis on Vauni. »
- More committed supervision. Reading list should be given out during the course. Perhapd the readings are a little heavy considering its difficult to extract the important points from them. B&D is quite detailed, something that I did not feel helped intensely - perhaps some reading hints from Sören would help next year!»
- Maybe, in some way, less focus on interviews in the project. »
- more time on the exam. »
- I think it would be best to let students choose projects and then assign them groups accordingly. I think the course should be either totally project based or have a project and a take-home exam»
- the lecture slides and the message they convey. The lectures was rather poor focus was often on unrelated things. »
- The projects need to be much clearer on what is expected of the students. Supervisors need to know this, and not just say that they don"t know what the goals are and if the work you are doing is good or bad. Apparently our report could be "anything between an F and a 5". That is not very reassuring. Supervisors therefore need to know more of what is expected of the students.»
- How much the project weighs towards the final grade, and also the final exam was way too broad (the second part) which made it difficult to answer everything on time.»

28. Additional comments

- Using the launchpad was a bit messy and it was demanding to keep it up to date. It is was not a good way for obtaining an overview of the BM.»
- Merry christmas!»
- Great course!»
- Great course!»
- Sören should NOT use his own companies in the projects. Its amazing that he is grading his own company,grading his own thoughts and even his own #¤," text! ofc the student working with vauni get good grades. Also giving his own group a higher limit of papers to handle in is really unfair towards the rest of the groups which had a very strict number of pages to work with. Also, letting the vauni presentation take 1 hour and 10minutes is so stupid it is insane!»
- Do not have a mandatory lecture the day after the chalmers pub crawl especially when the important things are said in 15 minutes. Also have the feeling that it is a little bit like the groups Sören likes get advantages like more pages in the report and promised high grades. Does not feel fair or profesional.»
- Felt like the Vauni was sort of prioritized in the course, like they was consulted. questions and discussion after presentation was twice as long as the others. And out of 90 projects, Vauni qualified in two of them? seems a bit outstanding at a first glance. However, it was in total interesting projects and a good course. »
- thanks for the course.»
- The course as a whole has been very useful, from a informative perspective. This course is what made me interested in applying for the program, unfortionatly i am disappointed by how the course vere conducted.»
- Really good course! I wish we would have had something like this earlier in the program. »
- I think that it has to be more clear towards the CEO at the company that this is a student project. We had a lot of trouble in just pleasing all parts since the CEO wanted to have control over what we were doing and contiuously have updates to him. This were several time conflicts in what we had to do (from supervisor) and what the CEO did want us to do (it was his private things) he just wanted us to do the product-market fit. »
- I got the feeling that a certain Vauni group was treated with favor. Both when it comes to concrete guidance of the report and also the space during the presentation. Not acceptable.»
- Evaluate if this course really is adequate at masters level and in this format. »

Genomsnitt totalt för alla frågor: 3.41
Beräknat jämförelseindex: 0.6

* obligatoriska frågor

Kursutvärderingssystem från