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.
Six Sigma Black Belt Course Evaluation, TEK170
Öppen för svar: 2014-06-18 - 2014-07-18
Antal svar: 18
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 27%
Kontaktperson: Vanajah Siva»
Utbildningsprogram som genomför enkäten: Industriell ekonomi 300 hp
Utbildningsprogram studenten tillhör: 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.
|At most 15 hours/week»||1|| 5%|
|Around 20 hours/week»||4|| 22%|
|Around 25 hours/week»||8|| 44%|
|Around 30 hours/week»||5|| 27%|
|At least 35 hours/week»||0|| 0%|
- It was stated in the cource PM that approximatley 30% ought to be enough. Change this to 25 hours a week.For all participants, industrial and students.» (At most 15 hours/week)
- Need to inform industry participants about the time needed.» (Around 20 hours/week)
- More than anticipated. Somewhat difficult to balance with other work related assignments.» (Around 25 hours/week)
2. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?
Goals and goal fulfilmentThe 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.
3. How understandable are the course goals?18 svarande
|I have not seen/read the goals»||1|| 5%|
|The goals are difficult to understand»||0|| 0%|
|The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»||8|| 44%|
|The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»||9|| 50%|
- More clear goals separately with the course and the six sigma method.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The optimum Black Belt "pen profile" could be described as a combination of problem solving skills, people and org. skills, DMAIC methodology skills and math.stat. skills, to name a few ... Although somewhat utopisc to excel in all, it is not well defined what the minimum skills within each area is for a certified BB. The reference literature named in the first session covered 1000"s of pages, and without a clear expectancy to digest during the course. Judging from some of the topics for the exam, compared to the content of some of the lectures (which for some cases didn"t seem to fully correlate), more self-study papers could have been submitted in addition to the lectures to provide distinct guidance towards expected knowledge for top scoring.» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
4. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?Answer this this question and the succeeding one, only if you do know the course goals.
|No, the goals are set too low»||1|| 5%|
|Yes, the goals seem reasonable»||15|| 88%|
|No, the goals are set too high»||1|| 5%|
- Having the topics and content of the hand-outs defining the knowledge goals, it is clear that the goals are reasonable.
Given my experience, it takes both skills and interest, and perhaps a certain mentality, in order to be good at problem solving. It is perhaps not for all to be appointed SS-BB"s?
However, in order to score 30 pts on the exams, it appears as additional literature studies is expected and therefore teaching guidance towards specific self-study literature should be more clearly provided.
On the other hand, 12/30 pts (40%) provided a passage of 95,5% (63/66 students) which is to set the bar at a seemingly low mark, and may arguably not raise the floor very high. Examining the sensitivity one would find that 4 pts higher scoring (53% correct answers) would fail about 50% of the students!! Would a higher pass-goal force students to study harder, or would only more students fail the course???
» (No, the goals are set too low)
- especially the exam» (No, the goals are set too high)
5. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?17 svarande
|No, not at all»||2|| 11%|
|To some extent»||11|| 64%|
|Yes, definitely»||4|| 23%|
|I don"t know/have not been examined yet»||0|| 0%|
- The teaching was not reflected in the exam...» (No, not at all)
- The test were to subjective, and since there were no possibilities to review the test resualts, the overall impressions of the test were VERY poor.» (No, not at all)
- The written exam was too tricky, so it is easy to be wrong in some questions also if you understood the concept. This year the written exam seems to be more difficult than the previous yers, so also the exam examples provided in the course were not perfect to practice» (To some extent)
- Too much focus on some stuff, for example statistics on the first exam. Pretty much no questions on final exam about DoE despite the fact that almost all lectures in the last study period was about it..» (To some extent)
- Some questions in the part 2 exam had questions who could have two possible right answers. Felt like that exam was just trying our luck in some questions but not deep knowledge.» (To some extent)
- It is always tricky with x-questions, when you dont have a possibility to show that you have learned up to a sertion point, that you can if you are alowed to write.» (To some extent)
- For some of the topics the a-d answering format could certainly be discussed.» (To some extent)
Teaching and course administration
6. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?18 svarande
|Small extent»||2|| 11%|
|Some extent»||6|| 33%|
|Large extent»||6|| 33%|
|Great extent»||4|| 22%|
- Poor statistical lectures with no exercises, too many guest lectures...» (Small extent)
- In my opinion it was too much emphasis on DoE and the JMP software exercises was not too pedagogical. » (Some extent)
- Peter and Vanajahs lectures was very good. Most of the guest lectures were terrible and just time wasting» (Some extent)
7. To what extent has the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?18 svarande
|Small extent»||5|| 27%|
|Some extent»||8|| 44%|
|Large extent»||3|| 16%|
|Great extent»||2|| 11%|
- Slides were not clear and understandable to answer all the questions in the exams. They should make more sense.» (Small extent)
- I don"t find the course literature useful and trying to learn it all by some bulletpoints from a powerpoint presentation is not sufficient.» (Small extent)
- The examples in the slides should be more commented in written form» (Some extent)
- The teaching material ought to be looked over. Somewhat repetative and not always easy to follow.» (Some extent)
- There is a large span between the two compulsary articles and the long list of recommended litterature. I recommend a trainer-bocklet for self-study training examples for some of the topics, such as, QFD, DOE, ANNOVA, P-FMECA, ... which is providing more examples, rangeing in skill-level, than only those covered during lectures.» (Some extent)
- Very good book and easy to understand and use the lecture slides!» (Great extent)
8. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?18 svarande
|Very badly»||2|| 11%|
|Rather badly»||2|| 11%|
|Rather well»||6|| 33%|
|Very well»||8|| 44%|
- Different information depending on who you ask...for instance max number of pages, who is should you direct the report to etc...» (Very badly)
- Not possible to print out some of the powerpoints.» (Very badly)
- From all 100s of ppt-slides it is difficult to get a grip on what is important. Some slides with almost same content. some text on the B/W print version was not visible. I would suggest that you create some kind of old style compendium.» (Rather badly)
- Slided should be provided at least the day before the specific lecture, so as to allow the student to print the slide to take down notes in the slide or in the computer » (Rather well)
- - for those with company-computers that had problems connecting to the Chalmers Wi-Fi network.
Otherwise clear and timely information.» (Rather well)
9. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?17 svarande
|Very poor»||0|| 0%|
|Rather poor»||0|| 0%|
|Rather good»||3|| 17%|
|Very good»||14|| 82%|
|I did not seek help»||0|| 0%|
- Peter was soooo good, he helped us alot. Without him nothing would have possible» (?)
- A big thanks to Peter who always had time for supervision! » (Very good)
10. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?18 svarande
|Very poorly»||1|| 5%|
|Rather poorly»||0|| 0%|
|Rather well»||4|| 22%|
|Very well»||13|| 72%|
|I did not seek cooperation»||0|| 0%|
- In my group we had huge difference of ambition leading to that I wrote the entire report myself. It is a lottery who you end up with...this is never the scenario in reality. As a project leader you chose who to include.» (Very poorly)
- We should have had communicated common goals earlier in the project. The industrial participants was eager in the beginning but drop out a little bit towards the critical end. » (Rather well)
- Would of course benefit us if we could chose our groups ourselves..» (Rather well)
- Overall the goals were met. However - as a company rep the students dual nationalities with countries in recent international conflicts posed a big problem for acquiring security passage to get sufficient access to my company. This probably caused some loss in interest in helping my company solving its problem, to the advantage of performing the project to the necessary level of passing the course. I found it difficult to reach a sufficient professional level for a team of four students that spent so much time among themselves discussing what was the key information rather than spending time on their own trying to acquire information/data from the key persons at the company. A conflict remained to the end in what was the purpose of the project - issuing a recommendation of what should be done (someone else’,s job) to improve (students), or getting the hands dirty with data available and demonstrate the usefulness of the recommendation and actually coming a long way in doing it (me). I clearly expected the students to dig in more in the "dirty work", but seemed to do most of it myself in the end.» (Rather well)
- However, I would suggest a maximum of three students per team.» (Very well)
- The best team I had in Chalmers.» (Very well)
11. How was the course workload?18 svarande
|Too low»||0|| 0%|
|Too high»||0|| 0%|
- However a bit unbalanced. It was low in the beginning but high-too high towards the end. » (Adequate)
- Think it depends a lot on the project and the team members and how much time and effort people are willing to spend» (High)
- Since I planned 30% of FTE» (High)
12. How was the total workload this study period?18 svarande
|Too low»||0|| 0%|
|Too high»||2|| 11%|
- Since I planned 30% of FTE» (High)
- ... as i performed a full time job in parallel, but this is to no blame for the course responsible.» (High)
- Much higher workload than anticipated.» (Too high)
13. What is your general impression of the course?18 svarande
- A big disappointment» (Poor)
- Good course but horrible system for grading» (Adequate)
- This course should be made manditory. It does not really matter is your going to work as an BlackBelt, but the tools we learn how to use and the knowledge we get out of it comes in play at almost every workplace that does something manufacturing related.
This summer is need e.g. to be familiar with: Ishikawa, MSA, FMEA, 5S, and TPS.» (Good)
- Overall a great course! Overall I"m quite happy that I got the chance to attend and complete it!
In saying this, there is a lot of room for improvements - see below. » (Excellent)
14. What should definitely be preserved to next year?- The days at Chalmers that ended with team time, i think that is an excellent way planning the time. I really appreciate that it has been so easy to get in contact with you teacher to ask questions, try to keep that high level next year also.»
- the collaboration with the industry and the diversity of companies from different industries. »
- Mrs Brantins leachture.»
- DoE practice»
- Teachers support»
- Peter and Vanajahs lectures and the guest lectures with Bo Bergman»
- The good mix of lectures and guest speakers»
- Vanajah and her concrete and clear communication and feedback»
- I liked the sturecture this year.»
- the opposition to other projects»
- Keep the woman from Arvika and the guest from SCA, they were both very skilled.»
- First half of the course»
- K Brandin and S Lifvergren"s guest lectures were top class and extremely inspiring. These two could for sure be given a broader stage. Volker Krafts case studies in JMP were very well thought through and gave an excellent insight in both theory and practice. The lectures would have been even better with a preparatory introduction to JMP, where basic handling of the structure of the user interface was explained. Bo Bergmans lectures had the tendencies of a distinguished professor’,s lectures only touching the higher skies and who-is-who to start with, but Bo is very inspiring to listen to and once he got deeper into some of the knowledge areas it got better and better. His lecture on SPC was great, and could have a part 1 earlier in the course. P Hammersberg gave for most of his lectures a great balance of intro, overview, examples, exercise and experience cases, and did a great job of gluing it together.
I liked also A Öberg"s lectures and most of Hendry"s lectures because of the inspirational interest in the topic of numbers and statistics.
It may very well be a few more articles picked out and recommended to the students, holding similarly high quality as those two compulsory.
15. What should definitely be changed to next year?- More time with JMP software/DoE trainer and more deeply described regarding software»
- The JMP sessions! Make a workshop in small groups and hand out some (voluntary) individual exercises »
- The statistical teaching (difficult to follow when you"ve been out of school for many years)and the set-up with too many ppt-slides. Maybe also ask guest teachers to base their material on findings from their own organisation. Some seemed to have examples found on Internet (though Mrs Brantin was fantastic!)»
- More training during exercises»
- Boring guest lectures, more jump lectures, more practical work, better slides, better material for study, »
- More training in JMP in the beginning of the course and maybe cut down on the number of guest lectures»
- The teacher (to someone with pedagogical capabilities, more inspiring and with actual knowledge in the SW in the course), smaller groups, chose your teammates, less guest lectures, feedback on DoE exercises, statistical exercises, the exam (as it is now, it is more about interpreting tricky english linguistics than testing your skills and knowledge) »
- Reviewing examples with explanations / guidance for jmp / DOE example. »
- Run two BB project/student instead of one BB project/student.»
- The structure of the lectures. Everything was very fuzzy and unclear and the different phases were not covered in the right order. Several jumps back and forth, everything was very confusing.»
- The structure how you tech using JMP is bad. The workshop does little for the students because since it is early on and we have never done any practical excersises, the lecture does not stick in our minds. And when we finally need to recall that knowledge it"s lost.
What you should do, is creating video lectures from that workshop. So when we finally have to solve problems in JMP related to our project, we can recall that knowledge on our own, and learn better how to use JMP. »
- the multiple choice test»
- Do not take for granted that all participants studied statistics one year ago - it could have been 10 or even 20 years ago. And when there is an exercise, please use some time to show how it is solved.»
- After the test resualts, the students should be able to review and discuss the grading with the teacher, i was one point from a higher grade and would much have appriciated if this possibilities existed. Especially since the test were so subjective»
- Some of the case-study lectures could be dropped. Either because they were not great examples of problem solving or presenting good examples of projects, or because the lecturer did not have the ability to communicate well. Hendry has the ability to inspire and his sections are very important for the data-crunching parts but often get stuck on explaining trivial or basic parts of his topics and never seem to have enough time left for the more interesting parts of his lecture. A little more preparation in structuring, and a little less sketching with his red pen would probably help a lot. A not very inspirational lecture on P-FMEA right after the mid-term exam was a surprising low for PH. I have also been unsuccessful in finding Svante L"s notes from his lectures....
The DOE section is important but could probably be worked on and better structured to not take so much time. There should be some literature picked out for self studying, as well as more examples including answers for DOE. For instance some tailor made case-studies in JMP, other than those already included in the tutorial. The DOE trainer should not require administrator to install (for those not having private computers).
Vanajah"s lecture on sustainability was very interesting and passionate, but still seemed a little off-topic with how it was aimed (political?)!? Although I didn"t dissagree on most of the oppinions, there was not a clear link between the topic and the examples. Perhaps some more research data on historic reduction of "waste", vs further optimization potentials within the industry or consumer branches would bring it back and inspire to fix the problems of the world?
There could be an early section explaining that the approach to DMAIC could be more iterative for to not so well experienced BB"s, using the tools to gather more information and learning of the problem. A very "structured" sequential approach as a recipie does not reflect my view of actual problem solving, but was taught early in the course. The philosophy of applying the tools in the process of approaching the problem (-learning) came only later and only per PH"s advice.
My impression is also that there is an overwight on qualitative (for ranking and voting) tools, whereas there may be more room for describing/mapping and structuring complex relations of scientific nature. »
16. Additional comments- Many thanks for a fantastic time at Chalmers!!»
- The feedback and grade reporting is slow! the feedback could also bee more ongoing. »
- I don"t think you should be allowed to certificate black belts when the group size is this big. Some people just pass through without their leadership and project leader skills being tested at all. You can basically sit quite for six month and then become a black belt. It disolves the whole idea with a certificate because it doesn"t mean anything anymore....I also donät think you should receive the certifacte without completing all phases of the DMAIC cycle.»
- Reduce the number of "company presentations". If they should be preserved, the focus MUST be on the process and general problems/learnings and not details about that specific project.»
- You should relly implement the video lectures, they did it in my univeristy for softwares like AutoCad and Inventor, and the learning curve for the students becomes much greater. »
- If a student is one point from a higher grade, it should be better possibilities to review and question the tests resualts, like the possibilities in other courses, but now one point resualted in higher grades for all the others in the group but lower for one single student, as a consequens of one single point at the test!, the test review should be in close contact in time with the test/grading.. Not some time in the autumn when some of the knowledge might be forgotten.»
- Great job of gathering a great variety of guest lecturers, some of which clearly were at a very distinguished level. It really gave a wide and deep representation of all the topics within Six Sigma, and presented a rainbow of flavors for different tastes among the participants. It ispires for more studying. »