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.

Brand Lab, TEK210

Status: Avslutad
Öppen för svar: 2008-04-09 - 2008-04-29
Antal svar: 5
Procent av deltagarna som svarat: 20%
Kontaktperson: Anneli Hildenborg»
Klass: Övriga

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.

1. How understandable and reasonable are the course goals?

4 svarande

I have not seen/read the goals»1 25%
The goals are difficult to understand»1 25%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»0 0%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»2 50%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

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

4 svarande

No, not at all»0 0%
To some extent»1 25%
Yes, definitely»3 75%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- I must say Jens and Jonas really put effort into give really good and effective feedback» (Yes, definitely)

Study climate

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

4 svarande

Very poor»1 25%
Rather poor»0 0%
Rather good»0 0%
Very good»2 50%
I did not seek help»1 25%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- Collaborative and fine! Happy ship!» (Very poor)

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

4 svarande

Very poorly»1 25%
Rather poorly»0 0%
Rather well»2 50%
Very well»1 25%
I did not seek cooperation»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

5. How was the course workload?

4 svarande

Too low»0 0%
Low»0 0%
Adequate»2 50%
High»2 50%
Too high»0 0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- High in a positive way» (High)

Summarizing questions

6. What is your general impression of the course?

4 svarande

Poor»0 0%
Fair»0 0%
Adequate»0 0%
Good»2 50%
Excellent»2 50%

Genomsnitt: 4.5

- A really good extension of the course» (Good)

Part II: General Questions

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

- 40-60 depending, at least 45hours in avarage»
- 40 hours in class plus an average of 20 hours extra on evenings and during weekends»
- 40»
- 40»
- 45»

8. How understandable are the course goals?

- So and so, sometimes many of us , and I, thought we were right on target but anyway we got bad results and lack of skills»
- havent read them»
- haven"t seen them»

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

- Hard for me to say»
- to some extent»
- don"t know yet»

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

- been helpful»
- Regarding the method with role-plays and simulations i found it to be one of the best learning environments i have ever experienced.»
- laid the foundation necessary for the deeper personal learning»

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

- AS much as possible.»
- very good»
- excellent»
- very good, the teachers are "always" accessible by mail and often in person»

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

- rather good»
- excellent»
- very well»

13. How was the course workload?

- high»
- high but rewarding»

14. What was your general impression of the administration of the course?

- Good as usaual»
- great»
- very good»
- good»

15. What is your overall impression of the Brand Lab? Please motivate your answer!

- Good since it gave another set of tools as well as we excerisied some of the tools already provided during the year.»
- Excellent. I liked the hands-on approach and the challenging tasks such as writing a franchise agreement without having a lecture describing what a franchise is.»
- good and structured»
- very good content, very important information. It was also a very fun course with many fun elements. However, the .net case i felt was a bit unstructured and didn"t really seem to be in accordance with the lab in the way it was labelled.»
- Very interesting»

16. What would you recommend us to do differently next year, do you have suggestions for improvements?

- The only really really really really really really bad thing was the miscommunication the last Friday »
- The descriptive concept weeks were good when working on the biotech innovations and .NET, but felt a bit repetitious when we had to do it again on the first day of the design concept workshop.»
- change the .net case - it was too much alike what we did with the "acid lactic / mouse gene thing"»

17. Miscellaneous comments

Part III: Lectures, Exercises and Assignments

Please comment on the content of the lecture/assignment, how well it was communicated and to what extent you felt it was relevant to your learning.

18. Creation and Management of descriptive terms (Jonas Lindgren/Jens Bördin)

- Great presentation. I liked the fact that many real life examples were used, such as, comparing chronograph watches to digital watches, Autoliv and Volvo, etc. I still remember much of the context without having to look at my notes. Great job!»
- Do not remember»
- ok»

19. Simulation introduction (Jonas Lindgren/Jens Bördin) + Simulation 1&2 –, Descriptive terms

- Great task. Challenging and great feedback for the presentation (when dividing the presentation into slides and presentation style). We need plenty of feedback on our presentations so this was excellent.»
- good»
- not so good, could have got the info on email instead. Wasted 2 hours of my time.»

20. Creation and management of core values (Carina Lindberg)

- Could be better prepared and understanding of what ICM. Not for her sake but for our learning experiance. »
- A bit fuzzy, although, inspiring. I would have appreciated some more structure of the lecture (e.g. using slides). Great person to bring in and very interesting topic.»
- ok - a bit slow pace but fun.»
- very fluffy but interesting»

21. Simulation 3 –, Core values

- I enjoyed this simulation because of the challenge. Record time for grading and giving feedback by Lars, impressive!»
- fun, good to try out»

22. Management of a multibrand portfolio (Malin van Odijk)

- Real life examples are always good to get. She could have gone in more into details in the tools that she uses and been more specific.»
- good and fun»
- ok, however too much company specific info.»

23. Simulation 4 –, Operational tools

- Interesting. Good simulation.»
- ok»

24. Managing a trademark application (Karin Bergetun)

- Great insights. I used this information in many of my subsequent hand-ins.»
- Interesting and fun, lots of examples. Slides were not good»
- very lawyerish and most things we knew already. Boring and too low pace and nothing new.»

25. Simulation 5 –, Governing a trademark application

- Great way of understanding how the process is done. It would have helped my learning experience immensely if we would have gotten some individual feedback, or AT LEAST separate grades for each of the hand-ins!»
- Alright i guess»
- very good to have filled in an application, felt real. However for next year rememeber that not everyone has adobe prof. and therefore are able to save changes.»

26. Feedback lecture (Jessika Olsén/Lars Andersson)

- Really good to get som idea of how we should have thought. »
- ?... usually good»
- ok, however lacked individual feedback on moodle on these assignments. »

27. Simulation introduction (Jonas Lindgren/Jens Bördin) + Simulation 6 –, Branding strategy and positioning

- Fun exercise. Great to get som insights in a complex application in the IT industry. Very good feedback format in the end!»
- good»
- waste of time.»

28. Simulation 8 –, Evaluating and selecting a trademark

- Great task. This is really useful for the future! I really enjoyed being able to do live searches in the OHIM databases etc while doing this.»
- good»
- very fun»

29. Lecture (Ulf Petrusson)

- Always inspiring. When we thought that we knew about brands..... we learn that it is just the tip of the iceberg. Great lecture! I enjoyed the discussion about merchandizing and would appreciate if we could have a lecture about this topic at some time in the future.»
- A little bit hasty since it was delayed due to illness so i guess he did not want to bring up the original content from the lecturing material since we had proceeded further than expected in the course already...»
- not so good. Unstrucutred, had made no preparations and it felt that he didn"t care about us? Are we not important to him? We are "his" class, he should pay more attention to us and be more concerned with what we are doing.»

30. Franchising (Mango Kask)

- Good lecture. Gave me some really good ideas for how to write a contract.»
- Good, he seemed skilled in the area»
- ok but not very learnful.»

31. Simulation 9 –, Franchise agreement

- Challenging, which I really liked. »
- good. »
- strange assignment, change the layout. We should have some lesson about if first and how to strucutre and agreement. Mr. Kask"s lesson didn"t help.»

32. Simulation 10 –, Creation of brand and design concepts (Toni-Matti Karjalainen)

- First day was mostly repition of the descriptive weeks before. The second day was great and I enjoyed it. I would have enjoyed it even more if TM.K. could have presented some frameworks for how to think which I learnt by other means a week after such as, using animals for visual imagery, fabrics, mood colors, weight etc.»
- Quite fun and interesting. It is quite fun with some cretive courses as well, not only writing agreements similar all the time. And design is a very important task when building a brand, why i would say it is good for us to try that process as well.»

33. No Logo seminar (Lars Andersson/Tomas Faxheden)

- I see the point in including ethics. The seminar was really good and this is a keeper. It doesn"t feel very ICM:ish to write a submission based on a book though. I felt like I was back at high school which made me very unmotivated when writing the hand-in. Maybe it is possible to base a simulation on something similar which feels more real? e.g. analyzing foul tactics of an existing company......»
- ok»
- ok»

34. Did you feel anything was missing in the form of lectures/assignments and how can this be improved for next year?

- Merchandizing»
- --»

Part IV: Course Literature

Please comment on to what extent you have used the literature, the content and to what extent you felt it was relevant to your learning.


35. Intellectual Property & Entrepreneurship (Ulf Petrusson)

- Highly relevant.»
- some extent on branding»
- very useful»
- give you new insights everytime you use it»

36. Lärobok i Immaterialrätt (Marianne Levin)

- Less relevant.»
- very useful»
- no»

37. Intellectual Property (Michael Spence)

- nothing»
- no»

38. Protecting your company’,s intellectual property (Deborah E. Bouchoux)

- nothing»
- no»

39. No Logo (Naomi Klein)

- Highly relevant for the seminar, less relevant for the brand lab as a whole.»
- summarizes»
- not to much help however gave good reflections.»
- interesting but I do not agree with her...»


40. James Nurton, Brands in the Spotligtht

- okay....»
- yes»
- ok»
- ok»

41. Scott Ward, Larry Light and Jonathan Goldstine, What High Tech Managers need to Know about Brands

- Good.»
- yes»
- ok»
- ok»

42. Ioanna Papasolomou and Demetris Vrontis, Building corporate branding through internal marketing: the case of the UK retail bank industry

- Great example. More case studies!»
- Executive summary. management bull shit article. It sucked»
- very bad, not helpful.»
- not that good, very basic»

43. Michael Beverland, Brand management and the challenge of authenticity

- Great article. I learnt a lot from this.»
- Short and consise, yet very good.»
- good»
- very interesting»

44. Alexander E. Reppel, Isabelle Szmigin and Thorsten Gruber, The iPod phenomenon: identifying a market leader’,s secrets through qualitative marketing research

- Very good.»
- Half of it. Didnt seem relevant to me about research meethods to »
- ok»

45. C.M. Sashi and Devi Prasad Karuppur, Franchising in global markets: towards a conceptual framework

- good, clearly describes the complexiy around franchising, and especially so in a global market.»
- ok»

Web resources

46. Did you use the web resources provided?

- Yes, all of the databases.»
- yes»
- yes»
- yes»

47. Was there any additional web resources you found helpful?

- loopia.se and bolagsverket.se for the evaluation of trademarks»
- no»
- no, the ones provided was sufficient.»
- yes»

48. Did you feel anything was missing in the form of literature?

- It would have been good if we had a book based on the old "industrial" thinking on how to build a brand. This could have been analyzed and shown where it was lacking pieces for building a brand.»
- An instruction of what to read and focus on before certain simulation or in different stages in the course, as in the patent lab.»
- I would have liked to have more information about basic or industrial economy brnding as basis»

Kursutvärderingssystem från