The overall course was informative however when talking about the cases/examples it became tedious and made the distraction more prevalent. It would be interesting to see if there can be a change in the structure of the course making it more dynamic/interactive for the learner.

The course was informative but shallow. I was hoping for a more in-depth review of the topics, and I felt that time was wasted on the professors' lengthy and mostly-irrelevant anecdotes that were hard to follow and harder to pull meaningful information out of.

You talked about Taylor without touching on Gilbreth. Both laid the foundation for our understanding of manufacturing and processes. Also, include a social capital portion on trust and managing that with public, customer and within the enterprise.

The quality of this course compared to others in the Business Foundations specialization was disappointing. I did not feel that the professors took the same amount of time to create helpful visuals and presentations as they did in previous courses.

Professor Capelli was really amazing. He took the natural flow of explaining the subject slowly with pauses and expressions while Professor Mike's explanations were really hard to follow, dry and was hard to focus.

This was the most confusing, least clear of the courses so far. Professor Useem was especially difficult to follow. I'm quite sure he understands the material; but he did not present it in a cogent manner.

A nice course with important concepts pointing out the importance of the subject Human and Social capital. On the other hand it scrapes only on the surface of this important area for a manager.

First two weeks were super interesting; the second two seemed a little "dispersive", lots of time focused on the details of the examples but not enough explaining on the core messages.

Very much an introductory course with fairly slim content supported by a lot of examples. This felt a lot less substantial than the Intro to Marketing course in this specialisation.

I was hoping this course would go deeper into psychological managing. This course seems better suited to just learning the architecture of the building departments.

Case studies were good but it was otherwise a very theoretical course and didn't often feel like it could be boiled down to everyday application.

Long story telling with some case studies from real business world. Not so well and clearly structured in my view for long lasting takeaways.

The notes from Mike were not very interactive. ALso the flow of Mike's presentation was not captivating

While information from one teacher was easy to understand, the other was a bit harder to figure out.

Great introduction. A bit more depth and breadth (ie. 8 week course) would be terrific!

Way too easy and general...I wanna learn more from the instructors.

I think more examples would have been better for the class.

Difficult to pay attention to all of the verbal lectures

Thought provoking albeit at times vague and dragged out.

It started off strong but lost momentum.

Could be a bit more interesting

Content is too anecdotal.

Boring!

5 points out of 5 for professor Peter. 1 point out of 5 for professor Mike. The first 2 weeks were good as professor Peter presented with very brief and sum up the ideas. On another hand, the last 2 weeks were bad, professor Mike didn't do well in term of summary. He spent 70% for introduction of each topic before reaching to the points that he want to make. Most of the time, he didn't make any points. Plus he didn't answer the questions that he asked. I am disappointed. I was expecting to learn more as the course structure was impressive BUT the actual lectures are not covered the topic.

This is a survey course. It uses several simple case studies to explain some basic points, but does not go into detail in any particular area. For example the course does not explain well different organizational models or their strengths and weaknesses (functional, regional, etc). I expected more than a cursory mention of matrix management, which is powerful but complex to implement well. There are no hands-on activities other than quizzes at the end of the week. The subtitles are broken and/or of poor quality in several of the videos.