Instruction voice is too feeble

demasiadas preguntas practicas

Half of the course is useless

Peer grading is not worth it.

longer than I anticipated.

great and easily to follow

Too much in one module.

it was a nice course.

Videos hard to follow

beeter to learn

Amazing stuff!

not appealing

A bit tedious

Good so far.

good course

amassing

goood

good

good

good

Yo

3

I felt it was too long-winded and repetitive, but it didn't focus enough on CERTAIN things instead. I have never used any of these tools for example (and ALWAYS Hated Excel, so google sheets isn't my ideal either) and REALLY felt it needed much clearer definition and clarification criteria to make me understand their capabilities for example. The Project Charter on Plant Pals JuAnn did in Module 4 at the end, she should've done while she was explaining The Project Charter and all it's facets with vigor...not later (sort of but not REALLY as alll these concepts are simultaneous really in PM to be honest and must be known like the back of your hand, not writing it their way but UNDERSTANDING the concept to move on!!) so that was a bit random. Also, the Project Proposal was what, three lines altogether?? and the Executive Summary was overlooked except in one activity. Moreover, Scope is really hard to grasp yes... but it is SOOOOO important I could NEVER stress that enough. Repetition and not clarification there too. The definition of goals and objectives were mixed up due to Smart Goal and OKR learning ( i realise english has a limited lexicon! goal can mean several things as a GOAL) and the comeaway after much talking and reading was that Success Criteria was that "everyone interprets it differently".?! OBviously. Give more concrete examples then! Resources can also be deliverables. This is confusing. A MArketing Manual is a resource, but it IS a Deliverable primarily. This can cause Ambiguity and confusion for many people. Stakeholders bit was alright. Smart Goals they invented attainable/achievable to make SMART as a word acronym, because Relevant/realistic and Achieveable was not sufficient for Google or PMI! They intertwine very well. OKRs were ok but again, 1 objective a few key results. This makes one wonder why KPI's are so common in the rest of OTHER workplaces were no PM's are to be found. I know the difference of course, but it wasn't outlined well HERE. RACI was OK. There was a brilliant part explained, then the same process i mention above happened again. so, Tools was a bit of a bust, and the repetition ...but repeating the same things and Omitting things that ought to be ELABORATED further through a MINIMUM of repetition was a real let down. Luckily JuAnn looks like a compassionate, sweet, very capable and knowledgeable person who i'm sure EXCELS at her job... and her soft reassuring voice was easy to listen to in the videos. But it went on too long. JUST LIKE THIS MESSAGE. and I've read PLANNING is JUST as bad if not WORSE in dragging on. Hopefully it drags on with reinforcing things and not repeating the known!!!! sorry. It's true though. All in all though, I obviously learned a TON of stuff. However, overall, I found it interesting and informative but the repetition and crucial omissions did my head in. This CAN'T be an easy "course" or "certificate" to teach, I reallise that FULLY. PM takes YEARS and SERIOUS exams. This feels like fluff in comparison, but at least we are being exposed to the basics even if they want it the GOOGLE WAY and aren't as interested in us RETAINING the ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE! oh well. Most Courses (and High School!) are like that.

The course features bad advice. For example, it says that reducing email response time by 20% is a good project goal, it is not, using that as a project goal would mean that if you reduced it by 19% the project has failed and if you reduced it by 20% by the deadline but it went back up after you finished the project, the project "succeeded" but nothing has actually improved.

Another example of bad advice from this course is the recommendation that no matter what the project manager should not accept any scope changes from team members. This is profoundly unrealistic, in the real world you will never predict all aspects of the project correctly and if you never accept changes to the project that your team recommends based on new discoveries they came across while working on it, you will 1) alienate your team 2) produce a product that includes features that do not make sense or work poorly because you ignored empiricism and went with your initial guesses instead.