Here are the compiled results of the survey Fri, 26 Apr 2024 13:18:55 +0200

Multiple choice 24 participants, 24 selections

• Braun-Mackowia 0 0%
• Boninelli 0 0%
• Cadfem 0 0%
• Lall 0 0%
• Pecht 0 0%
• Suhling 0 0%
• none 0 0%

Single choice 39 answers

• no 0 0%
• somewhat 5 13%
• yes 11 28%

Single choice 40 answers

• yes 11 28%
• indifferent 6 15%
• no 0 0%

Free text, 20 answers

• I have general immpression that this year conference was better than last year. I liked the format and preparation.
• There is a trend the companies try to keep any numbers secret. This is understandable but not good overall. Academics should do the opposite if their work is mostly funded by taxpayers. We need it to teach each other. Example: Is primary creep in solder important or not? I do expect topics like this to be covered comprehensively by academia since for the private sector it is trade secrete these days.
• It was a lot.
• no
• embedded within the conference days
• on Sunday preceding the conference
• embedded within the conference days
• on Sunday preceding the conference
• embedded within the conference days
• I do not really mind
• I do not really mind
• embedded within the conference days
• I do not really mind
• on Sunday preceding the conference
• I do not really mind
• embedded within the conference days
• Ms. Bechtold's course was in alignment and supports my simulation work.
• Courses should be technical/practical (Lau vs Park)
• none
• The course was really good and useful. I have never attended this kind of courses in conferences, so I didn't know what to expect, but it was really informative. So thanks for the opportunity. I don't think I would have attended the course if there had been an extra cost for it.

Single choice 37 answers

• fully agree 8 22%
• agree 6 16%
• disagree 0 0%
• fully disagree 0 0%

Single choice 22 answers

• fully agree 1 5%
• agree 6 27%
• disagree 5 23%
• fully disagree 3 14%

Single choice 38 answers

• fully agree 5 13%
• agree 10 26%
• disagree 0 0%
• fully disagree 0 0%

Free text, 13 answers

• yes
• yes
• somewhat
• yes
• yes
• somewhat
• yes
• yes
• yes
• yes
• The quality of this year's papers is very good. Please keep this
• It was interesting to see what kinds of problems people are working on, and there were many new and interesting techniques emerging, AI and machine learning especially. We are working on many other simulation related topics that were not addressed in the conference, at least not very much. For example, MEMS are sensitive to vibration and shock, so reliability includes also those effects, whereas power electronics have somewhat different failure issues. The use of model order reduction and AI methods was very interesting and mostly new to me, however, it is important to keep in mind that without proper material model characterization, the super fast simulation technology will just be used to generate loads of faulty data. But once the background is good, the new techniques can bring huge advantage.
• more AI topics

Single choice 19 answers

• yes 9 47%
• indifferent 4 21%
• no 1 5%

Single choice 24 answers

• yes 9 38%
• indifferent 3 12%
• no 2 8%

Free text, 9 answers

• It is better than last year (to be clear: last year was very good as well).
• Quite good except chat malfunction during last day.
• very good
• well done
• Very high. There were practically no failures
• very high. there were practically no failures
• Please move the presentation of exhibitors to end/evening of first day: Otherwise, when at second day, only limited time left on third day to discuss with exhibitors
• none
• I didn't notice there was a software/hardware exhibition.

Single choice 24 answers

• yes 20 83%
• maybe 3 12%
• no 0 0%

Single choice 17 answers

• fully agree 11 65%
• agree 4 24%
• disagree 0 0%
• fully disagree 0 0%

Free text, 12 answers

• fully agree
• fully agree
• fully agree
• fully agree
• fully agree
• agree
• fully agree
• fully agree
• fully agree
• agree
• none
• The conference has a very well focused topic, so all the people I met are working on relevant field. That made networking easier. Maybe, if you want to promote networking for participants, there could be some events for networking. The poster session worked well for that, but at cocktail and dinner the people are typically talking with their colleagues from the same company/university, and it's not so easy to start discussions. Maybe there could be some workshops or something?

Single choice 23 answers

• Above my expectations 4 17%
• In line with my standards 9 39%
• Below my expectations 0 0%

Single choice 19 answers

• yes 14 74%
• no 1 5%

Free text, 5 answers

• Exhibitors were in a separate room - only became aware after the exhibitor and sponsor presentation Tuesday evening - this was very late
• To less seats
• add more desks during lunch
• none
• It was a good venue, but the hotel didn't have enough rooms for everyone. Also nearby hotels were full, so bigger hotel could have been better.

Single choice 15 answers

• cheap 3 20%
• worth the overall value 11 73%
• expensive 1 7%

Single choice 15 answers

• fully agree 9 60%
• agree 6 40%
• disagree 0 0%
• fully disagree 0 0%

Single choice 15 answers

• yes sure 11 73%
• too early to say 4 27%
• no 0 0%

Free text, 4 answers

• other management
• There are really too many posters. It is too difficult to finish all of them within 1 morning. Not sufficient time to interact with the authors. Face 2 face interaction is very precious.
• The poster session could be in two parts so that people presenting their own poster would also have a chance to look at other people's posters.