This is case-by-case as its dependent on who or what you are comparing him too. Despite what people have said on this thread, I think he's still a great professor.

I took him twice and I'm actually surprised because the first time I had him (MIS 310) I complained a lot about his peer grading scale. He suddenly decided he wanted all the SQL HW to be groupwork, so essentially participation. I was strongly against this, since my group was made up of 90% of people who straight up just didn't care and got a free ride. The only grade that was factored in for the HW was peer review, and you could only give a 100 or "A" to 2-3 people, and often that went straight to the Team Leads and the person who did the SQL homework ahead of time and gave it to everyone.

I really didn't like this, I got a 80% overall on the homework just because I wanted to actually do the homework in class instead of doing it ahead of time to earn brownie points with borderline strangers, who got to decide 20-25% of my grade. I got a C+ in that class.

After complaining about this though over the comments of submitted assignments, he changed this next semester (MIS 330) and peer review was mostly a tool for accountability, not 20-25% of your grade.

Despite all this, I learned a lot more from him than any other professor in the School of Business besides Professor Curts for MIS 320. YMMV, but I'd say he's a safe bet despite the problems I had with him in the past. He cares enough to listen to his students and change things based on his feedback.