A University-wide Timetabling Solution

1. Presentation to the Academic Services CommitteeStudent Systems and Publications Office12 October 2004 A University-wide Timetabling Solution

2. Presentation Approach • To present the initial case for establishing a University-wide timetabling solution and service for 2006 • To summarise investigations to date • To describe the ‘way forward’, including the proposed scope and approach to developing a University-wide timetable • To list key business and technical challenges, issues, stakeholders and obstacles • To obtain ASC support for timetabling as a ‘priority’ focus item for 2004-5

3. Primary Timetabling Objective To introduce a University-wide timetabling solution, fully integrated with other academic administration systems and services, in order to: • Plan and manage resources, including teaching space, more effectively • Provide the information the University requires to make informed decisions about future teaching and space needs, on existing and planned campuses • Improve the quality of the student experience by publishing a timetable that meets their expectations • Schedule classes at times and in teaching spaces that meet the needs of students and academic staff • Provide the tools administrators need to perform their duties as timetabling managers

4. The Business Need - 1 • The current uncoordinated arrangements provide no ability for the University to best manage its space and optimize its teaching timetable for the benefit of the students and staff. • Teaching space is not used efficiently due to hoarding, phantom bookings, poor match to class size and time slots skewed to peak times on Monday to Thursday. • Hundreds of courses are “offered” but do not result in any enrolments, leading to an inaccurate view of what is genuinely available. • Interdependencies between course offerings make it almost impossible to adjust the timetable incrementally to improve space utilisation or introduce new course combinations. • Many approved course combinations are impossible to take due to timetable clashes – a particular problem for combined degree programs. • Recording class offerings and teaching space on NSS is incomplete, limiting efforts to gain a comprehensive view of the teaching profile.

5. The Business Need - 2 • Parts of the timetable are locked in a 1970s time-warp – some courses have been offered in the same patterns for 30 years, despite enrolment fluctuations and other changes. • There is low effective utilisation of physical resources and time. • Poor choices for students, especially in combined programs. • The teaching space limit has now been reached. The removal of the Heffron theatres from the CATS inventory squeezes the last drop from the safety margin. • The CATS-2 system (absolute priority bookings for rooms closely associated with schools) exacerbates scheduling problems. • There is a need for a wider range of learning spaces and facilities, yet there is no apparent drop in demand for conventional rooms. • UNSW has seen a significant take-up in eLearning, yet this too has not led to a drop in demand for face-to-face teaching. • The introduction of space charging in the UNSW budget model will lead to an increased focus on teaching space allocation and planning.

6. Students, Advisers Program Rules AcademicAdvising Results History Configuration maintained by Schools Course Catalogue Online Handbook All users Enrolment Requirements Equivalent Courses WebCT-Vista Students, Staff Class Schedule Students, Staff (proposed) myUNSW Reserve Capacities Enrolment Quotas Meeting Times Existing functionality Potential functionality Syllabus Plus Timetabling ‘Academic Administration’ Systems and Services

7. Timetabling – Room Utilisation 9am-6pm % of time room is booked % of seats occupied when in use Source: CATS bookings, S1 2003 Large: 180-500 seats (excl. Clancy, NSG, Ritchie, Sci; 16 theatres) Medium: 100-168 seats (22 theatres)

8. Issue 1 - Space Utilisation Status: poor (see chart) Effects: unavailability of theatres; intractable timetable clashes; new courses banished to outlying times Causes: skewed time distribution; historical precedence; convenience bookings; CATS-2 system and unused bookings • If central timetabling occurs… • All courses (including new ones) are considered on an equitable basis • No justification for CATS-2 • Schedule based on program rules and genuine facility characteristic requirements • If there is no change… • Increasing cases of unfulfilled booking requests • Some new programs may not be able to be timetabled (and may have to be withdrawn) • New buildings required to satisfy peak demand

9. Issue 2 - Planning Capability Status: non-existent (for example, Heffron theatre removal analysis was ad hoc and changes effected manually) Effects: impossible to respond effectively to any significant change Causes: no central timetabling solution, unique among Australian universities • Central timetabling can embrace… • Changes to program rules and course offerings • Changes to teaching practices that impact facility usage • Changes to facility inventory and characteristics, including upgraded services • Alternative scenarios without commitment • If there is no central timetabling… • Effects of all changes must be discovered through trial and error, or just ignored (and inequities perpetuated) • No effective planning can occur

10. Issue 3 – System Integration Status: poor integration of timetabling, resource management, and student enrolment and advising services Effects: multiple processes are required to finalise an individual timetable (up to 2½ months); no connection between program rules and enrolment; eLearning needs are not recorded with other class information; CATS bookings are independent of class schedule Causes: development by ‘topsy’ methodology; little commitment to complete the missing links of timetabling and academic advising • Integration can achieve… • Program rulesets driving both the timetable and academic advising reports • A timetable coupled to CATS booking processes • Class schedule modified to accept scheduling parameters and eLearning requirements • If there is no reform… • Increasing student dissatisfaction with inconsistent procedures • Additional staff load, continued duplication of effort

11. Issue 4 – Supporting UNSW Asia Status: no forward planning for timetabling requirements for UNSW Asia Effects: ineffective timetable, risk of compromising success of venture. Causes: UNSW slow to appreciate importance of getting administrative services right • Early timetable planning means… • Interfaces between NSS and S+ can be developed to suit needs of all campuses • Staged course and program delivery can be accommodated by reconfiguring annually • Move from Republic Poly to Changi in 2008 can be smooth • If there is no planning… • Timetable construction may have to be outsourced due to lack of timetabling experience within UNSW • Loss of control of processes • Missed opportunity to develop effective procedures

12. Issue 5 – Change Management Status: all learning & teaching activities will be impacted in some way Effects: schools will lose ‘rights’ to existing resource or time allocation; new planning roles for school admin staff Causes: years of procrastination • If done properly… • Consultation ensures that the timetable is not a surprise (or shock) for schools • Scheduling guidelines are transparent and measures of timetable quality negotiated • Timetabling unit operates to agreed principles to manage new processes • If change is managed poorly… • There may be serious objections and misunderstandings • It will be difficult to obtain faculty cooperation, without which the new timetable may be unworkable

13. Issue 6 – Cultural Challenges Status: no culture of central role in scheduling processes Effects: large variation in timetabling practices across UNSW; silos, dog-in-the-manger attitudes; suspicion about competence and reliability of central control Causes: lack of coordinated efforts over many years • If the culture can be changed… • Faculties would agree to record all timetabled (and course-related eLearning) activities on NSS • Faculties would accurately and completely specify genuine teaching resource requirements • Timetabling unit would negotiate on any late changes or objections to the provisional timetable • If there is no culture change… • Class schedule data would remain scattered across systems, leading to inconsistencies and costly interfaces • An incomplete and ineffective timetable would result • CATS processes would remain manual

14. Timetabling – CATS/NSS correlation Source: CATS bookings, S1 2004

15. Issue 7 – Technical Challenges Status: detailed analysis not yet undertaken Effects: estimates of costs and benefits are approximate Causes: UNSW slow to plan for central timetabling • Easy to moderate technical problems… • Preserving existing class patterns (L2 L1 etc) • School and cohort blackout slots • Specifying facility requirements • Specifying expected class size trends • Aggregated classes (time slot vs actual class) • Composite component types (TLB = tut + lab) • Difficult technical problems… • Capturing program rules in a form suitable for scheduling • Interleaved odd/even week classes • Preserving class structures such as reserve caps, associations • Implicit class linkages such as 2 tuts following lec • Managing complex class patterns that change over time • Incorporating permitted clashes

16. Scope - Proposed • All faculties, including UNSW@ADFA, other than the undergraduate medical curriculum and AGSM. • Integration of the CATS and NSS systems to provide a comprehensive timetabling solution. • Integration for scheduling purposes, through NSS, of WebCT Vista activities. • Business Process Reengineering - Development of new policy and business processes to support the change in current business practices. • Change management associated with the introduction of the solution into faculties and administrative areas. • Provision of core training to faculty and administrative staff. • Development of core competencies in timetabling software within UNSWIT Services. • Out of Scope • Scheduling teaching staff in the timetable. • Preference-based student allocations to classes.

17. Approach • Business-change oriented approach • Move to centralised timetabling for 2006. • The project will be organised around the challenges of managing the organisational, procedural, role, and cultural changes required for a successful implementation. • It will include an important IT dimension, especially around developing the skills to support the Syllabus+ application and the interfaces to NSS. • Governance - Proposed • Sponsor: Professor Robert King, DVC Academic. • Central Timetabling Unit (CTU): established on project start-up: ensures that skills acquisition occurs early and is rolled-forward to a Production scheduling environment; manages change program. • Project Management: Steering Committee to be established. • User engagement: User Reference Group to be established – representation from faculties and schools, and students. • Engagement: Management forum for Deans, Heads of School to be established.

18. Approach: 3-phase plan • Phase 1 – Establish governance and infrastructure [November 2004 – February 2005] • Establish criteria for measuring quality of a new timetable. • Establish plan for data capture (including program rules, scheduling parameters, CATS facility characteristics). • Phase 2 – Iterative prototyping [January – May 2005] • Create trial timetables based on existing 2005 classes through to May 2005. • Analyse results, identify shortcomings, refine for full run September/October 2005. • Establish development schedule for interfaces and modifications • Phase 3 – Production timetable schedule and support [June – September 2005 and onwards] • BSDS modify class schedule to accept scheduling parameters • SAD roll forward prototype schedule (early September) • Course authorities add/update class requirements • Class configuration exported to Syllabus+, timetable constructed, imported to NSS with bookings to CATS (October) • SAD/CTU manage exceptions, finalise timetable by mid-November.

19. Benefits and Outcomes • For Students • Improved choice of non-clashing classes • A complete timetable (with locations) available earlier • High-achieving combined-degree students able to build timetable • For Schools and Faculties • Level teaching field (by removing bias towards allocation of “desirable” timeslots based on historical precedent) • Single entry point for class bookings • Improved capability to plan program and course changes • Increased time to assign staff to classes • For UNSW • Ability to undertake resource planning • Reduced capital and maintenance costs for teaching space as utilisation improves • Opportunity to move towards integrated Academic Advisingand timetabling solution

20. Further Information • Acknowledgement • This presentation draws on investigations undertaken by Student Administration and Business Systems Development Services in 2003 and 2004. • For further information and enquiries: • Robert Morrell Assistant Registrar Student Administration The University of New South Wales • telephone:  +61 2 9385 1919email: r.morrell@unsw.edu.au • Geoff Whale Business Systems Development Services & School of Computer Science & Engineering • telephone:  +61 2 9385 4046email: g.whale@unsw.edu.au