1

SROC Conference

JISC Timetabling Study - Presentation of findings

7th April 2009

Zeb Nash

2

Background

• JISC sponsored study

• Objectives:– Summarise the processes– Identify supporting technology use– Identify major shared challenges– Consider foundations for success– Identify links between curriculum development

and timetabling

3

Consultation• Consultative interviews with nominees from sector bodies:

– ARC– AOC– AUA– AUDE– SROC

• Interviews with system suppliers:– Scientia– CELCAT

• 8 regional workshops:– Across UK– 59 institutions – 95 individuals

4

Drivers• Student experience

– ‘student focus’ – changing demographic– recruitment and retention

• Efficiency• Complexity of the curriculum• Historical culture• Locus of control – strategic ownership• Physical layout• Use of estate for income generation

5

Approaches

• 3 main activities:– Requirements identification– Scheduling– Location allocation

• Can be managed centrally / distributed

• 4 model approaches

6

Approach (2)

7

Drivers - Approaches• Centralised

– Space used for multiple subjects– Needs managed through more formal process /

working relationships– Efficiency may be significant– Shared modules

• Distributed– Departmental buildings – ‘local ownership’– Needs managed through local knowledge – closeness– Variation

8

Links with other processes

9

Use of technology• Almost all represented institutions using a

timetabling information system• Available functionality is rich and extensive:

– Collation of information– Modelling curriculum structure– Allocation of students to groups– Interface to other information systems– Construction of the timetable

• Constraint identification• Auto-scheduling

– Publication – paper / online– Management information

• Dependent on extensive accurate information• Specific potential developments

10

Main challenges• Policy

– Conflicting priorities result in challenges to quality

• Process– Heavily dependent on information produced by other

processes – subject to change– Surplus location requests

• Technology– May be challenging to implement all functionality

• People– Achieving change

11

Building blocks of successful practice

• Not necessarily linked to central / distributed model• Strong policy

– Timetabling priorities– Recognition of timetabling links to other processes

• Process coordination– Where possible, information availability is coordinated

• Appropriate use of technology– Best use of existing resources; need information – links with MIS

• People related– Senior ‘champion’– Cross sector forum

12

Curriculum Development• Process

– Suggested that few institutions fully manage impact of changes

– Use of timetabling MI / staff expertise could be developed

• Design– Student commitments increasingly complex– Advance publication– Balance – week and day – start / end times– Distance learning is truly flexible...

13

In addition the report...

• Has much more detail on everything covered, plus

• Process model

• Examples of variation

• High level ‘to be’ process scenarios

14

Thank you

15