CENTRAL TIMETABLING BY COMPUTER

AIMS has considerable experience in assisting universities with the arrangements for scheduling lectures and examinations. AIMS also carries out biennual surveys of the current approaches and arranges seminars and presentations on the topic.

This is a summary of an AIMS report on the background to central timetabling, highlighting several important issues and considerations that institutions should take into account. Copies of the full report are available from AIMS, price £20.00.

The report is revised every two years, in the light of information from the national survey.

Central computerised timetabling has been identified by the National Audit Office as one of three methods of improving space utilisation from its present typical level of 20%. The other two methods are space charging, and space planning and re-allocation. It may also be regarded as a means of improving the delivery of the curriculum.

Institutions introducing central timetabling have used a wide variety of approaches, and there are several software packages on the market. The majority have limited use for timetabling an entire university, but many function adequately or better in a more limited environment such as a department. It is possible to combine departmental systems with a central room booking system, which can incorporate automatic data transfer, as an effective university system.

As a step towards centralising the entire process, some institutions have installed full scheduling systems but used them at first only as room booking systems, intending to extend their use gradually as familiarity and confidence develop.

A full central timetabling and scheduling system can read student, course and staff records directly and produce a full university timetable within a few minutes. It can do the same for examination timetables. It can take into account all the issues that timetabling staff normally consider and check automatically for clashes, using an iterative process to minimise or eliminate them. Any unresolved clashes are reported so the constraints that caused them can be modified. By doing this uniformly across all courses, rooms, students and staff, the system ensures that each module is taught in the most suitable room, space utilisation is maximised and travelling between lectures in minimised. Workloads of staff can be balanced properly and if required, management reports on any aspect of the use of rooms, the course structures or the teaching loads of staff can be produced. The system will automatically produce printed timetables for any student, group, member of staff, room, department or faculty.

Apart from pressure from the NAO report, there are two main reasons for the introduction of central timetabling: better space management and better curriculum delivery. If problems have arisen from a shift in the sizes of teaching groups as a result of modularisation, these two reasons may be linked.

The AIMS report describes the need for full and complete management support for such systems at the highest levels of the institution and many of the techniques that have been found useful in introducing central timetabling. It describes the benefits and the problems that institutions have found. It describes software selection and presents some case studies.

Computerised central timetabling should reduce complaints, clashes and conflicts, balance demands for teaching facilities and improve matching between groups, rooms and other facilities.

It should allow university departments to introduce and handle the extra complexity of modules and interdisciplinary or cross-curricular groups. It should be able to model new scenarios such as complex new courses or changes in the provision of space. It should provide an effective room booking system, and make it easy to programme special events. It should increase the use of the available teaching space and optimise utilisation. This may enable the institution to reduce plans for future expansion or to create space for new courses.

Some of the Benefits of Computerised Central Timetabling

For the timetabling staff, the benefits include less time spent on the scheduling process and the automation of a difficult and tedious task. It gives them more time to solve problems with clashes, by discussions with the departments concerned, and more time to explore alternative solutions. Some institutions have reported time savings of up to 50% and staff reductions of 25-50%.

Academic staff will spend less time on administration and will be able to schedule their research time if they wish. They will have personal timetables and faster and more accurate information at the beginning of each session about their teaching commitments.

Heads of Departments will have additional management information about individual teaching loads and course costs. They will have timetables that can be consolidated for the whole department or for particular courses, and they will know when individual members of staff are available for meetings or for other reasons.

Students can be offered increased choice of modules, clash-free, accurate and reliable timetables, and could have personal timetables provided automatically.

Institutions can develop costed models of present or proposed practices, and can view and respond to demand patterns for particular time slots and particular rooms or facilities. The availability of resources for new courses can be verified in advance, and the "What if?" facilities offered by such systems will help in the development of academic strategy at departmental or institutional level and assist with space planning.

There will be an incentive for departments to plan early, since otherwise their requirements may receive a lower priority than those of departments who provide details on time. The system can also highlight different teaching approaches, such as the length of the teaching blocks.

Computerised central timetabling, still used by a minority of institutions, may require significant change in the culture or traditions of the university and may meet academic resistance if it is not introduced sensitively. Staff and departments may perceive a loss of ownership of their courses or room space, or of their control over their own actions. There may be a priority clash between staff interests and space. Inroads have already been made into the notion of independent teaching and examination, and central timetabling does not necessarily make them deeper. Costs, that were previously hidden as departmental costs, are centralised and become conspicuous. The software and hardware may cost up to approximately £100,000, and the recurrent costs (staff and software maintenance) will be at least £50,000 a year.

Since a computerised central timetabling system will seek to meet all demands for accommodation, there may be difficulties when staff find they are no longer permitted to specify certain times when they do not wish to teach, such as Monday mornings or Friday afternoons.

Software Packages

There are many software packages available, including (in alphabetical order):

Adesoft
Celcat
Facilities CMIS (CCM)
Infosilem (TPH)
IRIS (Bitbybit Information Systems)
Hypercard
Syllabus Plus (Scientia)

The packages vary considerably. Only a few offer full scheduling, and there are significant reported differences in costs and levels of training and support. Some that do not offer automatic scheduling continue in widespread use.

For a copy of the full report, please contact AIMS.