Shared Academic Timetabling

Strand 2 Working Group Meeting – 04/11/14

Paper A – Working Group Summary Report

1.Executive Summary

This paper summarises the outcomes and recommendations of the Future of Timetabling (Strand 2) Working Group, which was established through a recognition that the, now closed, Shared Academic Timetabling project had still to fully deliver on some of the key service deliverables identified during its lifetime.

Using the University’s commitment to the Student Experience as the key driver, the paper focuses on:

  • A summary of SAT objectives and levels of implementation
  • Enhancing timetabling services to students
  • Future development priorities and opportunities
  • Projected developmental costs
  • Projected delivery timescales
  • Summary of recommendations

1.1Recommendations

Four key recommendations emerge from this working group summary report:

  1. That a new project to deliver the extension of the personalised timetable and student calendaring services is implemented
  1. That centralisation of timetable data management is completed in advance of the extension to the personalised timetable service
  1. That appropriate funding in line with projections included within this paper is secured
  1. That the outlined two year project timescale is recognised as appropriate for the level of implementation and service delivery proposed

2.Review of Shared Academic Timetabling (SAT)

This institutional-wide project ran between 2010-2014. With an ambitious range of implementations, and timescales for delivery, this project proved both challenging and rewarding in equal measure.

2.1SAT aims and objectives

The Shared Academic Timetabling Project ran for four years. In Phase 1, which ran between April and November 2010, a White Paper and a Business Case were prepared, which recommended that the University:

a)procure and utilise timetabling software for use across the University

b)Develop and implement new timetabling and room booking policies and processes in order to take advantage of the software system.

Eight key potential benefits were identified as realisable through these developments:

  • Student focused, coherent institutional timetabling which enhances student experience
  • Improved management information and tools to support the effective use of University resources
  • Improvements to the management of curricula and academic timetables
  • More effective provision and use of learning and teaching space
  • Greater flexibility in managing staff teaching time
  • More effective use of administrative staff resources
  • Supporting family‐friendly policies
  • Improved curriculum planning

The recommendations made in Phase 1 were accepted by key University stakeholders, which enabled the project to move forward through a series of further phases:

  • Phase 2: Procurement, which ran between January and August 2011, leading to the negotiation of a contract with the supplier Scientia for their software system Scientia Enterprise/Syllabus Plus
  • Phase 3: Minimum Change Implementation, which ran between September 2011 and July 2012, during which Timetabling Policy was developed and the software was installed enabling the existing timetable to be reproduced, web timetables to be published and numerous “behind the scenes” changes in infrastructure to be achieved
  • Phase 4: Extended Implementation, which ran between August 2012 and July 2014, during which the system was linked to the student record system in order to enable the delivery of personalised timetables to students and to support a wide range of other applications

The speed of change has been considerable. In 2010, the University of Edinburgh was the only member of the Russell Group not to have adopted an institution-wide approach to timetabling supported by dedicated timetabling software. By 2014 the University had moved to a “leading edge” position in its ambitions for utilising Scientia timetabling software.

During the Extended Implementation phase of the project, a range of implementation challenges emerged. These demonstrated the limitations of the Scientia software (notwithstanding its position as the market-leader) and highlighted the fact that its software alone in its current form cannot deliver the level of completeness in personalised student timetabling originally envisaged. At the same time, student expectations have changed, increasing the demand for sophisticated personalised timetables delivered in a range of formats. Additionally, the University’s approach has evolved in ways that give increased emphasis to student ownership of their learning activities.

It is in this context that the Student Timetabling Working Group was charged with

  • taking stock of current student timetable provision,
  • assessing current and future needs, and
  • Proposing a roadmap for getting from current to optimal provision, probably based on a range of software and a stepwise funding model.

2.2Successful SAT implementations

The Shared Academic Timetabling Project has worked with a set of overarching aims articulated in terms of benefits to be realised. Table 1 offers a very brief summary of achievements against these aims.

Table 1: What has the Shared Academic Timetabling Project Delivered to date?

Benefits sought / Method of delivery / Extent of delivery to date
Student focused, coherent institutional timetabling which enhances student experience / Personalised student timetables / Partially delivered and central focus of the Student Timetables Working Group
Improved information and tools to support the effective use of University resources / Reporting tools / Delivered
Improvements to the management of curricula and academic timetables / Timetabling policy / Delivered
More effective provision and use of learning and teaching space / Reporting tools / Delivered
Greater flexibility in managing staff teaching time / Timetabling planning tools / Not yet tested
More effective use of administrative staff resources / New system / Not proven
Supporting family-friendly policies / Timetable planning tools / Not yet tested
Improved curriculum planning / Scenario planning tools / Delivered

2.3Unrealised objectives of SAT

Although the Shared Academic Timetabling Project achieved a great deal, there were some disappointments, of which the following are the most significant.

  1. The Project did not deliver comprehensive personalised student timetables that include all teaching events. Whole-class timetables have been delivered; the delivery of tutorials and other sub-group events are delivered to some but not all students.
  2. Under the load of the total student population, several elements of the software system did not perform with the degree of stability needed for a reliable service. Substantial improvements were achieved between September 2013 and September 2014 but some difficulties with the system remain.
  3. With the exception of teaching offered by Biomedical Sciences and the pre-clinical elements of the undergraduate degree in Medicine, teaching and learning activities within the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine have not been integrated within the Scientia timetabling system. The students concerned continue to receive timetabling information through a different, pre-existing system.

In addition to unrealised objectives of the Shared Academic Timetabling Project, there is much as yet untapped potential made available by the system, which is not currently being utilised. Among several areas where much new potential exists are the following.

  • Proactive timetabling: The system is being used mainly to deliver information about timetables and teaching rooms, with occasional requests for scenario planning also being addressed. To date, however, use of the system to initiate change in the way in which timetabling decisions are made has been minimal. To realise this potential will require new consideration to be given to timetabling processes and policies.
  • Personalised staff timetables: The system is currently being used to deliver personalised timetables to students but not to academic teaching staff. The system readily supports the allocation of staff against teaching activities and future developments in student calendaring would also create an opportunity to deliver timetable teaching commitments to the staff University diary system.
  • Ad hoc events: The system is currently being used to deliver to students information about recurrent teaching events. Extension to other kinds of events could easily be achieved, including, for example, events run by the Institute for Academic Development, and the Careers Service.

3.Enhancing timetabling for students

The scope for improving and developing timetabling at the University remains very considerable. In this context, the Student Timetabling Working Group was asked to focus specifically on the next steps in the delivery of personalised timetable information to students.

Feedback from students and other stakeholders, was discussed and from this the Group concluded that two areas required detailed attention:

  1. The delivery of comprehensive personalised timetables to students covering all formally timetabled teaching/learning activities whether delivered to whole classes or to sub-groups of students registered for a course (tutorials, lab classes etc).
  1. The delivery of a calendar service to students that includes accurate up-to-date information about all formally timetabled teaching/learning activities.

It is also felt that these key enhancement areas, along with recently delivered timetable services, are closely aligned with key themes emerging from the University’s Student Experience Strategy:

  • STUDENT SERVICES: “I am treated as an individual. My unique goals, needs and skills are recognised and celebrated”
  • LIVING & COMMUNITY: “I am a proud and valued member of the University community”

Sections 5 6 of this report provide details pertaining to these areas.

4.Future developments

Alongside enhancing timetables for students, it is crucial to remain attentive to the evolving context and to keep the aims and ambitions for timetabling under review.

There are two broad areas in which further attention is required.

  1. What does the University mean by and expect of timetabling and timetable policy? This far, the Universities framework is available in the Timetabling Policy

Is this adequate for the next phase in the development of timetabling at the University?

  1. Consultation with stakeholders is needed on a recurrent basis. This includes but is not limited to the student community. Timetabling has already impacted a good deal on office support staff as well as on academic staff (especially personal tutors). Future developments in timetabling are likely to impact further on these groups.

5.Delivery of comprehensive student personal timetable

As previously mentioned, this was identified through SAT as the key student deliverable by the project. Although partially successful (with 21,500 students receiving a form of personalised timetable, as of October 2014) the ‘mixed economy’ nature of the current service delivery, with some students receiving more timetable detail than others, is deemed to be unsustainable in the long-term: creating an inconsistent level of service; a confused communication model; and an inability to meet a clear expectation conveyed by students at recent feedback sessions.

The challenge for the University is to deliver this comprehensive servicewhilst respecting different approaches to student allocation by Schools. Some Schools effectively endorse a random allocation model by enabling their students, through a variety of existing interfaces, to self-select tutorial and workshop options, while other Schools manage allocation to these activities on the students’ behalf using a range of criteria. Consultation with Schools has confirmed that both business models are deemed essential. With tools and support for the latter requirement already in place, the emphasis is on delivering a system to support the former by way of a clash-checking, enhanced allocation system for students. The delivery of such a service would enable the University to supersede a variety of existing tutorial sign-up tools; deliver the self-service model that students welcome; and ensure the delivery of a comprehensive personalised timetable service.

5.1Development detail

The most viable, currently available solutions for the provision of a clash-checking, self-sign service to students are Scientia’s own ‘Student Allocator’ system and an Australian-based 3rd party solution called ‘Allocate +’. Table 2 draws comparison between these solutions in key areas.

Table 2: Summary of current market solutions

Scientia Student Allocator / 3rd Party Application – Allocate +
Benefit /
  • Already purchased
  • Clash-checking functionality
  • Integrates with ECP/supported by Scientia
  • Subsequent output to Learn VLE
  • Works well at this level of usage: i.e. self-selection only (UAT, April 2013)
  • Staff can manage changes through same interface
/
  • Independently developed allocation tool, specifically tailored to integrate with Scientia applications
  • Eliminates reliance on non-performant Student Allocator tool

Challenges /
  • Poor staff functionality
  • Currently fails during significant concurrent staff usage
  • How to deal with mixed-economy driven by different start dates across the schools
/
  • Assessment and procurement process required
  • Additional supplier integrating with already complex system architecture
  • Supplier will have no working relationship with Scientia

Risks /
  • Given past experience – risk of new SA product still failing load test – Scientia required to do re-work , potential delay to deployment to Live
  • Failure to agree change to business processes across all schools
  • Timescale for Scientia-delivered product improvements
/
  • Would probably be first deployment of Allocate + in the UK (Australian supplier)
  • As Allocate + directly compete with Scientia , there is a risk that as Scientia develop their products in line with their roadmap – they break the integration between S+ and Allocate+.
  • Could damage our relationship with Scientia, if we go to one of their competitors / reduce our leverage when requesting enhancements / contract changes with Scientia

5.2Development costs

Although subject to revision in the event of approved project work, tables 3&4 confirm the estimated implementation costs for the currently identified solutions. Although broadly similar from an implementation perspective, the biggest difference is in recurring annual costs, which reflects the subscription-based nature of the Allocate + solution.

Table 3: Student Allocator estimated implementation costs

Resource – Student Allocator / Implementation costs / Recurring annual costs
  • IS large project implementation 250 days
/ £70,000
  • Additional hardware costs?
/ £5,000
  • Trigger point for paying Solution Payment 5
/ £19,200*
  • Scientia consultancy days
/ £5,000
  • Increase in Scientia annual maintenance cost
/ £4,000
  • Contingency @ 20%
/ £20,000
Total: / £120,200 + / £4,000

Table 4: Allocate + estimated implementation costs

Resource – Allocate + / Implementation costs / Recurring annual costs
  • IS large project implementation 250 days
/ £70,000
  • Licence costs
/ £47,000
  • Implementation
/ £26,000
  • Additional hardware costs?
/ £5,000
  • Contingency @ 20%
/ £20,000
Total: / £121,000 + / £47,000

6.Delivery of student calendar service

The SAT project identified a calendar feed of personalised timetable data as part of its Extended Implementation phase. Complexity of delivery and competing resource constraints led to its de-scoping from this project, but a clear awareness of the benefits remain, with these benefits being confirmed by student feedback gathered during the 13/14 academic year. These benefits can be summarised as:

  • The ability to view Timetabled and other calendar commitments together
  • Instant access to see what teaching is scheduled including where and when
  • The ability to synchronise calendar information to personal mobile devices

Options appraisals already conducted confirm a preference for a ‘pushed’ service via the students existing Office365 University calendar. The alternative would be the delivery of an iCal ‘subscription-based’ service, which would be delivered to a dedicated calendar source, and not integrated with the students existing University calendar.

6.1Development detail

Table 5 draws comparison between the two potential solutions in key areas.

Table 5: Comparison of student calendaring solutions

Office 365 / iCal
Benefits /
  • Integrates timetable data with other calendar commitments
  • Calendar system already delivered to all students
  • Development and testing already underway via SAT project
  • Free / Busy data could be shared with personal tutors when scheduling meetings with their tutees
  • Simpler for students as the data will just appear in their O365 calendar without the user’s having to take action or subscribe to a new calendar feed
/
  • Provides timetable information in calendar format

Challenges /
  • Ability to ‘push’ large volumes of changed-based data, at particularly important points in the year, in a timely manner
/
  • Would operate as a separate calendar feed
  • No integration with Office365 calendar commitments, with no option to ‘push’ data into Office365
  • Staff would need to check two calendars to see a student’s availability
  • Requires students to subscribe to the their own iCal feed

Risks /
  • Risk that student alter or delete calendar entries
  • Scaling-back volume/timescale of updates thus reducing worth of service
/
  • Communications and support to get students to subscribe to the feed, it won’t appear automatically
  • IS helpline Support for an iCal feed could be higher than pushing event data direct into the student’s office365 calendar

6.2Development costs

Although subject to revision in the event of approved project work, table 6 confirm the estimated implementation costs for the currently identified solutions. Being broadly similar from an implementation perspective, the biggest challenge is clearly identifying the most viable from a service perspective.

Table 6: Office365 and iCal implementation costs

Office365 / iCal
Implementation costs / Recurring costs / Implementation costs / Recurring costs
Calendar service / £0 / £21,000
IS implementation / £21,000 / £5,000
Contingency @ 20% / £4,200 / £5,200
Annual maintenance / £4,000 / £4,000
Total: / £25,200 / £4,000 / £31,200 / £4,000

7.Proposed operational changes

During 2014, the Timetabling Unit conducted a consultancy exercise with Schools to assess the possibility of centralising the timetabling process and the impact this may cause. Based on experience during the past two-and-a-half years, the current highly-devolved business process is struggling to deliver the quality and complexity of timetable data required to ensure the accurate delivery of comprehensive personal timetables. The Timetabling Unit feels this can only be achieved through tight, centralised control over data management.

Table 8: End-to-end timetabling process