Overview of Timetabling Pilot Implementation (Phase I) at Macdonald Campus (March 31, 2008)
The room utilization reports demonstrate the differences in class distribution between 200609 (legacy scheduling program) and 200809 (introduction of TPHi – Infosilem). Of particular note, the 2006 schedule shows a peak demand for space in one part of the day, particularly between 9:30am and 11:30am. The 2008 schedule shows a much more even distribution throughout the day.
Benefits of an evenly distributed class timetable:
- Students are more able to build a schedule that reflects their preferred course enrolments since those classes do not conflict.
- In addition, the space is more effectively used and the distribution of classes may allow access to rooms that are more ideally suited to certain types of instruction.
Some observations from Macdonald campus employees involved in the project:
- No negative or positive feedback has been received by the associate dean or Enrolment Services from faculty members as a result of the implementation.
- Administrative (non-academic) staff reported that it is important to ensure that the data are entered very carefully because complete information about courses is important for the process to work successfully.
- “Ideally, when changes are requested, a hierarchy of importance should be identified by the department chair. For instance, a department could have required changes (priority 1), changes for course scheduling to conform to pedagogical structure or course design (priority 2) and desirable changes (priority 3). This exercise helps to get everyone involved and promotes discussion within the department.”
- “Staff who worked on the schedule have been complimented by many departments for their hard work in making a schedule which is very, very close to resolving all conflicts. Our goal is to make life easier for the students and give them more room for choice in their schedules.”
- Professor Constraint Form: Everyone agreed that professors would complete their own form and the Chair would sign each form. Of the 91 forms returned to SOA, 56 (61.5%) were signed by the Chair.” It was noted that vigilance was necessary when reviewing the course and professor constraint forms to ensure that they were not misused, causing ‘forced’ course timetable placements that would result in conflicts and other similar challenges. The role of the Chairs and Directors in reviewing and adjudicating the requests was seen as a critical factor in the success of the implementation.
Lessons from this Phase 1 pilot:
- it would be necessary to incorporate additional simulations to ensure that the ‘live’ process works well.
- ongoing communication and collaborative problem-solving between the administrative and academic staff was critical to the success of the implementation
- scheduling with TPHi resulted in improved class placements, with courses distributed more evenly throughout the day and week. Additional labs were scheduled in 2008, but it is not clear whether there is a connection between this and the use of TPHi.