TUM – Timetabling for The University of Manchester June Finch, Head of Timetabling Project, TLSO Francesca Moss, Teaching and Learning Administrator, School of Maths Carol Rowlinson, Head of Student Experience, FLS

2011/12 Teaching Timetable Data 36,000 taught students 3,714 teaching staff 200 administration staff + ??? academics in timetabling In the production of one University timetable Non-trivial!

Current Arrangements for Timetabling Distributed timetabling, distributed teaching estate management, roll forward activities approach Schools submit requests for Centrally Managed rooms to Estates at the end of May, based on class size estimates Schools responsible for publication of timetable information

Issues in the Current Timetabling Approach Differing production timescales for Schools makes co-ordination difficult => introduces redundant effort and can adversely affect student experience Differing production timescales for schools means allocation of rooms based on variable quality of data requests => not making the best use of the teaching estate to the detriment of student and staff experience Schools publish timetable data for modules; not for students => variable student experience Disjoin between timetabling and publication => publication errors leading to student and staff experience issues

Why TUM? TSLSG set up to “ensure that the processes for timetabling and the use of the University’s teaching and learning rooms supports the delivery of excellent teaching and the provision of the best possible student experience.” TUM is coordinating the production of a single source of truth for the timetable TUM will set up procedures to enable the University to provide personalised timetables for all taught students for 2013/14 TUM requires the alignment of School timescales for timetabling; including the introduction of a common deadline for student selection of modules

Faculty of Life Sciences Carol Rowlinson, Head of Student Experience, FLS

Advantages for FLS Personalised timetables for students Automatic updates Having all timetabling/room information in one place Clash free timetable – particularly for joint programme students Academic staff timetables Being able to timetable all activities e.g. tutorials

Disadvantages for FLS No real disadvantages except for the need to bring forward course unit selection for students and the effect this has on all of our curriculum management processes

School of Mathematics Francesca Moss, T & L Administrator, Maths

Background First meeting October 2009 agreed that a pilot be initiated between a small number of Schools March 2010 established ‘Proof of Concept’ project. Launched July 2010 Objective to ensure a standardised system across the University

My Recommendations A standardised system Cut down on duplication Quick and easy process to scheduling View schedules by a variety of groups, and produce reports Quick and efficient way of checking clashes and identifying free slots Produce attractive timetable grids for publication

Outcomes Standardised system integrated with Campus Solutions Migrated dataset from Campus Solutions Easy to use system Produces a number of timetables Identifies clashes Delivery of individual student timetable

Main Disadvantage The duplication of schedules in Campus Solutions, and updates in S+

The future June Finch, Head of Timetabling Project, TLSO

What does TUM cover? Technical infrastructure Support infrastructure Roles and responsibilities Governance Policy Training KPI definition

Longer term benefits, once platform in place … Know who’s where when so e.g. texting of students on tutorial cancellation, data source for attendance recording Enables possibility of demand-driven timetabling in future Enables possibility of shorter timetabling timescales (using platform scheduling capabilities and clash reporting) Enables understanding of actual use of teaching estate to inform future investments Provides room management solution for Schools Supports staff movement

Further details Policy Website