Timetabling: Where Engagement Meets Systems Suzanne Sealey, Deputy Manager Student Operations and Improvement August 2018

La Trobe Timetable History Annual timetable rolled over, 60-80% changed each year with ongoing changes Timetable created in a decentralised manner. Approach did not consider:  Student clashes Room utilisation Student satisfaction  ‘Sources of truth’ for class requirement and room information Implementation of the Timetable Management Project- to rebuild the timetable for the first time in 13 years by a centralised team. Previously the timetable was managed like a massive quilt with each faculty creating their own patch and then the one centralised staff member spending days sewing it together. There was no oversight from a broader perspective; late changes were regular- so much so that students just expected it. Room utilisation was lacking as the faculties used their own rooms.

Key Opportunities for Improvement Course Information Management System Archibus Syllabus+ Student Information System Allocate+ Web Data Collector Timetable Assist (timetable changes ticketing system) Systems Engagement Timetable Continuous Improvement Training presentations and tip sheets Data audits in partnership with subject coordinators Face to face meetings with subject coordinators through data collection and draft review Service centre concept and Service Level Agreements created Communications Plan Creation of Annual Production Schedule Creation of Timetable Action plan as part of engagement Phone Q Cross skilled team-9 staff trained in both engagement and systems Engagement using Allocate+, Timetable Data Collector, and Timetable Assist First rebuild of timetable in 13 years. Auto-scheduling has risen from 46% to 78% between 2017 and 2018 Earlier draft release Earlier publication date-two months earlier Significant reduction in late changes post publish (50% fewer changes) Improved student experience per feedback The systems have been in place for the most part- Timetable Data Collector was introduced for the 2018 timetable. TA is a ticketing system used to manage changes. The engagement piece was the temporary piece from the project which has remained. It was determined that this piece is too important to rid of. The academics have indicated that while the systems are difficult to understand and maneuverer, the staff engagement kept things moving. It worked together. Systems which require engagement: Allocate+ WDC Timetable Assist

What have we learned? It takes both good systems and great engagement to timetable. Timetabling and relevant systems are confusing, and we need to make the process as easy as possible for academics; we act as a translator between technical systems and the needs of the academics. Timetabling is not just a systems team, but a team working towards great customer Service! The answer is never no, always provide other options.   A 5 minute phone call can save 2 weeks worth of emails, and can be the difference between a complaint and a satisfied customer.   It takes a village. Support from management is crucial for being able to enforce policy. Collaboration across entire university What the staff say they have learned. 100 processes ID with 73% occurring before the TT team gets involved.

What have I learned? Getting the right people in the room to cause action is key. Collaboration across the university is the only direction towards success. The silos which existed prior to the rebuild have been mostly demolished. Administrative tasks such as timetabling may not be seen as a recruitment and retention tool, but through timetabling we are able to explore innovative teaching solutions as well as cohort or community style learning. This allows us in student administration to take on an active role in the student experience as we partner with academia. Helping the staff understand the impact they have on the student every time they move a class or push a button in Syllabus+ has significant meaning. What I have learned.

Thank you