48 th Annual ASCUE Conference July 16, :00 pm – 1:45 pm Charles Smith ComQuip, Inc

Introduction Founder of ComQuip, Inc. Engineer by education Operations Research Solve large scale problems Attended conference in 2000 Asked “why not put all the variables in and solve the scheduling problem top down?”

A Traditional Approach to Scheduling Rooms assigned to Departments Departments build partial schedule Historical Poll Faculty Changes TBA Instructors Rooms opened after cutoff date Schedule unscheduled sections into open time slots After registration Sections under min enroll dropped Sections filled are closed

Characteristics of Traditional Approach Poor room utilization Classes tend to be concentrated at certain times Organizationally inefficient process Time consuming to try to resolve conflicts High level of student complaints Do not consider student needs in process

Student-Centered Scheduling (SCS) Modern systems enable new way of thinking about scheduling Can collect and process data more efficiently Can employ modern management problem solving techniques Shadow prices Sensitivity testing Can drive solution that uses demand information not considered in traditional methods

Characteristics of SCS Method Top-down instead of Bottom-Up Uses more information, which is generally available now Algorithm used to time-slot sections so: Students get courses they need or want Faculty preferences and availability considered Room availability and utilization considered Retention Improves Inability to get courses want is no. 1 reason for transfers

Trend to SCS Need solution to improve retention and graduation rates Number of articles published since 1998 on SCS has increased dramatically Our clients increasingly stress the need for an SCS approach Our company has been on the forefront of SCS since 2002

How SCS Works Retain helpful techniques Set-up standard time blocks Create blocks for common curriculum courses Conflict free scheduling algorithm And add new techniques When time slotting each section, consider impact of each option on students who want course After initial solution, test if can improve swap student section assignments to increase percent of students getting courses want Step towards optimal solution

Example 1 Technology oriented institution 10 associate programs and 4 certificate programs 800 students, 150 faculty How they used SCS Set-up courses by program and year Common courses across programs Put one dummy student in each program each year Sections of common courses scheduled to accommodate all students Sections unique to program scheduled when students available

Results

Example 2 4-year undergraduate military academy 900 cadets, 130 faculty 16 different degree programs How they used SCS Fixed number of sections Balanced section loads Set time block standards Blocked sections using student data from course registrations Considered impact on students when time slotted sections

Results Number of courses students unable to take because of scheduling: 1,221 when traditional scheduling method used 1,039 when just block scheduling used 562 when SCS method used

Example 3 Multi-campus University 20,000 students, 600 FT faculty 500 undergraduate, graduate and doctoral degree programs How they used SCS for exam scheduling Set parameters for scheduling exams Different room, same room Exam seating All sections at same time Used optimization instead of mapping Scheduled exams to minimize number of students with multiple exams per day

Results Reduced number of students with multiple exams on same day from 1,384 to 792. Reduced number of conflicts from 352 to 3

Costs Assume use third party software In-house IT resources (1/3 person) Licenses ($20,000) Implementation Support ($10,000) Vendor Maintenance ($4,000 per year) Hosted Subscription ($7,000) Hosting fee ($3,600) Implementation Support ($10,000)

Benefits Improved retention More students graduating in four years Fewer complaints from students No room conflicts No faculty conflicts

References “Reframing Retention Strategy for Institutional Improvement: New Directions for Higher Education, no. 161”, edited by David H. Kalsbeck, John Wiley & Sons, 2013 “Student Centered Scheduling”, ISM Monthly Update for Division Heads, Vol 9 No 10, 2012 “More Notes on Retention in Relation to Course Scheduling”, Cathy Anderson, March 2013,

Contact Comquip, Inc. 24 Hagerty Blvd, Ste 1 West Chester, PA