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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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 s, 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.

5. 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.

6. Thank
you