Strategic Checkup
Central Michigan University
Presented by:
Sarah Petsis, MBA
Senior Consultant
Ad Astra Information Systems
CMU Strategic Checkup Goals
• Alignment to CMU’s strategic plan:
• Focused on student success and student retention
• Visibility into academic space utilization and management
opportunities (Fall 2012 data used)
• Address current, reported scheduling challenges:
• Limited Classroom availability in primetime
• Understand course offerings inefficiencies directly impacting
budgets and capacity
• Understand course offerings warning signals that potentially
impact student access to required courses and graduation
• Solution framework to leverage data from the SIS in future
terms
Overview
Typical Strategic Issues
• Academic schedules are vitally important
– Means of allocating faculty and space
– Means of providing students with a path to completion
• Academic schedules are created in a decentralized
process that is difficult to measure or manage
• Strategic opportunities to efficiently and effectively
allocate academic resources are rarely realized
Typical Schedule Building Process
1. Course offerings are based on a historical schedule,
typically a roll-forward of a “like” term
2. Departments refine offerings in silos (distinct
processes and decision makers, limited
collaboration and decision-support tools)
3. Student Information System is updated
4. Room assignments are made/refined
5. “Final” schedule is posted (changes still occur after
registration or even after classes start)
The goal is commonly completion v. improvement
Course Offering Complexity
What is the impact of…
Students from other departments who need our courses?
The incoming freshman class?
Curriculum changes?
Changing classroom availability and capacity to add sections at certain times?
Faculty load and capacity?
Increasing retention rates?
Changing transfer student enrollment?
Improving graduation rates?
Changing course eligibility requirements?
Changes in my department’s headcount?
Scheduling for Student Success
Noel Levitz 2011 National Student Satisfaction & Priorities Report
• Identified key challenges for institutions
• Student Response: “Ability to get the courses I need with few
conflicts” was the top challenge for 4-Year Public institutions
• Institution Response: “Ability to get the courses I need with few
conflicts” was not ranked in top 25 for 4-Year Public institutions
Strategic Checkup Approach
1. Drill down from high-level metrics to related, and more
granular and manageable, success drivers
2. Benchmark existing efficiencies of granular success drivers
3. Integrate relevant institutional goals and priorities
(enrollment growth, cost savings, student outcomes, etc.)
4. Identify, quantify and prioritize opportunities
5. Select strategies that address opportunities and fit
institution's culture
6. Implement and continually refine policy supporting strategies
Course Offerings Analysis
Course Offering Analysis Concepts
General Terms and Concepts
• Seats – Seats offered in the term being analyzed
• Blended Demand – Average of trend of historical course enrollment from
like terms (Fall 2008, Fall 2009, Fall 2010, Fall 2011 and Fall 2012) and
enrollments from last like term (Fall 2012)
• Enrollment Ratio – Course-specific fill rate calculated as average
enrollments divided by average enrollment caps (last like term)
• Balanced Course Ratio – Courses wherein Enrollment Ratios are between
70% and 95% (last like term)
• Overloaded Course Ratio – Courses wherein Enrollment Ratios are over 95%
(last like term)
Course Offering Analysis Concepts
Analysis Term Disconnects
• Statistical Excess Seats – Seats offered in excess of Blended Demand
• Statistical Additional Seats Needed – Blended Demand in excess of Seats
• Reduction Candidates – Potentially superfluous sections of courses that can
be removed
• Elimination Candidates – Courses that can potentially be removed from a
schedule entirely
• Addition Candidates – Potentially needed sections of courses that can be
added to a schedule
Candidate
Example
Course
Seats
Demand
Enrollment
Sections
Sections
Ratio
Needed
Reduction
AAA 400
300
145
48%
6
3
Elimination
AAA 401
50
8
16%
1
0
Addition
AAA 100
500
585
101%
10
12
Course Offering Analysis – Fall 2012
Undergraduate Only
Measurement
Enrollment Ratio
Balanced Course
Ratio
Overloaded Course
Ratio
Percent
Number
Courses
87.17%
Avg. Enroll /
Avg. Enroll Cap.
27.51 / 31.59
Percentile
89th
Percentile
35.80%
435 of
1,215
71st
Percentile
27.33%
332 of
1,215
44th
Percentile
Average Enrollment / Average Enrollment Capacity
CMU
Mean
27.51 / 31.59 22.60 / 29.70
4-year Public
Institutions
Mean
25.16 / 32.23
Min
Max
13.26 / 17.99 41.35 / 52.87
Course Offering Analysis – Fall 2013
Undergraduate Only
Measurement
Statistical Excess Seats
Statistical Additional
Seats Needed
Additional Seats Needed
(Fall 2013 courses only)
Reduction Candidates
Elimination Candidates
Addition Candidates
Addition Candidates (Fall
2013 Only)
Percent
Number
Courses Percentile
18.65%
16,359 of
87,703 seats
16.61%
14,566 of
87,703 seats
5.85%
5,135 of 87,703
seats
4.86%
135 of 2,779
sections
97th
Percentile
3.20%
89 of 2,779
sections
75th
Percentile
17.81%
495 of 2,779
sections
68th
Percentile
2.84%
79 of 2,779
sections
69th
Percentile
874
72nd
Percentile
713
62nd
Percentile
249
39th
Percentile
Course Offering Analysis – By Level
Baseline
Sections
Enrollment
Ratio
Enrollment
Enrollment
Cap
Sections
per Course
000 Level
36
79.19%
23.36
29.47
1.89
100 Level
1,096
83.66%
31.63
37.85
3.81
200 Level
618
88.33%
28.12
31.87
2.52
300 Level
729
91.89%
25.51
27.76
1.63
400 Level
334
92.75%
17.66
19.07
1.55
2,813
87.17%
27.51
31.59
2.32
500 Level
261
83.18%
18.41
22.16
1.34
600 Level
197
76.61%
13.19
17.21
1.08
700 Level
94
70.58%
8.63
12.22
1.31
800 Level
24
95.45%
5.25
5.50
1.60
Graduate
576
79.82%
14.48
18.15
1.24
3,389
86.40%
25.29
29.30
2.02
Level
Undergrad
Totals
Course Offering Analysis – By Level
Addition
Reduction Elimination
Candidates,
Candidates Candidates
Fall 2013 Only
Fall 2013
Sections
Addition
Candidates
000 Level
36
0
0
5
1
100 Level
1,083
124
40
66
11
200 Level
613
91
22
32
9
300 Level
698
197
17
6
37
400 Level
312
83
0
26
31
2,779
495
79
135
89
500 Level
246
136
14
1
18
600 Level
159
96
5
0
54
700 Level
76
21
0
1
20
800 Level
15
20
14
0
1
Graduate
533
273
33
2
93
3,312
768
112
137
182
Level
Undergrad
Totals
Course Offering Analysis
By Sections per Course
Undergraduate Only
• Findings vary by Sections per Course:
Sections
per
Course
Average
Courses
Enrollment
Enrollment
Ratio
Balanced
Course
Ratio
Overloaded
Course
Ratio
1
767
24.34
79.21%
28.55%
25.81%
2
200
27.37
82.29%
47.00%
29.00%
3 to 5
161
32.07
90.38%
52.17%
27.33%
6 to 10
57
27.42
98.83%
40.35%
36.84%
11 +
30
27.23
89.60%
50.00%
36.67%
Totals
1,215
27.51
87.17%
35.80%
27.33%
Course Offerings by Enrollment Ratio Tier
Undergraduate Only
Enrollment Ratio
Courses
% of Total
Average
Enrollment
Average
Enrollment Cap
0 Seats
109
8.97%
18.27
0.00
1-19%
49
4.03%
1.68
17.41
20-49%
137
11.28%
12.32
35.85
50-69%
153
12.59%
23.84
39.08
70-95% (Balanced)
435
35.80%
30.01
34.84
> 95% (Overloaded)
332
27.33%
32.55
32.35
Course Offering Opportunities
• Improved graduation rates from additional seats offered in
“gateway” addition candidates (focus on required courses)
• Reduction of inefficiency/expense from reduction and elimination
candidates (224 total candidates; 8.06% of all sections)
• Increased scheduling flexibility and capacity
• Reallocation of faculty, moving from reduction candidates to
addition candidates
• Identification of unused faculty capacity (limited opportunity,
CMU has already exceeded 85% enrollment ratio goal)
Course Offering Analysis Dashboards
Enrollment Ratio
Balanced Course Ratio
90%
50%
85%
40%
CMU
Mean
Goal
80%
75%
20%
10%
70%
0%
Addition Candidates
Reduction Candidates
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
CMU
Mean
Goal
30%
15%
CMU
Mean
Goal
10%
5%
0%
CMU
Mean
Goal
Capacity Analysis
Space Bottleneck Concept
Average Utilization does not reflect capacity or inform
space management
Campus “A”
Primetime Util.
Campus “B”
Primetime Util.
Classrooms (2)
50%
50%
Science Lab (1)
50%
10%
Tech Auditorium (1)
50%
90%
Average Util.
50%
50%
Room Type
Capacity Management Process
1. Identification of enrollment capacity for analysis term
(Fall 2012):
a.
b.
80% primetime utilization and/or
95% effective utilization of any of the most dominant
primetime meeting patterns
2. Analysis of strategies to maximize quality/capacity
3. Selection of scheduling strategies/policies
4. Scheduling policy refinement/enforcement (ongoing)
5. Strategic renovation/new construction planning
Capacity Management Findings 1
•
Average utilization of all instructional rooms:
•
•
•
•
•
65-hour standard week (8am – 10pm M-R; 8am – 5pm F) – 37.44%
32-hour prime week (9:00 am – 5:00 pm M-R) – 53.74%
Utilization is significantly higher in certain room types:
Classroom (CR & DS)
(163)
Other Rooms (196)
65-hour Standard Week
51.80%
25.49%
32-hour Prime Week
73.35%
37.43%
Classroom utilization during the standard week is Moderately
High (69th Percentile)
Classroom Prime Ratio (percentage of all usage in primetime)
is High (13th Percentile)* – 69.71% – Mean is 58.13%
* Even spread would be 49% (32 of 65 hours)
Capacity Management Findings 2
• CR - Classroom utilization varies by size category during the 32hour primetime:
SEATS
16 – 25
26 – 50
51 – 100
100+
Total
ROOMS PRIME ROOM HRS. PRIME UTILIZATION PRIME RATIO
16
250.53
48.93%
71.39%
56
1,445.57
80.67%
72.33%
44
1,172.60
83.28%
71.23%
11
286.10
81.28%
80.61%
127
3,154.80
77.63%
72.51%
• DS - Department Scheduled Classroom utilization varies by size
category during the 32-hour primetime:
SEATS
1 – 15
16 – 25
26 – 50
51 – 100
100+
Total
ROOMS PRIME ROOM HRS. PRIME UTILIZATION PRIME RATIO
2
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
6
53.80
28.02%
56.83%
20
434.23
67.85%
58.07%
7
155.27
69.32%
61.91%
1
27.60
86.25%
66.88%
36
670.90
58.24%
58.72%
Capacity Management Findings 3
• Classroom (CR & DS) utilization varies by region:
• Top Ten Classroom (CR & DS) regions by highest primetime utilization:
REGION
CR - Academic Advising and
Assistance
CR - Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences
CR - Finance and Law
CR - Management
CR - Accounting, School of
DS - 1 - Hum and Soc & Behav
Sciences
CR - Mathematics
CR - Chemistry
CR - Broadcasting and Cinematic
Arts, School of/Psychology
CR - Computer Science
ROOMS
OVERALL
PRIME
UTILIZATION UTILIZATION
PRIME
RATIO
1
58.31%
98.33%
83.03%
1
60.51%
98.33%
80.00%
2
2
2
74.69%
74.67%
68.31%
93.70%
92.08%
91.35%
61.76%
60.71%
65.84%
1
51.18%
89.06%
85.67%
11
3
56.90%
52.10%
88.42%
86.08%
76.50%
81.33%
1
67.69%
85.83%
62.42%
3
53.20%
84.90%
78.57%
Capacity Management Findings 3
• Classroom (CR & DS) utilization varies by region:
• Bottom Ten Classroom (CR & DS) regions by lowest primetime utilization:
REGION
ROOMS
DS - 0 - Non-Departmental
CR - MSA Program
DS - 3 - Education & Human
Services
CR - Engineering and Technology,
School of
CR - Biology
CR - Business Information Systems
DS - 5 - Communication & Fine Arts
CR - Human Environmental Studies
CR - Psychology
CR - College of Business
2
1
OVERALL
PRIME
UTILIZATION UTILIZATION
12.13%
0.00%
12.26%
24.06%
PRIME
RATIO
0.00%
96.65%
16
40.65%
46.70%
56.56%
2
31.10%
48.75%
77.16%
2
2
1
4
5
2
36.10%
50.82%
42.36%
41.09%
39.77%
42.51%
58.33%
60.68%
61.35%
61.38%
62.90%
64.06%
79.55%
58.78%
71.31%
73.54%
77.85%
74.19%
Capacity Management Findings 4
• Seat fill ratios in Classrooms (CR & DS) vary by capacity:
• Classroom Seat Fill (Enroll) ratio comparison: 27th Percentile
• Classroom Seat Fill (Cap) ratio comparison: 18th Percentile
• CR - Classroom seat fill ratios:
SEATS ROOMS CAPACITY ENROLL FILL (ENROLL) ENROLL CAP FILL (CAP)
16
21.27
63.78%
86.42%
16 – 25
13.57
18.38
56
44.18
59.72%
71.43%
26 – 50
26.38
31.55
44
65.49
57.41%
68.94%
51 – 100
37.60
45.15
11
202.03
54.06%
68.00%
100+
109.22
137.37
127
63.31
57.45%
69.96%
Total
36.37
44.29
• DS - Department Scheduled Room seat fill ratios:
SEATS ROOMS CAPACITY ENROLL FILL (ENROLL) ENROLL CAP FILL (CAP)
2
12.00
58.33%
58.33%
1 – 15
7.00
7.00
6
24.02
56.91%
80.78%
16 – 25
13.67
19.41
20
41.24
61.59%
68.47%
26 – 50
25.40
28.23
7
68.71
60.64%
67.11%
51 – 100
41.67
46.11
1
200.00
53.93%
58.97%
100+
107.87
117.93
36
51.37
60.05%
67.19%
Total
30.85
34.52
Capacity Management Findings 5
• On-grid Primetime Meeting Pattern usage in Classrooms (CR &
DS rooms) varies by Pattern:
*Denominator = 489 total weekly hours
MEETING PATTERN
MWF 9:00 - 9:50
MWF 10:00 - 10:50
MWF 11:00 - 11:50
MWF 12:00 - 12:50
MWF 1:00 - 1:50
MW 2:00 - 3:15
TR 9:30 - 10:45
TR 11:00 - 12:15
TR 12:30 - 1:45
TR 2:00 - 3:15
Total
TOTAL
USAGE
285
369
348
333
255
447
441
423
435
438
3,774
TOTAL
UTILIZATION
58.28%
75.46%
71.17%
68.10%
52.15%
91.41%
90.18%
86.50%
88.96%
89.57%
77.18%
OFF-GRID
USAGE
111
141
147
177
138
93
96
102
81
75
1,161
OFF-GRID
UTILIZATION
22.70%
28.83%
30.06%
36.20%
28.22%
19.02%
19.63%
20.86%
16.56%
15.34%
23.74%
Capacity Management Findings 5,
continued (summary)
• There is Moderately Low off-grid meeting pattern usage in
Classrooms (CR & DS rooms) during primetime meeting
patterns:
• 30.76% (69th percentile) of usage for all Classrooms (CR &
DS rooms)
• There is a Moderately Low off-grid “waste factor”
• 441 hours or 11.69% of all Classroom (CR & DS) capacity is
wasted (71st Percentile)
Capacity Management Opportunities
• Evenly utilize all CR & DS Classrooms at 60% across the 65hour standard week
• Result: Balance scheduling across all Classrooms (15.83% capacity
increase, or 3,246 students)
• Graph category label: “Optimize Rooms”
• Limit Off-Grid scheduling waste in CR & DS Classrooms from
11.69% to 5%
• Result: Eliminate waste inherent in off-grid scheduling (6.69%
capacity increase, or 1,372 students)
• Graph category label: “Meeting Patterns”
• Reduce primetime scheduling in CR & DS Classrooms to 60%
• Result: Move activities outside of primetime to reduce prime ratios
of 69.71% (13.93% capacity increase, or 2,856 students)
• Graph category label: “Prime Ratio”
Capacity Management Dashboards
Space Utilization
Prime Ratio
55%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
50%
CMU
Mean
Goal
45%
40%
35%
30%
CMU
Mean
Goal
Enrollment Capacity
24,000
23,500
23,000
22,500
22,000
21,500
21,000
20,500
20,000
Enrollment
Existing Capacity
Optimize Rooms
Meeting Patterns
Prime Ratio
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
CMU Strategy Options to Evaluate
Course Offering Efficiency Strategies:
•
•
Evaluate Elimination Candidates for degree requirement impact
Select Reduction and Elimination Candidates (224 total candidates;
8.06% of all sections) to remove from Fall 2013 schedule
Course Offering Student Access Strategies:
•
•
Evaluate Addition Candidates for degree requirement impact
Consider implementation of Platinum Analytics (uncover key
Addition Candidates to improve student completion rates)
Capacity Bottlenecks Strategies:
•
•
•
Optimize Rooms (15.83% potential capacity)
Meeting Patterns (6.69% potential capacity)
Prime Ratio (13.93% potential capacity)
CMU Potential Next Steps
• Develop a schedule review team and process
–
–
Senior leadership and academic department representation
Focused on leveraging and sharing schedule analysis
• Develop data-driven scheduling policies
–
–
Course offering efficiency and effectiveness
Meeting pattern and room assignment efficiency
• Integrate other academic planning processes
(curriculum planning, academic space planning, student
success initiatives, etc.)
Which Category Describes Your Institution?
• Category 1:
• Motivated to aggressively improve student outcomes and address
inefficiencies and capacity issues
• Mobilized to implement change (a schedule review team is in place that
includes senior administrative and academic representation)
• Category 2:
• Interested in understanding how to improve student outcomes and
address inefficiencies and capacity issues
• Considering needed process changes (candidates exist for a schedule
review team, including senior administrative and academic representation)
• Category 3:
• Discussing and considering a need to improve student outcomes, address
inefficiencies and capacity
• Not ready to discuss needed process changes (no candidates identified for
a schedule review team)
Questions?
Sarah Petsis
Senior Consultant
spetsis@aais.com