Case study in institutional/supplier partnership;
communicating timetables to student
ARC/JISC Timetabling Group
University of Westminster, London
Leon Smith, Head of Timetabling Services, MMU
Tony Vicente, Business Development Manager, Scientia
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
Who we are
Context
The project
Benefits of collaboration
Lessons learned
Who we are – MMU
Number of students
Number of staff (all)
Number of campuses
Timetabling operation
Active Modules
34,595
2,150
4
Centralised
5,106
Who we are – Scientia
Leading provider of HE Scheduling Solutions
400 + Global user base
55% UK market share
Context
League table rankings
A
Marketing &
Recruitment
Processes
Reputation
C
Student Intake
(Aspirations, Attitude
& Abilities)
B
Learning, Teaching, Assessment
Student Retention
& Personal Development
Success &
Processes, Facilities
Satisfaction
& Resources
Resource allocation
All Year Numbers
A
Recruit to target
B
Improve satisfaction, retention & success
C
Inform decision-makers
EQAL
• A coordinated strike for step-change improvement
In the current climate
Diminishing unit of resource
New Curriculum
•
designing new units, …
New Admin Systems & Processes
•
personal timetabling, …
New Virtual Learning Environment
•
Moodle & myMMU web/mobile, Talis Aspire…
New QA & QE Processes
•
facilitating curriculum transformation
Everything depends on everything else
We are large and risk averse
Context – who collaborated
•
•
•
•
Timetabling Services
Learning and Research Technologies
IT Services
Scientia
The Project: Objectives
Key deliverables for the Timetabling project strand:
•
Individual student timetables supplied from the timetabling system
•
Earlier publication of timetable information to staff and students
•
Improved shape of timetable to better meet student expectations
•
Enhanced systems support for timetable design, delivery and related services
This required:
•
Process redesign
•
New technical solutions
•
System upgrades and extensions
A phased approach, with timetable deliverables building up year-on-year over the lifetime of the project
The Project: Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Curriculum available from SRS by beginning of January
Staff availability submitted by end of February
Returning student options available end of March
All taught delivery structures delivered by beginning of April
Draft timetables issued beginning of June
Individual induction timetables (applicants and returning students) published mid
July
Final course timetables published end of August
Individual student timetable conversion complete by end of induction week
This work is licensed under a AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence
The Project: The Technology
Challenges
• Standardising process and development cycle
• Ensuring data correctly structured for accurate individual
timetable information
• Accommodating interim arrangements where some
students received individual information and others didn’t
• Combining data from different sources into a single unified
individual calendar view
• Keeping student statuses up to date
Systems design and configuration
• Develop SWS templates which enabled content to be scraped
programmatically
• Build lookup table to record student statuses
• Ensure token passing for single sign-on was in place
• Validate student against SRS (QLS)
This work is licensed under a AttributionNonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 licence
The Output
Student ID
Timetable
Sync to
personal
device
Access statistics
September
October
November
December
MobileApp
165,427
274,472
165,952
101,331
WebPortal
314,676
342,454
136,471
67,890
TOTAL
480,103
616,926
302,423
169,221
MobileApp
34%
44%
55%
60%
WebPortal
66%
56%
45%
40%
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
MobileApp
200,000
WebPortal
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
September
October
November
December
Areas of collaboration
•
•
•
•
•
Look-up for contextual individualisation
Integrated attendance monitoring database
Self registration web portal
Bespoke change notification framework
Remote technical support
Benefits of collaboration
•
•
•
•
Shared understanding and knowledge exchange
Taking advantage of relevant expertise
Shared costs for commercially desirable developments
Improved continuity planning and risk management
Lessons learned
• Ensure there is clarity over roles
• Make sure requirements and specifications are clear on
all sides
• Have robust forms of both formal and informal
communication
Any questions?