Timetabling has had a very slow evolution within higher education. Its early days were simply telling people where to go and when, which still lingers in some minds. But to others it slowly came to include resource management, an effective but limited means of booking rooms. Further development brought an appreciation that “it is hard”, and a further progression acknowledged that it is invisible if it works. But, if it’s broken everyone knows – and usually shouts very loudly about it.
While the perception of timetabling has changed little, the demands placed on the timetable have continued to grow with increased student numbers, financial pressures, diversifying demands on academics, learning analytics, the electrification of data, integration of data systems, higher student expectations, attendance monitoring, demand for better teaching space usage and the terrifyingly personalising National Student Survey question: “the timetable works efficiently for me”.
Technology is the solution, you might be thinking. But the challenges of timetabling higher education courses today defies most software. It is the stuff computer programmers’ dreams are made of, commanding complexities, hierarchies, data structures and variables, yet most software companies do not spend vast amounts of development money on dream timetabling software: only a handful of useable software suppliers have risen to the challenge to be able to timetable a large institution, and each has strengths and weaknesses.
But the lack of keen development is understandable. Each institution is too disparate in its requirements and practices for a one-size software package to fit snugly. Instead, timetablers work with a best-fit approach, nipping and tucking the program to make it cover what is required locally. This means that ultimately, only the human touch can balance the innumerable timetabling demands.
This requires a high degree of skill, knowledge and professionalism of the timetabler, which is often lost on those outside the trade.
Meanwhile the timetable’s opacity renders it open to criticism: the lack of concrete rules (notwithstanding the bending of those that do exist but are inconvenient) makes it hard to define quite how the timetable is formulated. Indeed, nearly 25 years ago a Times Higher Education article noted that articulating timetabling rules is so difficult for an institution that “it is easier to criticise the computer program and its operators than to face up to the decision-making process to make use of staff, student and physical resources as efficiently as possible”. Little has changed in the past quarter of a century.
However surprising, there are some very simple rules about timetabling: the first is to centralise. Devolved timetabling in schools and departments and smaller units demands individualised teaching spaces. While department-owned rooms might work in smaller institutions or even be necessary in specialised subjects, general teaching space is a huge overhead and enormous efficiencies can be achieved by sharing such spaces. Shared spaces need to be managed by an impartial, central team who can coordinate conflicting demands.
The second rule of timetabling is to place your centralised timetabling team where your institution has its biggest problem. If space is tight and forcing your hand to look at alternatives such as extending the teaching day, timetabling belongs in estates where there can be a daily dialogue about efficiencies, developments and budgets. If, however, your problems stem from a complex or varied curriculum, timetabling most definitely belongs in the registry, amid student records, programme approval and curriculum design.
Timetabling’s contribution to the curriculum is, indeed, the next step in timetabling evolution. Few institutions involve timetabling in curriculum development, yet the timetable is expected to deliver whatever academic fancy is passed by the approvals board.
Ten years ago a timetabler lamented that timetabling can feel “like it is at the end of every other process”. Every timetabler since has been repeating the same grievance. Being at the end of the curriculum conveyor belt makes timetabling an easy target for those who do not understand the enigma and intricacies: poor decisions about the curriculum early on result in poor delivery – as does everything else in between. Is the timetable really to blame or, as was alluded to a quarter of a century ago, is it the failure to establish a mature, fully integrated model with timetabling properly established among and contributing to the university’s business processes?
Time perhaps for the next evolution in timetabling.
Gill Sinclair is learning and teaching space manager at the University of Kent.