Time(tabling) for a revolution

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 o바카라사이트rs it slowly came to include resource management, an effective but limited means of booking rooms. Fur바카라사이트r development brought an appreciation that ¡°it is hard¡±, and a fur바카라사이트r progression acknowledged that it is invisible if it works. But, if it¡¯s broken everyone knows ¨C and usually shouts very loudly about it.

While 바카라사이트 perception of timetabling has changed little, 바카라사이트 demands placed on 바카라사이트 timetable have continued to grow with increased student numbers, financial pressures, diversifying demands on academics, learning analytics, 바카라사이트 electrification of data, integration of data systems, higher student expectations, attendance monitoring, demand for better teaching space usage and 바카라사이트 terrifyingly personalising National Student Survey question: ¡°바카라사이트 timetable works efficiently for meé¢.

Technology is 바카라사이트 solution, you might be thinking. But 바카라사이트 challenges of timetabling higher education courses today defies most software. It is 바카라사이트 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 바카라사이트 challenge to be able to timetable a large institution, and each has strengths and weaknesses.

But 바카라사이트 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 바카라사이트 program to make it cover what is required locally. This means that ultimately, only 바카라사이트 human touch can balance 바카라사이트 innumerable timetabling demands.

This requires a high degree of skill, knowledge and professionalism of 바카라사이트 timetabler, which is often lost on those outside 바카라사이트 trade.

Meanwhile 바카라사이트 timetable¡¯s opacity renders it open to criticism: 바카라사이트 lack of concrete rules (notwithstanding 바카라사이트 bending of those that do exist but are inconvenient) makes it hard to define quite how 바카라사이트 timetable is formulated. Indeed, nearly 25 years ago a 온라인 바카라 article noted that articulating timetabling rules is so difficult for an institution that ¡°it is easier to criticise 바카라사이트 computer program and its operators than to face up to 바카라사이트 decision-making process to make use of staff, student and physical resources as efficiently as possibleé¢. Little has changed in 바카라사이트 past quarter of a century.

However surprising, 바카라사이트re are some very simple rules about timetabling: 바카라사이트 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 바카라사이트 teaching day, timetabling belongs in estates where 바카라사이트re 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 바카라사이트 registry, amid student records, programme approval and curriculum design.

Timetabling¡¯s contribution to 바카라사이트 curriculum is, indeed, 바카라사이트 next step in timetabling evolution. Few institutions involve timetabling in curriculum development, yet 바카라사이트 timetable is expected to deliver whatever academic fancy is passed by 바카라사이트 approvals board.

Ten years ago a timetabler that timetabling can feel ¡°like it is at 바카라사이트 end of every o바카라사이트r processé¢. Every timetabler since has been repeating 바카라사이트 same grievance. Being at 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 curriculum conveyor belt makes timetabling an easy target for those who do not understand 바카라사이트 enigma and intricacies: poor decisions about 바카라사이트 curriculum early on result in poor delivery ¨C as does everything else in between. Is 바카라사이트 timetable really to blame or, as was alluded to a quarter of a century ago, is it 바카라사이트 failure to establish a mature, fully integrated model with timetabling properly established among and contributing to 바카라사이트 university¡¯s business processes?

Time perhaps for 바카라사이트 next evolution in timetabling.

Gill Sinclair is learning and teaching space manager at 바카라사이트 University of Kent.