¶ … Scheduling Software for a University's Information Technology Division
Many institutions of higher learning have benefited from innovations in information and communications technologies in recent years, and a growing number have incorporated class scheduling software into their information technology solutions. In spite of this growth in class scheduling software use, thousands of colleges and universities stand to benefit from the addition of class scheduling software, but there remains a paucity of relevant research concerning how these products should be selected and who should be consulted to identify performance attributes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify the most appropriate class scheduling software for a university's information technology division based on user-established parameters concerning performance and attributes. To help achieve this purpose, the study was guided by several research questions: (a) What factors need to be taken into account during the class scheduling software selection process?, (b) How can these factors be identified most efficiently?, and (c) Is an off-the-shelf class scheduling software solution always superior? A review of the literature, the results of a canvass of IT department staff members and a weighted analysis of the potential software candidates are used to develop the study's recommendation for purchase as well as key findings and conclusions.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of Study
Research Questions
Importance of Study
Scope of Study
Rationale of Study
Overview of Study
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Chapter Introduction
Current Trends in Class Scheduling Software
Constraints to Deploying a Class Scheduling Software
Developing a Consensus of Needs, Wants and Requirements
Chapter 3: Methodology
Description of Study Approach
Data-Gathering Method and Database of Study
Chapter 4: Findings
Chapter 5: Summary and Conclusion
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Table of Contents
Appendix D
Appendix E
Appendix F
Table 1. IT Department Business Division Class Scheduling Software
Wants/Needs/Requirements List
Table 2. Listing of Potential Class Scheduling Software Products
List of Figures
Figure 1. Total weighted scores for Class Scheduling Software Vendors
Identifying the Most Appropriate Class Scheduling Software for a University's Information Technology Division
Chapter 1:
Introduction
Although every educational institution is unique, colleges and universities around the world are faced with many of the same types of problems when it comes to classroom scheduling. Most of the traditional approaches to scheduling in these institutions are labor intensive and are fraught with opportunities for miscommunication and mix-ups that can adversely affect a college or university's ability to deliver high-quality educational services and provide its faculty with the ability to use the limited resources that are available most effectively. Faculty members must compete for a finite amount of classroom space during optimum periods, a conflict that is exacerbated when the class scheduling process is manual or otherwise characterized by inefficiencies. The same kind of so-called "turf battles" that typify a perceived intrusion on resources can result when proposals are introduced to automate the class scheduling process, and some educators may be reluctant to embrace these new technologies even in the 21st century. In this environment, identifying the most appropriate class scheduling software application for an educational institution of almost any type represents a timely and important enterprise, and these issues are discussed further below.
Statement of the Problem
While there remains a lack of recent studies concerning the use of class scheduling software, the growing body of research to date suggests that schools at all levels have benefited from these applications in a number of ways. For instance, according to O'Toole (2005), an aggressive initiative to revitalize a school district in Ohio relied on ACE's ADM-2000 Student Information System in general and its popular Master Schedule Builder/Student-Scheduling software in particular. The effort involved reorganizing the school district in order to offer smaller classes by expanding the district's two high schools into ten, changing from a semester to a trimester system, and converting students' GPAs from the semester to trimester system (O'Toole, 2005). The ADM2000 even includes a highly desirable mobile tool for ACE Software and provides administrators with real-time access to critical student data through any Palm OS-based PDA device (Administrative & management tools, 2005). According to the editors of THE Journal (2005), "The [ADM2000] software provides a flexible, secure way for administrators to keep track of important information such as class schedules, emergency contact information, grades, attendance, and students' photos in one convenient place" (Administrative & management tools, 2005, p. 39). The costs of the ADM2000 are affordable for many schools and begin at just $495 per building; however, an additional $210 per building annual maintenance fee is also required for its use (Administrative & management tools, 2005).
Furthermore, by taking advantage of the legacy systems and digital information that was already in place and incorporating custom-designed program elements into the application, the Ohio school district was able to achieve this reorganization in an efficient fashion to the satisfaction of all affected stakeholders. The main point made by O'Toole, though, was that there remains a dearth of timely and relevant studies concerning the selection and use of class scheduling software applications that can be used as a best practices guide. In this regard, O'Toole notes that, "What made this even harder and more significant, was the fact that there was no precedent in this area -- there were no school districts that we could call for advice based on their experience" (2005, p. 50). This lack of a set of best practices that can be used by educators to identify the most appropriate class scheduling software applications extends into upper educational echelons as well, a lack that directly relates to the purpose of this study which is discussed further below.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the most appropriate class scheduling software for a university's information technology division based on user-established parameters concerning performance and attributes. To help achieve this purpose, the study was guided bye the research questions set forth below.
Research Questions
This study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What factors need to be taken into account during the class scheduling software selection process?
2. How can these factors be identified most efficiently?
3. Is an off-the-shelf class scheduling software solution always superior?
Importance of Study
Even during the best of times, universities must struggle to use whatever resources are available to them to their best advantage, and the lingering economic downturn has simply exacerbated the situation for many educational institutions across the country in recent years. Class scheduling software represents a potentially valuable tool to help schools of all types improve their efficiency in delivering educational services by ensuring that classrooms are available when and where they are needed, and that administrators can identify opportunities for improvement. As one class scheduling vendor emphasizes, "College and university campuses frequently struggle with the task of getting academic classes and the wide variety of non-academic meetings and events that they host into the appropriate rooms. Ensuring the availability of the necessary services and resources can also be difficult" (EMS Campus, 2010, para. 2). The administrators at Missouri Southern State College and McKendree College in Illinois found that their investments in class scheduling software paid major dividends. According to Branch (2002), "For less than $6,000, both schools were able to computerize their scheduling duties and improve their efficiency in planning room and building assignments for classes and events. Both schools, and close to about 1,000 others, have turned to academic scheduling software programs to better use the classroom space they already have" (p. 28).
Moreover, the efficient use of class scheduling software can also have some unexpected benefits. According to Paschall, Kypri and Saltz (2006), "Many universities in the United States and some other western countries schedule fewer classes on Fridays compared with other weekdays, which may contribute to student partying, alcohol misuse, and alcohol-related problems on prior weeknights as well as the overall incidence of these problems" (p. 764). By using available classroom resources to their maximum advantage, peak demand can be smoothed out and more time can be allotted for classes where required (Paschall et al., 2006). Taken together, it is clear that thousands of colleges and universities across the country stand to benefit from the use of class scheduling software, particularly when the software package is selected based on user-established parameters.
Scope of Study
Although this study explored the use of class scheduling software in general, there was a specific focus on colleges and universities in the United States.
Rationale of Study
There are approximately 2,700 colleges and universities in the United States that are large enough, generally more than 1,500 students, to benefit from using academic scheduling software (Branch, 2002). The use of class scheduling software, though, is certainly not limited to the United States. In fact, Harris (2007) reports that, "CELCAT makes course scheduling software for universities and colleges which is used by hundreds of institutions in more than 30 countries" (p. 18). The United States is also among these 30 countries using CELCAT, but the company also has licensed users in universities and colleges in Australia, Malaysia, China, Europe, Africa, the Caribbean and the Middle East (Harris, 2007).
CELCAT, though, is just one of dozens of vendors competing in the class scheduling software industry as well as many open sources options that are free of charge, and the thousands of colleges and universities that have undertaken the selection process have done so largely without the benefit of a set of best practices that can be used for this purpose. As a result, it is reasonable to suggest that many of these educational institutions failed to realize the full spectrum of benefits that can accrue to the effective use of class scheduling software applications based on an inappropriate selection or internal factors that constrained its implementation and use. Therefore, it just makes good business sense to identify how these educational institutions can approach the selection process and what factors need to be taken into account in identifying the most appropriate software choice.
Overview of Study
This study used a five-chapter format to develop informed and timely answers to the above-stated research questions. To this end, chapter one of the study provided an introduction to the issues under consideration, including a statement of the problem, the purpose and importance of the study, and its scope and rationale. Chapter two of the study was used to deliver a review of the relevant peer-reviewed, scholarly and organizational literature concerning class scheduling software, and chapter three describes more fully the study's methodology, including a description of the study approach, the data-gathering method and the database of study consulted. The penultimate chapter consists of the study's data analysis and findings and chapter five provides a summary of the research and conclusions.
Chapter 2:
Literature Review
Chapter Introduction
This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature concerning current trends in course management systems in general and class scheduling software applications in particular, followed by an examination of the constraints that may hinder the deployment of class scheduling software. Finally, a discussion concerning the need to develop a consensus of user needs, wants and requirements in a class scheduling software solution and the results of the canvass of IT department respondents conducted for this study concludes this chapter.
Current Trends in Class Scheduling Software
Two distinct trends have come together today that facilitate the integration of class scheduling software applications in higher educational institutions. The first trend is that for the past several years, many colleges and universities across the country have already embraced information and communications technologies in major ways. For example, Fillion, Limayem, Laferriere and Mantha (2007) report that, "For the past two decades information and communication technologies (ICT) have transformed the ways professors teach and students learn" (p. 45). The second distinct trend that has helped fuel the growing interest in class scheduling software is the increasing number of software packages being developed, many for specialized purposes such as academic scheduling. For instance, a report from AMR Research indicated that the fastest-growing segment in human resource software is "workforce scheduling and optimization" applications, a category that includes class scheduling software; sales of these types of applications were expected to increase an average of 16% from 2006 per year to date, representing nearly a half-billion dollar industry that is expected to continue to grow in the future (Frauenheim, 2006).
Class scheduling software applications have been offered as part of a larger e-learning suite of applications that are increasingly based on user-defined needs rather than what is possible using existing technology (Liu & Cheng, 2008). According to Liu and Cheng, "Educators and software designers are trying to satisfy this need by using and designing Internet- and intranet-based tools that allow interaction. One widespread class of such tools is Course Management Systems (CMSs), which are used to manage web-learning in instructor-led environments" (p. 427). Although they are widely used in so-called e-learning environments, course management systems are also used in traditional face-to-face classrooms (Simonson, 2007). In this regard, Simonson notes that, "Course management systems, also called learning management systems or virtual learning environments, are software systems designed to assist in the management of educational courses for students, especially by helping teachers and learners with course administration" (p. 7).
Some of the more popular CMSs currently include eCollege, WebCT, Blackboard, Sakai, and Moodle, each of which has its respective advantages for certain settings and many offer functionalities that provide automated tools that support integration with student administration systems for class scheduling, class enrollment, synchronizing student information, and results tracking (Liu & Cheng, 2008). Other vendors, though, offer specialized class scheduling software packages that provide a wider and more robust range of functionalities that can be used to fine-tune their use in a given college or university based on the needs of the educators and students involved (Shimazu, 2005).
While these software suites vary in their offerings, most course management systems include the following features:
1. Support for instructor management of courses including functionalities such as: dynamic revision of materials, assignment management, grade book, control over who can access the course, and so forth;
2. Assembly of course components into a curriculum with sequencing/navigation support;
3. Creation and delivery of assessments, surveys, and tests;
4. Electronic assignment management, submission, tracking, grading, and feedback;
5. Delivery of course content to the learner;
6. Integration of synchronous tools such as chat, whiteboard, screen sharing, audio conferencing, and video conferencing; and,
7. Integration of asynchronous tools such as discussion threads, moderated discussion, email group management, and document exchange (Liu & Cheng, 2008).
By contrast, specialized class scheduling software such as those considered herein is designed to facilitate the reservation of specific classrooms, avoid scheduling conflicts, and provide administrators, faculty and students alike with real-time information concerning the various aspects involved in assembling large numbers of people in a specific place at a specific time with the tools, resources and other information they need. In this regard, class scheduling software that generates automatic notices to students and faculty concerning schedule changes is an important feature based on the results of a study by Ramessur and Santally (2007) who emphasize, "Most students have designated SMS/email messages as very important for approaching deadlines of assignments, class scheduling and whenever the lecturer posts something online. The student community is also widely accustomed to these SMS messages. It is obvious that they would welcome such initiative" (p. 117). Indeed, students, administrators and faculty members alike will likely enjoy the benefits of class scheduling software that provides a mobile communication module that can keep all stakeholders apprised of scheduling decisions and changes.
Moreover, by making the effort to integrate new technologies in the higher educational setting, students may be more responsive to last-minute changes in classroom schedules with improved academic outcomes being the result. College or university students who have not struggled with finding a parking place, fought wind, rain, mud and snow to make their way to a classroom on the third floor (no elevators of course) of a university building, only to find a small hand-written sign stating that, "This class moved to building 3A room 12 or "class canceled" with no other explanation) are rare, and it is clear that the use of class scheduling software represents a "win-win" approach for many higher educational institutions today. As Ramessur and Santally (2007) also point out, "It is obvious that emphasizing flexibility brought about by new technology can become a means to redynamize the teaching and learning process through the provision of a permanent communication and coordination link for the student with his/her learning environment. This aspect can be seen as an enhancement to the learning support process" (p. 117).
Furthermore, although there are numerous commercial class selection software programs available for purchasing and licensing (sometimes on a recurring annual basis), there are some free alternatives available from open source scheduling providers. In this regard, Edyburn (2008) reports that, "Open source software refers to a movement whose proponents believe in releasing software code into the public domain for anyone to use, reuse, modify, and build upon. A core value of people who believe in open source software is that the user community will take responsibility for improving the code in ways that are more responsive and creative than for-profit corporations" (p. 62).
Notwithstanding the numerous benefits that can accrue to the use of class scheduling software, the selection, piloting, implementation and administration of these applications, though, is not necessarily a straightforward enterprise, and a number of constraints have been identified in the literature to date which are discussed further below.
Constraints to Deploying Class Scheduling Software
Humans tend to aggressively resist change in their daily work routine and educators are certainly no exception. According to Branch (2002), "The biggest hurdle in convincing a school to use [class scheduling] software is usually not the school's size. It's the internal politics that often rule the campus. It is a longstanding issue that is ingrained throughout higher education" (p. 27). During the implementation of a class scheduling software initiative, some faculty members may engage in "turf battles" or other unexpected concerns may crop up that will impede the process. In this regard, Branch adds that, "Whether it is a specific professor who feels entrenched and connected to a specific classroom or suite of classrooms, or a whole department that does not want to hold classes outside of the building that bears its academic affiliation in its name, there are often real political mountains that need to be scaled" (2002, p. 27). Because resources are by definition scarce, colleges and universities cannot afford to allow such turf battles to constrain the efficient use of limited classroom space. As Branch emphasizes, "Space is often the specific territory of individual departments, which can be a problem because people can lose sight of the big picture. Schools need the ability to use their entire campus to make improved scheduling work. They cannot subdivide the campus into mini-fiefdoms" (2002, p. 27).
Although it is reasonable to suggest that most academicians are computer-literate and are capable of using class scheduling software applications that provide an intuitive user interface, it is also reasonable to suggest that many may not be inclined to invest the time and effort needed to achieve fluency with an overly complicated application without being trained in its use in some fashion, and the benefits involved in their use are clearly made known. In this regard, Shaw (2003) emphasizes that, "If teachers can see a clear benefit and the effort involved is only a few mouse clicks more than what they are putting forth, schools will begin to see a much deeper level of penetration of Web technologies into the daily management of information within a class" (p. 47). This is not to say, of course, that class scheduling software does not require some initial work in all cases and a great deal of initial work in some cases and that educators are not required to be diligent in maintaining their areas of responsibility in a class scheduling system. It is to say, though, that in spite of the initial and subsequent work that is involved in effectively administering an automated class scheduling system, the outcomes are worth the investment in time and effort. As Shaw (2003) points out, "Once teachers see that this is not additional work, but rather something that can reduce work and make their students more organized and accountable, schools will begin to move closer to the 'e-learning' environments that have been promised to us for years in the advertising literature of our vendors" (p. 48).
Fortunately, "practice does make perfect," though, and Roach (2003) emphasizes that once faculty members become accustomed to their use, they tend to use software packages such as course management systems and their class scheduling components more frequently. The problem remains, though, concerning how to convince all stakeholders that the use of potentially complicated class scheduling software systems is in their best interests. For example, according to Branch (2002), "There remains a lot of hesitation among professors, departments and others to giving over the tried-and-true manual method of scheduling to the Information Age of the 21st century" (p. 27). Consequently, Branch recommends that colleges and universities implement such class scheduling software initiatives in an incremental fashion: "Instead of schools looking to make wholesale changes in its scheduling campus wide, perhaps it should do simpler things such as try to at least put departments on a more standardized time schedule, without upsetting the balance of where classes should be held" (2002, p. 27).
Developing a Consensus of Needs, Wants and Requirements
Classroom scheduling can be an enormously complex enterprise, particularly when there are specialized educational programs offered, such as language courses, that require different scheduling from other programs based on the educator's preferences for class frequency for reinforcing previous coursework (Shimazu, 2001). According to this author, "In the United States, language courses are typically taught as 5-unit courses scheduled 5 days a week. Language program coordinators or chairpersons arranging class scheduling often juggle considerations in formulating a 5-day course or a 3-day course in search of the most effective alternative for language acquisition" (Shimazu, 2001, p. 717). Moreover, this educator emphasizes that, "Foreign language class scheduling can be enhanced [and can] allow the language coordinators and chairpersons of the foreign language programs to make more informed decisions" (Shimazu, 2001, p. 717). Indeed, conflicts over classroom scheduling have even resulted based on perceived racism by white professors when black professors wanted to use preferred classroom space (Virginia Tech task force to study race, 2001). According to a somewhat dated report from the editors of Black Issues in Education (2001), "A classroom-- scheduling dispute between two professors sparked protests about racism on campus. A Black instructor was using the classroom without permission when a White professor, who had reserved the space, told the instructor to move his class. Neither man budged and Virginia Tech police eventually arrested the Black professor for disorderly conduct. University officials insist that race was not an issue in the spat" (Virginia Tech task force to study race, 2001, p. 17).
Clearly, though, preferred classroom space is frequently viewed as a perquisite and it is not surprising that conflicts over scheduling occur in any type of educational setting. Because every higher educational institution is unique, especially in terms of the legacy systems and level of in-house IT expertise that exists, identifying end-user needs, wants and requirements for a class scheduling software application represents the first step in the selection process. For this purpose, Branch stresses the need for a collaborative approach to class scheduling that takes into account the interests of all stakeholders: "So often, scheduling is done at the department level and not centralized. Just putting everyone on a similar time frame can help" (2002, p. 27). Every educational institution will differ in precisely what attributes is requires for a class scheduling software application, though, so it is also important to canvass the stakeholders concerning what features are most important to them for a given application. One feature that is offered by CyberMatrix's Class Scheduler - Student Course Scheduler (2010) may be highly desirable in higher educational settings where there are large numbers of foreign students using the scheduling system. In this regard, the company's promotional literature emphasizes that this product "easily converts the software text into [other] language equivalents" (CyberMatrix Class Scheduler - Student Course Scheduler, 2010, para. 2).
The informed approach followed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provides a useful example of how a collaborative effort can be used to identify what factors should be taken into account in the selection of a class scheduling software application for almost any college or university. A study by Gold (2003) reports that the IRS provides a wide range of educational services to its one-hundred-plus employees and the organization launched an initiative in 2003 to better utilize its classroom resources to accommodate a diverse group of learners and educators. According to Gold, "In the initial planning stages, the Strategic Human Resources group went to each of the operating units within the IRS to find out their training and education needs and how to help them reach their business objectives" (2003, p. 76). An IRS representative noted that the agency "engaged the business units in identifying their functional requirements for a robust learning management system. We gathered over 200 functional requirements and categorized them into different capabilities we'd need to provide" (quoted in Gold, 2003 at p. 76). During the data-collection phase of the initiative, an overriding consideration was the software product's compatibility with the enormous human resource databases already in place at the IRS (Gold, 2003). The requirements-gathering process at the IRS transpired thusly: "As the initiative took shape, specific requirements, standards, and specifications for e-learning administration, scheduling, rostering, product development, and design were implemented to fully leverage the product's functionality" (Gold, 2003, p. 77). In a similar fashion, the results of the weekly business division meetings and collaboration with end users of the class scheduling software selected for the purposes of this study included the following wants, needs and requirements:
1. Pilot the software with the Business Division first before making it available to all divisions.
2. Room conflicts are flagged to identify available and unavailable classrooms.
3. Plug in a sample student schedule and see if there are any conflicts with class or classes.
4. Flag if a student needs a class and another one is scheduled at the same time and is required.
5. Instructors set parameters for specific times/days and then the instructors would receive a warning message or not be able to schedule during those times/days.
6. Query room availability at this time of the day.
7. User friendly.
8. Chart information; room usage, number of courses/section.
9. Include class conflicts and conflicts of time or date (courses that should not be scheduled at the same time).
Scheduling management requirements:
1. Flag if too many sections are scheduled.
2. Hitting on budgeted amount based on credit hours.
3. Room utilization.
4. Generate statistical information to justify specific needs (equipment, software, rooms, etc.).
5. Tie in with other offsite campuses schedules to see any conflicts or too many sections.
6. Limiting certain classrooms for specific classes.
7. Data validation.
These foregoing primary factors are weighed against four popular commercial software applications and one open-source class scheduling software application in chapter four, preceded by a more complete description of the study's methodology in chapter three below.
Chapter 3: Methodology
Description of the Study Approach
This study used a mixed methodology to achieve the research purpose and develop answers to the guiding research questions. The first part of the mixed methodology consisted of a review of the relevant peer-reviewed, scholarly and organizational secondary literature concerning class scheduling software applications, an approach that is congruent with Fraenkel and Wallen's (2001) observation that, "Researchers usually dig into the literature to find out what has already been written about the topic they are interested in investigating. Both the opinions of experts in the field and other research studies are of interest. Such reading is referred to as a review of the literature" (p. 48).
The second part of the study's mixed methodology consisted of the collection of primary data as described further below. This mixed methodology is consistent with various social researchers who emphasize the need to include both secondary and primary resources in a research project whenever possible. For example, Dennis and Harris (2002) note that, "Primary data are information that is being collected for the first time in order to address a specific research problem. This means that it is likely to be directly relevant to the research, unlike secondary data, which may be out of date or collected for a totally different purpose. Ideally, an effective research project should incorporate both primary and secondary data" (p. 39).
Data-Gathering Method and Database of Study
The data-gathering method used included the information and empirical observations collected during a series of weekly business division meetings that focused on identifying relevant scheduling software research, a review of weekly status reports and recommendations. Based on the findings of the literature review and the analysis of appropriate software vendors in chapter four below, a written capstone document that includes recommendations concerning the most appropriate software package and vendor is provided. For the purposes of this study, the most popular software packages included those used for generic room scheduling that were easily customizable and identified in the literature review by educators as appropriate for this purpose as well as those that include specific education-related components.
Chapter 4: Findings
The overall results of the meetings to develop the IT Department's Business Division Class Scheduling Software Meeting Requests are recapitulated in Table 1 below and various potential class scheduling software products are reviewed to determine their capability of performing or satisfying these requirements.
Table 1
IT Department Business Division Class Scheduling Software Wants/Needs/Requirements List
Want/Need/Requirement
Vendor
A
B
C
D
E
F
Room conflicts are flagged to identify available and unavailable classrooms.
3
1
3
3
1
1
Flag if a student needs a class and another one is scheduled at the same time and is required.
0
0
0
3
2
1
Instructors set parameters for specific times/days and then the instructors would receive a warning message or not be able to schedule during those times/days.
1
0
2
3
1
0
Query room availability at this time of the day.
2
2
2
3
0
0
User friendly.
2
1
2
2
2
1
Chart information; room usage, number of courses/section.
2
2
2
3
1
2
Include class conflicts and conflicts of time or date (courses that should not be scheduled at the same time).
2
1
2
3
2
1
Flag if too many sections are scheduled.
2
0
2
3
2
0
Hitting on budgeted amount based on credit hours.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Room utilization.
3
2
3
3
1
1
Generate statistical information to justify specific needs (equipment, software, rooms, etc.).
2
2
2
3
1
1
Tie in with other offsite campuses schedules to see any conflicts or too many sections.
2
1
2
3
2
0
Limiting certain classrooms for specific classes.
1
0
2
3
2
0
Data validation.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total score
22
12
24
32
17
8
Weighted Scoring Key:
3
Completely satisfies requirement with no modifications required
2
Satisfies requirement with little modification.
1
Requirement satisfaction can be achieved completely with significant customization.
0
Unknown/further information required from staff and/or vendor
Figure 1. Total weighted scores for Class Scheduling Software Vendors
Vendor Key:
Vendor A
Rediker Software, Inc.'s Scheduling Plus
Vendor
B
NetSimplicity's Meeting Room Manager
Vendor C
Event Management Systems' Campus
Vendor
D
Lantiv Scheduling Studio 7
Vendor E
CyberMatrix Class Scheduler - Student Course Scheduler
Vendor F
Learners Circle LLC's Centre/SIS
Based on the total weighted scores for the five class selection software applications reviewed, Vendor D, Lantiv Scheduling Studio 7, is clearly the superior choice for the wants, needs and requirements established by the IT department at the university in question. The costs of the respective software packages were not included in the weighted analyses and were compared across the board with their open source counterparts in terms of functionality and suitability. The five commercial products and one open-source package that were reviewed are described briefly in Table 2 below, and more complete descriptions of these applications and representative screenshots of the user interface are provided at the appendixes.
Table 2
Listing of Potential Class Scheduling Software Products
Vendor
Brief Product Description
Comments
Vendor A:
Rediker Software, Inc.,
2 Wilbraham Road, Hampden, MA 01036
http://www.rediker.com / scheduling_plus.html
The promotional material for the package states that Rediker's Scheduling Plus software for scheduling and master schedule building offer both simplicity and comprehensive results. Scheduling Plus is the easiest and most reliable scheduling software on the market. Additionally, schools can easily and quickly make schedules available online for parents and students using the school web center. The program is so advanced that it provides two methods for schedule building: Interactive and Automatic. Using either mode, your can easily build a master schedule based on student course requests and teacher availability. In Automatic mode, the program analyzes the available information and determines when each section should ideally meet to minimize potential conflicts.
If you prefer to maintain more control over the scheduling process, the Interactive mode alerts you to which periods would be best and which teachers are available, but allows you to make choices based on the program's information (Rediker class scheduling software, 2010, para. 1-2).
The promotional material adds that: Since every school has unique needs, Scheduling Plus is designed for flexibility. The program can create any type of schedule; it can even accommodate schools that use block scheduling. Evenly Balanced Sections: Scheduling Plus produces sections that are as evenly-balanced as is mathematically possible. In fact, no other software produces better balanced sections.
The product's PDA module lets schools put schedules on mobile devices so staff members can access student schedules anywhere on campus (Rediker class scheduling software, 2010, para. 3).
Product highlights provided at Appendix A
Vendor B:
NetSimplicity (www.netsimplicity.com)
The company's Web site emphasizes the easy customization of its Meeting Room Manager (MRM) applications and its ability to function in higher educational settings: "With our Forms Designer feature, you can easily create a field for an attribute of your meeting or resource without having to be a SQL database administrator. The Forms Designer provides a drag-and-drop, WYSIWYG toolset that enables you to transform Meeting Room Manager into a perfect fit for your organization" (Meeting Room Manager, 2010, para. 2). The MRM application also features security settings that can restrict access to higher level assignment and administrative functions.
Schools can also design class reservation or resource scheduling processes for specific needs -- and for changing environments. Every text field and image is customizable in the entire Meeting Room Manager application to suit each organization's needs (Meeting Room Manager, 2010).
This vendor has released four new editions of its easy-to-use Meeting Room Manager (MRM) scheduling software, which provides administrators with tools to automate and customize their institution's entire scheduling process (Administrative & management tools, 2005).
MRM Team is for small groups of up to 10 schedulers, MRM Enterprise is for large corporations and organizations with thousands of users, and MRM Web is a fully customizable edition for hundreds of schedulers that can be accessed from any browser (Administrative & management tools, 2005). Product highlights provided at Appendix B.
Vendor C:
Event Management Systems (EMS)
(http://www.dea.com/)
The EMS Campus product overview states that:
For the academic departments and registrars working to ensure that every class meets in a location and at a time that is acceptable to professors and students, the system provides automatic room assignment within user-supplied parameters, integration with your SIS/ERP software and efficient online collaboration tools. It also simplifies final exam scheduling. Meeting and event staff have access to a powerful array of tools for booking single- or multi-day events, reserving the services and resources required for those events, producing operational and statistical reports, and tracking financial transactions. For those tasked with publishing a web calendar for the campus, the Virtual EMS component of the system makes it simple (EMS Campus, 2010, para. 1-3).
The EMS Campus product literature emphasizes that this software:
Eliminates scheduling conflicts; doesn't allow double-bookings Create single day, recurring and non-pattern (random date) reservations in a matter of seconds
Comes standard with more than 200 built-in reports, plus a Query Builder for creating your own ad-hoc reports
Prints room cards or schedules grids to post and distribute.
User-friendly graphical views illustrate facility use and availability, and provide drag-and-drop functionality for making and editing reservations Dashboard window gives instant access to essential follow-up items (notifications, reminders, wait lists, etc.)
Manages the inventory of resources to prevent overbooking
Powerful search Wizards locate available space instantly; an exclusive "Best Fit" search accommodates recurring meetings when space is limited (Complete campus scheduling, 2010, p. 2). Product highlights provided at Appendix C.
Vendor D:
Lantiv Scheduling Studio 7
(http://www.lantiv.com)
The vendor's promotional material for their Scheduling Studio 7 package states:
Schedule students, classes, teachers and rooms. You can create groups, sub-groups, split groups, schedule simultaneous classes and view individual student timetables.
Schedule students, courses, lecturers and rooms. You can assign students to courses, enroll them to classes, schedule lectures to rooms, track the use of equipment and schedule activities with a 1-minute precision at arbitrary times (Lantiv Scheduling Studio 7, 2007, para. 1-2).
The Database Pages for this package are as follows:
1. General Details - school name, principal, address, etc.
2. Days - the days in which teaching takes place.
Examples: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, etc.
3. Lessons - the periods that comprise the teaching day.
Examples: 1, 2, 3, etc.
4. Subjects - the themes that are taught. Examples: English, Math, Advanced Physics.
5. Groups - each group unites students who study at least one subject together.
Examples: A-1, 7-C, Electronics 8th Grade, 56613 (just a number can also be a group's name).
6. Students - each student participates in one or more groups. Example: Smith, Bob.
7. Teachers - each teacher is responsible for teaching or supervising. Example: Prof. Smith, Alice.
8. Rooms - the physical space where teaching takes place. Examples: Room 127, Computers Lab 4, Library, Gym.
9. Equipment - the collection of accessories that are required for teaching. Examples: Slide Show Equipment, Video, TV, etc.
10. Activities - each activity unites a teacher, subject, group(s), optional rooms and equipment (if required). The Activities page in the Database also allows the creation of Sets.
11. Conflicts - shows which groups conflict with each other, based on the students who participate in them. At least one common student is needed in order for two groups to be conflicting. Product highlights provided at Appendix D.
CyberMatrix Class Scheduler - Student Course Scheduler
(http://www.cyber-matrix.com/class_ scheduler.html)
The company's promotional literature notes that:
CyberMatrix Class Scheduler is an easy to use single or multi-user application for scheduling students courses. The software is ideal for schools and other educational institutions that need to schedule courses quickly (CyberMatrix Class Scheduler - Student Course Scheduler, 2010, para. 1-3).
You’re 80% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.