factors affecting current undergraduate calendar editing process ... · 1) identify the current...

Factors affecting current Undergraduate Calendar Editing Process: Issues and Suggested Solutions

Report for e‐Calendar Project

Prepared for:

Bonnie Borenstein (ES), Romesh Vadivel (ES) and Andrew Dias (PMO).

By: Organizational Development and Learning, HR October 26th, 2009.

Summary: Organizational Development’s involvement in the eCalendar project involved mapping the undergraduate calendar editing process of the faculty of Law (Pilot Phase), followed by seven participating faculties (Science, Engineering, Agricultural and Environmental Studies, Education, Music, Arts and Religious Studies) (Phase 2). The sessions were conducted in collaboration with Enrolment Services, as a means to: 1) Identify the current calendar editing process in the faculties to

ensure that the new process using Documentum™ accounts for all aspects of the present process.

2) Identify key roles (editors, editor/approvers etc.) within the process to facilitate the creation of distinct roles within Documentum™.

3) * Facilitate dialogue between the faculties and Enrolment Services, about the process as a means to receive input and suggestions regarding the eCalendar process. ‐ *The focus of this report.

This report collates the data retrieved from the over 50 participants, and presents the information in four distinct tables: Table 1: Positive Factors by Category (Equipment/Tools; Process; People; and Procedures); Table 2: Negative Factors by Category; Table 3: Parking Lot Issues (i.e. issues, suggestions, and ideas that surfaced from discussions within session) by Category; Table 4: Raw Data: Positive and Negative Factors and Parking Lot Issues by Faculty.

1

Table1: Positive Factors by Category – What works well

Equipment/Tools

Item Source FrameMaker™ is an effective tool. LAW Email communication works well. LAW I use the electronic calendar frequently and find it useful, although I wish

the course listings linked directly to the course schedule EDUCATION

Draft received electronically, which facilitates editing process. AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRON. SCIENCE

Process Division of duties between degree evaluation officer and Managing Editor

works because both edit directly in Master document. LAW

Contributors respect and respond to deadlines LAW Deadlines are respected (and are considered reasonable) EDUCATION There are in‐built parameters to program and course description sections. ENGINEERING Central office (Dean’s Office) dedicated to and is in control of the editing

process that monitors departments, has expertise of what is required, and has access to influence documents and processes.

SCIENCE

Departments have their own internal editing process and collaborates well with Dean’s office.

SCIENCE

Draft is split into departmental sections by M.E., making it less cumbersome for Calendar Coordinator and Editors.

AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRON. SCIENCE

Draft received electronically, which facilitates editing process. AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRON. SCIENCE

Having a central coordinator is helpful in that process is streamlined, facilitated and supported for departments.


Accompanying role of calendar coordinator on curriculum committee allows the coordinator to have knowledge of any curriculum changes that need to appear in the edited version of the calendar.

MUSIC

People Contributors respect and respond to deadlines LAW Asst. Registrar and Managing Editor have worked on calendars previously

and currently have a system that works. LAW

Faculty ‐ Department communication is frequent so knowledge of editing status is consistent.

ENGINEERING

Roles different of Coord. And some editors intersect and help facilitate process (knowledge of changes).

ENGINEERING

Size of faculty accommodates collaboration with Student Affairs and Associate Deans.

MUSIC

2


MUSIC


SCIENCE

There is great team‐work between the faculty and the departments. MUSIC When few editors involved the process works better EDUCATION Two course calendar coordinators work as a team and are each other’s

back up which enables and supports the process can continue regardless. SCIENCE

Procedures ARTS 3 drafts ENGINEERING Procedure is very clear (documented step by step) so process is

streamlined ENGINEERING

G1 sections is compartmentalized (s.p.) ENGINEERING When track changes are used, it works well. LAW Draft is split into departmental sections by M.E., making it less

cumbersome for Calendar Coordinator and Editors. AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRON. SCIENCE

3

Table 2: Negative factors by Category – What could be improved

Equipment/Tools

Item Source

MS Word (track changes) – can be overwhelming – multiple editors

messy. (Have to print to clear doc).

ARTS

No faculty specific calendar which results in order have a complete idea

of a faculty‐specific policy and procedures need to go in many sections

“back and forth” checking front main section and G1 sections time

consuming and a need to be meticulous. (Knowledge of where to look

essential)

ENGINEERING

Non‐printed version not as easy to use as an advising tool. MUSIC

Searching hardcopy not user friendly MUSIC

MS Word is limited in its track changes – what would be ideal is one document that could be distributed to the editors, allowing them to make changes and have one collated document.

SCIENCE

Current software apps. in process not compatible with various OS platforms used within faculty.

SCIENCE

Currently we need to go through a paper process to verify program changes – if it were available online by departments it would stream line process and be less dependent on central (Dean’s Office).

SCIENCE

Some changes to program and course information is out of scope to calendar editing cycle (out of scope). When editors see changes to be done, the SCTP deadline may have passed and so changes cannot be implemented for current calendar cycle. Unclear the need to review ‘old’ info.

No alignment between course changes and calendar in that change may appear in calendar course but not in program section which needs to go through a program change process. For example, course changes credit weight from 4 credits to 3 credits, and this may result in a program being 1 credit short. Currently, no communication between the two processes.

Process Rework required within faculty to standardize output for Enrolment

services.

LAW

Changes to programs and courses are late 20‐30% of the time, and risk not being included in final publication.

LAW

Other substantive changes (e.g. Policy changes) not in sync with production schedule.

LAW

4

Timing – changes cannot always be in version because receipt of docs.

And process start late (November).

ARTS

Many deadlines. ARTS

Information changes each year ENGINEERING

Process requires study of main section (can be tedious: lot of content) ENGINEERING

It would be good if certain portions could be on a more frequent

publishing schedule.

ENGINEERING

Programs are constantly evolving so acad. Content in calendar never

100% accurate.

ENGINEERING

Calendar Coordinator has received draft 1 (from ES) too late to follow the procedure and make the imposed deadline. As a result, was only able to work with draft 2.

MUSIC

There have been many course and program changes in the past few years that affect EDFE courses.

EDUCATION

There can be a delay to have editors receive document (after sent from ES).

MUSIC

They can be in different stages of approval (from our faculty‐level

Academic Policy Committee through SCTP). This affects when we

can make changes to the various drafts, or if a change has to wait

for the supplement, or next year’s calendar.

MUSIC

Sometimes changes are automatically entered in the calendar once

approved by SCTP, but sometimes it takes much longer, or data‐entry

errors are made (I may be wrong, but if the calendar is populated from

Banner, then this reflects whether the Class‐Scheduling dept. has entered

the changes on Banner yet or not.)


People Not all contributors use track changes deadlines LAW Not all contributors use technologies to facilitate process.

LAW

30% of contributors do not provide information in standard format.

LAW

Editing boundaries by contributors not respected 10% of the time.

LAW

Editing instructions not always followed, and so additional support required by Managing Editor (ES

LAW

Follow‐up can be onerous to manage (eg. Wrangling calendar bits and ARTS

5

waiting for input from SCTP, dept. heads, etc.).

Editors, at times, do last minute edits (i.e. at the 11th hour), and they are not received in a coordinated manner.

MUSIC

Some editors do not prioritize the Calendar editing process.

SCIENCE

Coordinator receives changes from many editors in departments, and needs to be the go‐between to ES. During peak times this can be a very cumbersome task.


Procedures Transcription and collating all ‘pieces’ can be time consuming. MUSIC Calendar text dense EDUCATION

Calendar refers students to Admission website, which is unclear to them because it is hard to find specific relevant information (not customized to needs to Agri. Students/applicants). This has resulted in increased phone calls to departments.


G1 sections is compartmentalized. ENGINEERING When track changes are used, it works well. LAW Draft is split into departmental sections by M.E., making it less

cumbersome for Calendar Coordinator and Editors.

6

Table 3: Parking Lot Issues/ Suggestions

Equipment/Tools

Item Source General Information sections: An electronic log of policy procedure

changes to be created and maintained throughout year. (On a shared

drive accessible by EA1, EA2 and E).

LAW

Communicator needed for Law re. eCalendaring.

LAW

Generic advising email is needed for each department.

Could “edit chunks” be sent directly to Editors/Ed. Approve? ARTS

Paper Copy is important for certain work processes related to advising.

MUSIC

Dual monitors would facilitate using e‐tool more readily. EDUCATION

Software applications need to run on various browsers, such as Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome.

SCIENCE

Tasks for editor should be attached to email (one click).

SCIENCE

Admission in CMS?

AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRON. SCIENCE

Track approval process online, for courses submitted for changes (globally), i.e. other departments can view as well.


Process

Revise max. times to be actual (Bonnie)

LAW

Could October be a better month for departments to receive docs.? ARTS

Could program information be separate from admission portions (for

SCTP changes)…so departments can start adding information as they

receive them.

ARTS

Final sign off from (ex. Assistant Director Faculty) is necessary.

ENGINEERING

Concurrent programs (BEd‐BSc and BEd‐BMus), should be looked at. EDUCATION

Yellow pages PDF required!!

SCIENCE

UG calendar and Health Science calendar not synced (wording AGRICULTURAL AND

7

different).

ENVIRON. SCIENCE

Editors cannot edit pre‐approved information that is coming from Banner (course titles etc.)


Could editors review non‐SCTP information only in draft 1, and then review SCTP information in subsequent drafts?


People

Vacation and other constraints compound complexity of editing

process.

LAW

Can we give deadlines and reminders within the e‐draft for editors?


Procedures

Add a paragraph within each department on what they do (General Information).

ARTS

Style guide (as it is enhanced) could be distributed to faculties? EDUCATION

Visual imagery could enhance usability and comprehensiveness for

students.

EDUCATION

Are instructions being sent with draft to all editors? Are drafts being sent directly to editors? Causes time delays.


8

Table 4: Raw data – Factors and Issues by Faculty

Faculty Positive Factors (What works well)

Negative Factors (What could be improved)

Parking Lot Issues

Law 01‐23‐09

Contributors respect and respond to deadlines.

Division of duties between degree evaluation officer and Managing Editor works because both edit directly in Master document.

FrameMaker™ is an effective tool.

When track changes are used, it works well.

Email communication works well.

Asst. Registrar and Managing Editor have worked on calendars previously and currently have a system that works.

Not all contributors use track changes

Not all contributors use technologies to facilitate process.

30% of contributors do not provide information in standard format.

Rework required within faculty to standardize output for Enrolment services.

Changes to programs and courses are late 20‐30% of the time, and risk not being included in final publication.

Other substantive changes (e.g. Policy changes) not in sync with production schedule.

Editing boundaries by contributors not respected 10% of the time.

Editing instructions not always followed, and so additional support required by Managing Editor (ES

Vacation and other constraints compound complexity of editing process.

Leverage KB for eCalendar process – info/guidelines

Revise max. times to be actual (Bonnie)

Bonnie/Romesh: Communicator needed for Law re. eCalendaring.

Arts 07‐22‐09

Having 3 drafts is

reassuring (input to

be able double check

information and to

add items that could

not be added earlier.

Timing – changes cannot

always be in version

because receipt of docs.

And process start late

(November).

Many deadlines.

MS Word (track changes) –

can be overwhelming –

multiple editors messy.

(Have to print to clear doc).

Follow‐up can be onerous

to manage (eg. Wrangling

calendar bits and waiting

for input from SCTP, dept.

heads, etc.).

Could October be

a better month

for departments

to receive docs.?

Could program

information be

separate from

admission

portions (for SCTP

changes)…so

departments can

start adding

information as

they receive

them.

General

9

Information

sections: An

electronic log of

policy procedure

changes to be

created and

maintained

throughout year.

(On a shared drive

accessible by EA1,

EA2 and E).

Generic advising

email is needed

for each

department.

Add a paragraph

within each

department on

what they do

(General

Information).

Engineering 07‐23‐09

3 drafts

Procedure is very

clear (documented

step by step) so

process is

streamlined

G1 sections is

compartmentalized

(s.p.)

Faculty ‐ Department

communication is

frequent so

knowledge of editing

status is consistent.

Roles different of

Coord. And some

editors intersect and

help facilitate

process (knowledge

Information changes each

year

No faculty specific calendar

which results in order have

a complete idea of a

faculty‐specific policy and

procedures need to go in

many sections “back and

forth” checking front main

section and G1 sections

time consuming and a need

to be meticulous.

(Knowledge of where to

look essential)

Process requires study of

main section (can be

tedious: lot of content)

It would be good if certain

portions could be on a more

frequent publishing

Final sign off from

(ex. Assistant

Director Faculty)

is necessary.

Could “edit

chunks” be sent

directly to

Editors/Ed.

Approve?

10

of changes).

There are in‐built

parameters to

program and course

description sections.

schedule.

Programs are constantly

evolving so acad. Content in

calendar never 100%

accurate.

Music 07‐23‐09

Size of faculty accommodates collaboration with Student Affairs and Associate Deans.


There is great team‐work between the faculty and the departments.

There can be a delay to have editors receive document (after sent from ES).

Editors, at times, do last minute edits (i.e. at the 11th hour), and they are not received in a coordinated manner.

Transcription and collating all ‘pieces’ can be time consuming.

Calendar Coordinator has received draft 1 (from ES) too late to follow the procedure and make the imposed deadline. As a result, was only able to work with draft 2.

Paper Copy is important for certain work processes related to advising.

Education 06‐30‐09

When few editors

involved the process

works better

Deadlines are

respected (and are

considered

reasonable)

I use the electronic

calendar frequently

and find it useful,

although I wish the

course listings linked

directly to the course

schedule

Non‐printed version not as

easy to use as an advising

tool.

Searching hardcopy not

user friendly

Calendar text dense

Ensuring that all SCTP‐

approved course changes

are reflected in a timely

way that makes sense for

the students is challenging

because:

- There have been many

course and program

changes in the past few

years that affect EDFE

Dual monitors

would facilitate

using e‐tool more

readily.

Style guide (as it is

enhanced) could

be distributed to

faculties?

Visual imagery

could enhance

usability and

comprehensivene

ss for students.

Concurrent

programs (BEd‐

BSc and BEd‐

BMus), should be

11

courses.

- They can be in different

stages of approval (from

our faculty‐level Academic

Policy Committee through

SCTP). This affects when we

can make changes to the

various drafts, or if a

change has to wait for the

supplement, or next year’s

calendar.

- Sometimes changes are

automatically entered in

the calendar once approved

by SCTP, but sometimes it

takes much longer, or data‐

entry errors are made (I

may be wrong, but if the

calendar is populated from

Banner, then this reflects

whether the Class‐

Scheduling dept. has

entered the changes on

Banner yet or not.)

looked at.

Science (09‐21‐09)

Central office (Dean’s Office) dedicated to and is in control of the editing process that monitors departments, has expertise of what is required, and has access to influence documents and processes.


Two course calendar coordinators work as a team and are each other’s back up which enables and supports the process

MS Word is limited in its track changes – what would be ideal is one document that could be distributed to the editors, allowing them to make changes and have one collated document.

Current software apps. in process not compatible with various OS platforms used within faculty.

Some editors do not prioritize the Calendar editing process.

Currently we need to go through a paper process to verify program changes – if it were available online by departments it would stream line process and be less dependent on central (Dean’s Office).

Yellow pages PDF required!!

Software applications need to run on various browsers, such as Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari, and Chrome.

Tasks for editor should be attached to email (one click).

12

can continue regardless.

Agricultural and Environ. Sciences 09‐30‐09

Draft is split into departmental sections by M.E., making it less cumbersome for Calendar Coordinator and Editors.

Draft received electronically, which facilitates editing process.

Having a central coordinator is helpful in that process is streamlined, facilitated and supported for departments.

Some changes to program and course information is out of scope to calendar editing cycle (out of scope). When editors see changes to be done, the SCTP deadline may have passed and so changes cannot be implemented for current calendar cycle. Unclear the need to review ‘old’ info.

No alignment between course changes and calendar in that change may appear in calendar course but not in program section which needs to go through a program change process. For example, course changes credit weight from 4 credits to 3 credits, and this may result in a program being 1 credit short. Currently, no communication between the two processes.

Calendar refers students to Admission website, which is unclear to them because it is hard to find specific relevant information (not customized to needs to Agri. Students/applicants). This has resulted in increased phone calls to departments.

Coordinator receives changes from many editors in departments, and needs to be the go‐between to ES. During peak times this can be a very cumbersome task.

UG calendar and Health Science calendar not synced (wording different).

Editors cannot edit pre‐approved information that is coming from Banner (course titles etc.)

Are instructions being sent with draft to all editors? Are drafts being sent directly to editors? Causes time delays.

Could editors review non‐SCTP information only in draft 1, and then review SCTP information in subsequent drafts?

Admission in CMS?

Can we give deadlines and reminders within the e‐draft for editors?

Track approval process online, for courses submitted for changes (globally), i.e. other departments can view as well.

13

factors affecting current undergraduate calendar editing process ... · 1) identify the current...

Documents