aais.com
Honolulu Community College
November, 2015
Laura Kelley, Senior ConsultantAd Astra Information Systems
aais.com
Ad Astra Information Systems™, L.L.C.
Ad Astra’s interest in academic space begin in the 1950’s when the founder’s father, John Shaver, was
introduced to a Ford Foundation project at Stanford University that cemented the firm’s future. Shaver decided
to morph his architectural firm from a general design practice to one specializing in higher-education facilities.
He enthusiastically joined the project and helped shape its contribution to the industry: a framework that quickly
became and remains the standard by which space utilization is assessed and facilities’ master plans are
developed.
When Tom Shaver launched Ad Astra in 1996, it was known that space management was both critically
important and incredibly complex. Measuring space utilization wasn’t enough. First, and most obvious, was that
management didn’t improve utilization; it simply confirmed that need to improve. Second, space was the only
part of the equation. Scheduling must be embraced as a way to allocate not only space, but also faculty; to
deliver instruction, and to enable students to graduate on time.
Ad Astra has collaborated with more than 800 higher education campuses and many state systems that
prioritize the stewardship of instructional resources and improved student outcomes.
aais.com
10% of course schedules could feasibly be
“recaptured” through management, for an annual
impact of $14.7B.
58% of institutions core operating costs are for
academic resources.
This savings opportunity is more than 10% of the
$143B paid by students annually in tuition and fees.
Savings opportunity is more than 23% of the $63B of
state appropriations, and 10% of $138B in federal
appropriations.
58%
$14.7B
10%
10%
ACADEMIC RESOURCES ARE CRUCIAL$147BACADEMIC
RESOURCES
ANNUAL SPEND
The Chronicle of Higher Education Almanac (2013-14)
© 2015 AD ASTRA INFORMATION SYSTEMS™, L.L.C. 3
aais.com
FOUR YEAR PRIVATE
COMMUNITY COLLEGE
FOUR YEAR PUBLIC
© 2015 AD ASTRA INFORMATION SYSTEMS™, L.L.C.
HIGHER EDUCATION SCHEDULING INDEX130 PEER INSTITUTIONS
aais.com
Strategic Scheduling CheckUp Goals
• Alignment to HCC’s strategic plan• Promote Learning and Teaching for Student Success
• Visibility into academic space utilization and management opportunities• Fall 2015 data used
• Address current, reported scheduling challenges• Classroom utilization
• Meeting Pattern Utilization
aais.com
Objectives
• Understand course offering inefficiencies directly impacting budgets and capacity
• Understand course offering warning signals that potentially impact student access to required courses and graduation
• Solution framework to leverage data from the SIS in future terms
aais.com
Project Overview
aais.com
Typical Schedule Building Process
Typical Goal: Completion vs. Improvement
Course offerings are based on a historical schedule, typically a roll-forward of a “like” term
Departments refine offerings in silos. Distinct processes and
decision makers, limited collaboration and decision-
support tools
SIS is updatedRoom assignments are made/refined
“Final” schedule is posted Changes still occur after registration or even after
classes start
aais.com
THE SCHEDULE
IT IS COMPLEX!
© 2015 AD ASTRA INFORMATION SYSTEMS™, L.L.C.
aais.com
aais.com
aais.com
Course Offerings Analysis
aais.com
17
70%FILLED
24
aais.com
Course Offering Summary – Fall 2015
Average Enrollment / Average Enrollment Capacity
HCC Mean2-year Public Institutions
MeanMin Max
17 / 24 23/ 29 18/25 10/ 16 41 / 53
aais.com
Course Offering Summary – Fall 2015 Average Enrollment / Average Enrollment Capacity
Measurement Percent Number Courses Percentile
Enrollment Ratio (85% Target)
70%Avg. Enroll
/Avg. Enroll Cap17 / 24
13th
Percentile
Overloaded Course Ratio (<10% Goal)
16% 52 of 33080th
Percentile
Balanced Course Ratio (>60% Goal)
32% 106 of 33050th
Percentile
Underutilized(<30% Goal)
52% 172 of 33014th
Percentile
aais.com
Course Offering Analysis – Fall 2016
Measurement Percent Number Percentile
Reduction Candidates 8% 43 of 549 sections 59th Percentile
Elimination Candidates 7% 39 of 549 sections 39th Percentile
Addition Candidates 12% 68 of 549 sections 83rd Percentile
Addition Candidates (Fall 2016 Only)
0% 0 of 549 sections Lowest Measured
aais.com
10%90th Percentile
aais.com
Course Offering Analysis by Level
Enrollment ratio varies by course level
LevelBaselineSections
Enrollment RatioAverage
EnrollmentAverage
Enrollment CapSections per
Course
000 Level 122 79% 19 24 2
100 Level 319 70% 17 25 2
200 Level 114 59% 13 22 1
300 Level 4 83% 17 21 1
Totals 559 70% 17 24 2
aais.com
Course Offering Analysis by Level
There is a high number of reduction candidates in the 100 level
LevelFall 2016 Sections
Addition Candidates
Addition Candidates, Fall 2016 Only
Reduction Candidates
Elimination Candidates
000 Level 122 26 0 6 8
100 Level 319 23 0 30 15
200 Level 114 17 0 7 16
300 Level 4 2 0 0 0
Totals 559 68 0 43 39
aais.com
Course Offering Analysis By Average Sections per Course
Enrollment ratio increases with the section per course count:
Average Sections per Course
Courses Average Enrollment Enrollment Ratio Balanced Course Ratio
1 255 14 63% 27%
2 38 16 70% 42%
3 to 5 24 18 71% 46%
6 to 10 9 22 81% 67%
11 + 4 21 79% 100%
Totals 330 17 70% 32%
aais.com
Course Offering by Enrollment Ratio Tier
Enrollment Ratio Courses % of Total Average Enrollment Average Enrollment Cap
1-19% 7 2% 2 24
20-49% 84 25% 8 24
50-69% 81 25% 13 23
70-95% (Balanced) 106 32% 20 25
> 95% (Overloaded) 52 16% 24 23
Totals 330 100% 17 24
aais.com
Course Offerings – Financial Information
Methodology:
• Instructors were classified as Full time (F) or Lecturer (L)
• This can be refined by classification later if desired
• Full time - $3411 per credit hour (average rate based on
salary/benefits)
• Lecturer - $1717 per credit hour (average rate)
• Tuition was set for $126 per credit hour
• No student data so we cannot account for in-state/out-of-state
• Section revenue = Section Enrollment*$126*Credit Hours
aais.com
Example: ENG 100*
Fall 2015 NumberPercentage/
AverageTuition
RevenueInstructional
CostMargin
Sections Offered
36 $281,232 $302,322 -$21,090
Full Time Instructors
23 64%$7,379 avgper section
$10,233 per section
Lecturers 13 36%$8,578 avgper section
$5,151 per section
Fall 2015 Enrollment
744 21
Fall 2015 Max Enroll
911 25
* Changes in developmental education will mean changes for ENG 100 in Fall 2016. This example illustrates how schedule alignment can benefit the institution, but there will be adjustments for Fall 2016.
aais.com
Example: ENG 100*
Fall 2016 NumberPercentage/
AverageTuition
RevenueInstructional
CostAnticipated
Margin
Sections Offered
33 $298,242 $286,869 $11,373
Full Time Instructors
23 70%$10,233 per
section
Lecturers 10 30%$5,151 per
section
Fall 2016 Projected Enrollment
789 24
Fall 2016 Max Enroll
836 25
* Changes in developmental education will mean changes for ENG 100 in Fall 2016. This example illustrates how schedule alignment can benefit the institution, but there will be adjustments for Fall 2016.
aais.com
Course Offering Opportunities
• Improved graduation rates from additional seats offered in “gateway” courses (focus on required courses that were overloaded in the past)
• Reduction of inefficiency/expense from reduction and elimination candidates (82 total candidates; 15% of all sections)
• Increased scheduling flexibility and capacity• Identification of underutilized faculty capacity by increasing average
enrollment from 17 to 20 (22% capacity increase to 85% enrollment ratio target)
• Reallocation of faculty, moving reduction candidates to additions
aais.com
Course Offering Analysis Dashboards
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Goal: Increase Enrollment Ratio
Enrollment Ratio
HCC
Mean
Goal
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Goal: Decrease Addition Candidates
Addition Candidates
HCC
Mean
Goal
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Goal: Increase Balanced Course Ratio
Balanced Course Ratio
HCC
Mean
Goal
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Goal: Decrease Reduction Candidates
Reduction Candidates
HCC
Mean
Goal
aais.com
Capacity analysis
aais.com
Space Bottleneck ConceptAverage utilization does not reflect capacity or inform space management.
Room Type Campus APrimetime Utilization
Campus BPrimetime Utilization
Classrooms (2) 50% 50%
Science Lab (1) 50% 10%
Tech Auditorium (1) 50% 90%
Average Utilization 50% 50%
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 1
56%
30%
49%
27%
62%
34%
56%
29%
0% 50% 100%
28-hour prime week (8am – 3pm M-R)
67.5 hour standard week (6:30am – 8pm
M-F)
AVERAGE UTILIZATION
Classroom (80) Shop (14) Computer Lab (10) All Rooms (104)
• Classroom utilization during the standard week is Moderately Low
2nd Percentile
• Classroom Prime Ratio (percentage of all usage in primetime) is High
5th Percentile* – 80% Mean is 59%
* Even spread would be 41% (28 of 67.5 hours)
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 2
• Classroom utilization during the 28 hour primetime is higher in larger spaces
SEATS ROOMS PRIME ROOM HOURS PRIME UTILIZATION PRIME RATIO0 - 15 6 42 25% 74%16 - 25 29 458 56% 83%26 - 50 45 757 60% 79%
Total 80 1,258 56% 80%
• HCC is in the 10th percentile for Classroom primetime utilization
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 2
• Computer Lab prime ratio is higher in the 16-25 size category
SEATS ROOMS PRIME ROOM HOURS PRIME UTILIZATION PRIME RATIO16 - 25 7 102 52% 77%26 - 50 3 36 43% 68%
Total 10 138 49% 75%
• Shop utilization is highest in the 26-50 size category during the 28 hour prime time
SEATS ROOMS PRIME ROOM HOURS PRIME UTILIZATION PRIME RATIO0 - 15 1 12 43% 50%16 - 25 9 128 51% 74%26 - 50 4 102 91% 80%
Total 14 242 62% 75%
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 3
• Non-Section utilization in Classroom space is very low overall*
SEATS ROOMSSTANDARD
ROOM HOURSSTANDARD
UTILIZATIONPRIME ROOM
HOURSPRIME
UTILIZATIONPRIME RATIO
0 - 15 2 12 9% 0 0% 0%16 - 25 5 17 5% 0 0% 2%26 - 50 17 46 4% 8 2% 17%
Total 24 75 5% 8 1% 11%
*Meetings, Events, Etc.
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 4
• Classroom utilization varies by departmental priority
• Top ten departments by Primetime UtilizationDEPARTMENT ROOMS OVERALL UTILIZATION PRIME UTILIZATION PRIME RATIOLANA 3 35% 78% 93%AERO 3 49% 78% 65%MATH 4 33% 75% 93%HUM/SS 3 38% 73% 80%ART 1 36% 71% 83%BABRP 1 36% 71% 83%SCI 3 33% 69% 88%PHYS 2 43% 65% 63%OESM 1 44% 64% 60%HESER 1 50% 59% 49%
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 4 cont.• Bottom fifteen departments by Primetime Utilization
DEPARTMENT ROOMS OVERALL UTILIZATION PRIME UTILIZATION PRIME RATIONO PRIORITY 30 28% 58% 87%BIOL 1 29% 54% 77%CHEM 2 27% 52% 81%MELE 2 23% 52% 94%NSCI 1 22% 50% 93%EIMT 2 22% 49% 91%FIRE 1 19% 46% 100%METCH 2 26% 46% 72%COSM 5 27% 45% 70%ECE 2 31% 40% 54%BLPR 1 18% 39% 92%UC 1 16% 38% 100%CA 4 20% 32% 66%FT 3 20% 31% 65%CENT 1 9% 21% 100%
aais.com
18
77%
27
25
Classroom Space
aais.com
19
67%
25
23
Computer Lab Space
aais.com
20
100%
24
25
Shop Space
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 5
• Seat fill enroll ratios in Classroom space is higher in smaller rooms
• Classroom Seat Fill (Enroll) ratio comparison: 67th Percentile
• Classroom Seat Fill (Cap) ratio comparison: 94th Percentile
SEATS ROOMSAVERAGECAPACITY
AVERAGE ENROLL
FILL (ENROLL)AVERAGE
ENROLL CAPFILL (CAP)
0 - 15 6 13 9 72% 18 141%16 - 25 29 22 19 86% 25 111%26 - 50 45 32 18 57% 27 84%Total 80 27 18 66% 25 94%
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 5
• Seat fill enroll ratios in Computer Lab space is consistent across room sizes
SEATS ROOMSAVERAGECAPACITY
AVERAGE ENROLL
FILL (ENROLL)AVERAGE
ENROLL CAPFILL (CAP)
16 - 25 7 24 19 76% 21 88%26 - 50 3 27 21 77% 27 99%Total 10 25 19 77% 23 92%
• Seat fill enroll ratios in Shop space is high across all room size categories
SEATS ROOMSAVERAGECAPACITY
AVERAGE ENROLL
FILL (ENROLL)AVERAGE
ENROLL CAPFILL (CAP)
0 - 15 1 14 14 100% 24 171%16 - 25 9 24 19 80% 25 104%26 - 50 4 28 24 85% 27 97%Total 14 24 20 82% 25 105%
aais.com
The Importance of On-Grid Scheduling
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 6
On-grid Primetime Meeting Pattern usage in Classrooms varies by Pattern
MEETING PATTERN TOTAL USAGETOTAL
UTILIZATIONOFF-GRID USAGE
OFF-GRID UTILIZATION
MW 8:30am - 9:45am 162 67% 87 36%MW 10:00 am - 11:15am 207 85% 117 48%MW 11:30am - 12:45pm 201 83% 102 42%MW 1:00pm - 2:15pm 159 65% 114 47%MW 2:30pm - 3:45pm 66 27% 66 27%TR 8:30am - 9:45am 153 63% 72 30%TR 10:00am - 11:15am 210 86% 108 44%TR 11:30am - 12:45pm 159 65% 90 37%TR 1:00pm - 2:15pm 141 58% 87 36%TR 2:30pm - 3:45pm 93 38% 69 28%Total 1,551 64% 912 38%
aais.com
Capacity Management Findings 6 Summary
• There is Very High off-grid meeting pattern usage in Classroom space during primetime meeting patterns:
59% (18th Percentile) of usage for all Classroom space
• There is Moderately High off-grid “waste factor”258 hours or 16% of all Classroom space capacity is wasted (41st Percentile)
aais.com
Capacity Management Opportunity
• Limit Off-Grid scheduling of Classroom space during primetime from 59% to 20% and waste from 17% to 5%― Result: Eliminate waste inherent in off-grid scheduling (12% capacity
increase)
― Graph category label: “Meeting Patterns”
• Reduce primetime scheduling in Classroom space to 65%― Result: Move activities from Classroom space to reduce prime ratios of 80%
(19% capacity increase)
― Graph category label: “Prime Ratio”
aais.com
Capacity Management Opportunity, cont.
• Increase average enrollments through course offering management to get to 85% enrollment ratio target― Result: Increase average enrollment from 17 to 20 (22% capacity increase
to 85% enrollment ratio target)
― Graph category label: “Enrollment Ratio”
aais.com
Capacity Management Dashboards – Main Campus
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Goal: Increase Space Utilization
Space Utilization
HCC
Mean
Goal
4,500
4,700
4,900
5,100
5,300
5,500
5,700
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Enrollment Capacity
Meeting Patterns
Existing Capacity
Prime Ratio
Enrollment Ratio
Enrollment
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Goal: Decrease Prime Ratio
Prime Ratio
HCC
Mean
Goal
aais.com
Strategic Options for Evaluation
Course Offering Efficiency Strategies:
• Evaluate Elimination Candidates for degree requirement impact
• Select Reduction and Elimination Candidates to remove from the Fall schedule (82 total candidates; 15% of all sections)
Course Offering Student Success Strategies:
• Evaluate Addition Candidates for degree requirement impact
• Consider implementing and using Platinum Analytics (uncover key Addition Candidates to improve student completion rates)
aais.com
Strategic Options for Evaluation, cont.
Capacity Bottlenecks Strategies:• Meeting Patterns (12% potential capacity)
• Prime Ratio (19% potential capacity)
• Enrollment Ratio (22% potential capacity)
aais.com
Next Steps
• Develop a schedule review team and process― Senior leadership and academic department representation― Focused on leveraging and sharing schedule analysis
• Develop data-driven scheduling policies― Course offering efficiency and effectiveness― Meeting pattern and room assignment efficiency
• Integrate other academic planning processes (curriculum planning, academic space planning, student success initiatives, etc.)
aais.com
Questions?Laura Kelley, Senior Consultant [email protected] (913)652-4153
Top Related