An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a

Business School Department

Robert Saltzman
San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA

This article describes how an optimization model has been used recently to more effectively
schedule classes in an average-sized business school department. Each semester this department
offers approximately 46 classes taught by 20 different instructors in one of 32 time slots. A myriad
of constraints must be satisfied while trying to maximize faculty preferences for courses and
teaching times. Using the model has reduced the time needed to generate high-quality schedules
from more than a day to less than three hours, and kept our schedule within the departments
allocated time slots, eliminating the need for staff to find additional rooms.

I. INTRODUCTION To initiate the scheduling process for a given

The Decision Sciences (DS) department
is one of eight academic departments within the
College of Business (COB) at San Francisco
State University (SFSU). One of the main
recurring duties of department chairs at SFSU
and most other universities is to schedule their
departments classes and assign faculty members
to teach them. Historically, class scheduling at
SFSU has been done one semester ahead of
time, i.e., planning for courses to be offered in
the next semester has occurred early in the
current semester. Recently, though, SFSU
administrators decided to schedule two
semesters ahead of time to give students greater
ability to plan their future coursework. This has
proven difficult for chairs to satisfactorily
accomplish due to the inherent uncertainty in the
process (e.g., budgetary concerns and personnel
availability), as well as the time-consuming
nature of the scheduling task. As a compromise,
chairs were asked to tentatively schedule Spring
2009 classes during July 2008 (rather than
during Spring 2008), and to finalize the Spring
2009 schedule in October 2008. At present, it is
unclear how far in advance chairs will be asked
to provide schedules for the Fall 2009 semester.
semester, the central SFSU administration
provides each department chair with a block
allocation or set of openings at various times of
the day and week called time slots or blocks
during which courses may be offered on the
main campus. Familiar blocks include the 9:10-
10:00 AM slot on Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays (abbreviated here as MWF0910) and
the 12:35-13:50 PM slot on Tuesdays and
Thursdays (TTH1235). Cells B2:W3 of
Figure 1 show all the standard blocks used on
the main campus for the Spring 2009 semester.
While department chairs in the COB are
supposed to fit all of their undergraduate classes
into these blocks, many end up offering a
significant number of classes either in excess of
their allocation (referred to as out of
allotment) or during non-standard blocks such
as the two shown in cells X2:Y3 of Figure 1. In
doing so, chairs create problems for staff and
administrators (e.g., a shortage of rooms in
which to house classes during standard blocks),
as well as for students (e.g., conflicting times for
classes and final exams).
Class scheduling in the COB became
further complicated in January 2007 by the
relocation of all graduate business programs to a
new downtown campus (DTC) situated

Volume 7, Number 1, pp 84-92

California Journal of Operations Management 2009 CSU-POM
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department

FIGURE 1: INSTRUCTOR PREFERENCES FOR BLOCKS IN SPRING 2009

 $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . /  0 1 2 3 4  5 6 7 8 9 :  $ % & ' ( )
 5 <=
$>

/
% = )=
$>

&%
 &;
/7( /7( /7( /7( /7( /7( /7( /7( / 7 ( / 7 * * * * *  *  * /7/7 / /   7 7 * *

"?#

#?

?

?

?

?

?

? 
 ?"
 ?"
 ?"
#?
#?
"?#
#?
?
?
?
?"
?"
#?
#?
?
? 
? 
"?
? 
"?
? 
"?
? 
"?
 

/7("

/7(#

/7(

/7(

/7(

/7(

/7(

/7(

/7
/7
*"
*#
*
*
*

*

*#

*
*"
7 

7#

7
7"
/ 

/#

/
/"


#


"
( 
 +=
 :0539                                
%*0.''                                
! '.+//                                
" ')                                
# /'*303              ?                  
 /+90-                                
 0:.5-              ?                  
 0:4'              ?                  
 30'&'3                                
 4.:/                                
 5&9$*5                                
 %                                 
! %                                
" &>                                
# ->@>                                
 .                                
 3                                
 4 ?/=                                
 4
=;                                
 7<                                

approximately nine miles away from the main load changes for a few faculty members.
SFSU campus where undergraduate classes are Satisfactorily adjusting or rescheduling the
held. In any semester, roughly half of the existing Spring 2008 schedule was more difficult
colleges faculty members teach at both than I had anticipated. Soon thereafter, in
campuses. The COB Associate Dean provides October 2007, it was time to plan the Fall 2008
each department chair with a block allocation for schedule from scratch. Based on guidelines
classes held at the DTC (see blocks in cells given to me by my predecessor, such as how
Z2:AG3 of Figure 1). Thus, department chairs many sections of each course to offer and how
must consider whos teaching in which program, many to offer at night, I began to manually plan
and allow sufficient time to travel from one out the Fall 2008 schedule and was immediately
campus to another. Although possible to get struck by the extraordinary number of factors
from one campus to another in under an hour on that had to be considered to develop a good,
public transportation, DS faculty requested a feasible schedule. Even though our department
minimum of two hours between the end of a offers only about 45 classes per semester, it took
class taught on one campus and the beginning of me at least a full day to prepare the initial
the next class taught at the other campus to schedule. Knowing that Id need to undertake
allow for transit breakdowns, heavy automobile scheduling and rescheduling tasks regularly
traffic, student interaction, eating, and so on. during my tenure as department chair, I began to
Shortly after becoming department chair think about how these tasks might be formulated
in August 2007, I needed to make some as a mathematical program and solved
adjustments to the Spring 2008 schedule planned efficiently on a computer.
by the previous chair to account for recent work

California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009

85
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature contains a wealth of
articles that have examined variations of the
class scheduling or timetabling problem, as
documented in Schmidt and Strohlein (1980)
and in Schaerf (1999), who subdivided the field
into three categories: (1) school, (2) university
course, and (3) exam timetabling problems. The
problem analyzed here clearly falls into the
second category because it addresses how a
department chair at a university can
appropriately assign instructors to teach courses
during specific blocks. Some researchers, e.g.,
Deris, Omatu and Ohta (2000), have focused on
heuristic algorithms to solve problems in the
second category, while others, e.g., Burke and
Petrovic (2002), have developed heuristics and
metaheuristics to address problems in the third
category. Dimopoulou and Miliotis (2001)
addressed problems in both categories with a
two-stage PC-based system; however, in the
course scheduling stage of their system, they
assigned courses to time slots and rooms, but did
not consider instructors. Foulds and Johnson
(2000) developed a decision support system to
aid experienced timetablers at each stage of the
process by pointing out scheduling conflicts,
suggesting alternatives, and presenting a variety
of reports.
Shih and Sullivan (1977) used binary
integer programming models first to assign
courses to instructors, and then to assign courses
to time slots, in each of possibly several terms.
However, they reported no computational results
on the second model, and apparently never
implemented their work. Nonetheless, their
relatively small models do share some common
features with that reported here, such as a desire
to maximize instructor preferences for courses
and time slots.
Ferland and Fleurent (1994) developed a
decision support system for course scheduling
when student registrations for courses are
already known (not the case at SFSU). Their
course scheduling process aims to reduce
California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009
86
conflicts for students, instructors and rooms,
e.g., when a common group of students needs to
take two classes held at the same time.
Likewise, Hinkin and Thompson (2002) helped
eliminate problems such as conflicts among
required core courses and among electives, as
well as the use of non-standard time blocks.
They took many factors into account, including
room capacity, room features and building
utilization (not a departmental concern at
SFSU). Solving their large, nonlinear problem
required the use of a simulated annealing
(heuristic) algorithm, which took more than a
year to develop fully.
Once COB chairs have determined their
own departmental schedules, the central SFSU
administration takes the next step of assigning
classes to classrooms, an important related
problem addressed by Glassey and Mizrach
(1986). Martin (2004) solved a mixed integer
LP model to not only assign instructors to
courses and time slots, but also to assign these to
classrooms, for the entire College of Business at
Ohio University. Our model and Martins also
have some features in common, such as concern
for back-to-back teaching assignments and
special course sets. Though more ambitious in
scope, Martins formulation is (surprisingly)
smaller than ours in terms of number of
variables and constraints.
This article concentrates more on the
formulation and unusual aspects of our class
scheduling problem, which may be relevant for
academic departments with similar
characteristics. In particular, I address
scheduling issues faced by an average-sized
academic department that operates within the
confines of a large business school, which itself
is part of a large state university. The problems
formulation leads to an optimization model that
is medium-sized by todays standards more
than 8,300 binary variables and 10,000
constraints one not readily formulated or
solved with Microsoft Excel. The problem has
been successfully tackled with a widely-
available software package (not specially-written
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department
code) that can be adapted easily by others
willing to use this or other similar optimization
package. Since the model reads in several data
files from Excel, much of the model
maintenance can be done within the familiar
environment of Excel. With both a linear
objective function and linear constraints, the
model solves quickly, allowing for fast
experimentation. To date, the model has been
used twice; over time, further refinements may
be made as more experience is gained.
III. PROBLEM DEFINITION AND MODEL
FORMULATION
The purpose of the DS class scheduling problem
is to optimally assign a group of DS instructors
to teach an array of DS courses during a set of
standard time slots. Assignments must satisfy
numerous constraints while maximizing the
instructors collective preferences for courses
and time blocks. The problem was formulated
as an integer linear programming model and
solved with OPL Studio 3.5 (ILOG 2001), an
optimization package whose main features are
reviewed by Skiscim (2001). In an OPL
(Optimization Programming Language) model,
one can combine elements of traditional
mathematical programming with those of
constraint programming, if desired. Lustig and
Puget (2001) give a brief tutorial on constraint
programming and how it complements the
features of mathematical programming. The
main components of any OPL model are its sets,
variables, constraints and objective function,
each of which is now described.
Sets, which help make the model easier
and more compact to specify, and the output
more legible, include the names of the
departments instructors, courses, and available
blocks. In particular, the following indices and
main sets are used in the model.
i Instructor = {Azoury, Cholette, , Wing}
c Course = {DS110, DS212, , BUS786}
b Block={MWF0810, MWF0910,,TH1900}
California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009
87
The model also employs a number of subsets of
these main sets in various situations, such as
CourseUG (CourseGR), a set containing only
the undergraduate (graduate) courses. Another
useful subset is InstructorTTT, a list of only the
tenured/tenure track faculty. Other subsets will
be introduced as the constraints are described
below.
The models decisions variables are a set
of binary variables {Xi,c,b}, where Xi,c,b = 1, if
instructor i is assigned to teach course c during
block b, and Xi,c,b = 0, otherwise, for all i
Instructor, all c Course, and all b Block. In
planning for the Spring 2009 semester, for
example, there were 20 instructors, 13 distinct
courses (several of which are multi-section) and
32 blocks, leading a total of 8,320 decision
variables.
Feasible schedules must satisfy a large
number constraints and sets of constraints. The
first type of constraint requires that our
department offer multiple sections of certain
core business classes such as DS 412
(Operations Management):
12  ib Xi,DS412,b  14.
Similar constraints, with different upper
and lower bounds, are required for the other
multi-section courses, namely, DS 212, DS 411,
DS 412, BUS 786 and BUS 856. An obvious
requirement of any feasible schedule is that
instructors teach at most one course per block:
c Xi,c,b 1, for all i Instructor and b Block.
Several pre-assignments (Schaerf
1999) are needed to impose specific instructor-
course-block combinations. For example,
Professor Eng is preassigned to teach an
intermediate statistics course, DS 312, which is
her specialty:
b XEng,DS312,b = 1.
In this example, the block is not
preassigned. Other decision variables can be
preassigned to zero by recognizing that
undergraduate courses cannot be offered during
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department
graduate blocks, and graduate courses cannot be
offered during undergraduate blocks:
Xi,c,b = 0, for all i Instructor, c CourseUG, b
BlockGR, and
Xi,c,b = 0, for all i Instructor, c CourseGR, b
BlockUG,
where BlockUG (BlockGR) is the set of all
undergraduate (graduate) blocks. As stated in
the introduction, the number of undergraduate
courses must not exceed the block allocations set
by the administration; likewise, the number of
graduate courses offered at the DTC cannot
exceed the allocations set by the COB Associate
Dean:
i cCourseUG Xi,c,b AllocationUGb, for all b
BlockUG, and
i cCourseGR Xi,c,b AllocationGRb, for all b
BlockGR,
where AllocationUGb and AllocationGRb are the
maximum number of undergraduate and
graduate sections, respectively, that the
department may offer during block b. To serve
students who work during the day, we endeavor
to offer sections of some undergraduate courses,
such as DS 212, at night:
1  ibBlockNight Xi,DS212,b  3.
Similar constraints, with potentially different
upper bounds, are in place for the undergraduate
core courses DS 110 and DS 412.
Night-time sections of some courses, such
as DS 110, should be offered on different nights
to give non-traditional students the most chance
to take the course:
i Xi,DS110,b  1, for all b BlockNight.
Similar constraints exist for evening sections of
DS 212, DS 412, DS 856 and BUS 786.
Some undergraduate concentration
courses, such as DS 312 and DS 601, ought to be
taught on different nights so that DS majors can
take both courses in the same semester, if
desired:
California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009
88
i (Xi,DS312,b + Xi,DS601,b)  1, for all b
BlockNight.
Faculty-Oriented Constraints
First, a set of constraints is needed to enforce
faculty teaching loads:
cb Xi,c,b = Loadi, for all i Instructor,
where Loadi is the number of classes
instructor i is supposed to teach in the semester.
In the DS department the typical load is three
classes per semester for full-time faculty, and
one or two for part-time lecturers. The model
also contains constraints that improve the overall
quality of life for the faculty. For instance, to
reduce monotony, no tenured/tenure track
instructor is asked to teach three sections of the
same course:
b Xi,c,b 2, for all i  InstructorTTT, c Course.
DS faculty members often one night class per
week, but never more than two:
c bBlockNight Xi,c,b 2, for all i Instructor.
Good, coherent schedules (Burke and
Petrovic, 2002, p. 267) avoid requiring
instructors to teach classes on both MWF and
TTH:
c (Xi,c,b1 + Xi,c,b2)  1, for all i Instructor, b1
BlocksMWF, b2 BlocksTTH.
Travel Time Considerations
Sufficient time must be allowed for instructors
to travel from the main campus to the DTC. For
example, an instructor who teaches a graduate
class at the DTC on Mondays at 1400 must not
be assigned a class on the main campus on
Mondays that finishes after 1200:
c (Xi,c,b + Xi,c,M1400)  1, for all i Instructor, b
MBEA1200,
where MBEA1200 is the set of blocks ending
after 1200 on Monday on the main campus, i.e.,
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department
{MWF1210, MWF1310, MWF1410,
MWF1510, M1610, MW1410, MW1535,
M1900}. The model contains a related constraint
set to allow an instructor at least two hours to get
from the main campus to the DTC for a class
that starts at 1830 on Monday. Similar
constraint sets are in place for the other days of
the week. All told, the model used to plan the
Spring 2009 schedule included more than 10,000
constraints.
The Objective Function
The DS class scheduling problems objective
function is to maximize instructors total
preferences for the courses assigned to them and
the blocks during which these courses are
offered, along with terms that try to keep
multiple sections of one course taught by an
instructor close together. In particular, the
weighted linear objective function contains four
components:
w1CoursePrefs + w2BlockPrefs +
w3TotalProxMWF + w4TotalProxTTH,
where user-adjustable weights w1, w2, w3, and w4
reflect the relative importance of the associated
quantities. The first two terms each require a
distinct set of input data. One input is a matrix
of instructor course preferences (ICP), while the
other is a matrix consisting of instructor block
preferences (IBP). Prior to developing the
schedule, DS instructors are asked to provide
positive integer weights summing to 10 for two
or more courses that they wish to teach. The
greater instructor is preference for teaching
course c, the higher the weight ICPi,c. The term
CoursePrefs is calculated as icb ICPi,c Xi,c,b.
Before the schedule is developed, DS
faculty are also asked to submit a list of hard and
soft constraints regarding their availability and
preferences for teaching at specific times, which
I then translate into primarily ones and zeros
(see Figure 1). In particular, IBPi,b is the
preference value of instructor i for teaching
during block b. If an instructor has an especially
strong affinity for or aversion to a particular
California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009
89
block, IBPi,b can be further adjusted up or down.
While most instructors prefer to teach on a TTH
schedule rather than a MWF schedule, some DS
courses simply must be offered on MWF to
make better use of our allocated blocks and to
give students more options. Consequently,
weve devised a rotation system to achieve this
in a balanced way over time. Instructors whose
turn it is to teach on MWF are given values of 1
for the MWF blocks, and 0s for the TTH blocks,
while the opposite is true for those instructors
who need not teach on MWF. The term
BlockPrefs is found as icb IBPi,b Xi,c,b.
DS department tenure/tenure-track faculty
members typically teach two sections of a core
undergraduate class, and a third class for either
graduate or undergraduate students each
semester. In such cases, instructors almost
always wish to teach two sections of the same
core course back-to-back, i.e., in consecutive
blocks such as TTH0935 and TTH1100. One
way to achieve back-to-back course assignments
is by adding a series of hard constraints, as in
Shih and Sullivan (1977). I chose to treat this
desire as a soft constraint and try to satisfy it by
incorporating appropriate terms into the
objective function. Note that an instructor has
been assigned to teach during two blocks b1 and
b2 if the value of Xi,c,b1Xi,c,b2 is one. However,
this nonlinear approach cannot be handled by
my version of OPL Studio, so I developed an
additive linear approach involving
(Xi,c,b1+Xi,c,b2). This required finding two
matrices ProxMWF (the proximity of MWF
blocks) and ProxTTH (the proximity of TTH
blocks) such that the quantities TotalProxMFW
and TotalProxTTH increase when an instructor
is assigned to teach during consecutive blocks
and decrease when assigned to teach during non-
consecutive blocks. Determining appropriate
elements for these matrices is itself an
interesting problem, but will not be covered
here. The terms measuring proximity of
assigned courses are:
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department

TotalProxMWF = icb1BlocksMWF b2BlocksMWF data must be placed in spreadsheet files prior to

(Xi,c,b1+Xi,c,b2)ProxMWFb1,b2, and model execution. In particular, the model reads
in lists of the blocks, instructors, and courses
TotalProxTTH = icb1BlocksTTH b2BlocksTTH involved in the upcoming semesters schedule,
(Xi,c,b1+Xi,c,b2)ProxTTHb1,b2. along with instructor course loads; block
allocation quantities for all undergraduate and
While this linear approach works graduate blocks; and course and block
reasonably well and helps to model to solve preference information from instructors.
quickly, it sometimes leads to schedules in
which an instructors two core class sections are IV. RESULTS
not back-to-back. Fortunately, it is usually not
difficult to manually interchange courses or An OPL script was written to run the DS
instructors to achieve back-to-back classes for class scheduling model and format the resulting
all instructors who desire it. schedule by course and by instructor (e.g., see
To briefly summarize, the DS class Figure 2 below). Model output also shows the
scheduling problem can be formulated as a fairly number of sections of each course offered and
large assignment-type integer linear program, how the usage of blocks compares to the
which is highly constrained. The only departments allocation. Some of this output is
substantial assumption made is that all required copied into Excel and given to the department
FIGURE 2: THE OUTPUT SPRING 2009 SCHEDULE, BY INSTRUCTOR
Instructor Course Block Instructor Course Block
AZOURY DS212 MWF1010 ROEDER DS408 TH1900
AZOURY DS212 MWF1110 ROEDER DS411 TTH0935
AZOURY DS411 W1610 SALTZMAN DS851 W1830
CHOLETTE DS412 TTH0810 UDAYABHANU DS412 TTH1100
CHOLETTE DS412 TTH0935 UDAYABHANU DS412 TTH1235
CHOLETTE DS856 W1830 UDAYABHANU BUS786 W1400
ELIMAM DS412 T1900 Carter DS110 T1535
ELIMAM DS412 TTH1410 Carter DS110 TH1535
ELIMAM DS856 TH1830 Chan DS212 M1900
ENG DS212 TTH0935 Danko DS712 W1830
ENG DS212 TTH1100 Danko DS712 TH1830
ENG DS853 M1830 Klimkovskaia DS212 TTH0810
MEHROTRA DS624 M1900 Klimkovskaia DS212 TTH0935
MEHROTRA DS854 T1830 Lee DS212 TH1900
MIYAOKA DS412 MWF1210 Rainaldi DS710 T1830
MIYAOKA DS412 MWF1110 Sepah DS412 TH1900
MIYAOKA DS604 W1900 Shibuya DS110 T1900
OZLUK DS412 TTH1100 Shibuya DS710 M1830
OZLUK DS412 TTH1235 Wing DS110 MWF0810
OZLUK DS212 T1900 Wing DS110 MWF0910
OZSEN DS412 TTH1235 Wing DS110 MWF1010
OZSEN DS412 TTH1410 Wing DS110 MWF1110
OZSEN BUS786 T1830 Wing DS110 MWF1210
California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009

90
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department
office manager in a format she prefers for input
to the universitys scheduling system.
The model was first run on the Fall 2008
schedule, even though I had already planned that
semesters schedule out manually, in order to
test the quality of the models solutions and
make improvements to the model. The Spring
2009 schedule was planned primarily by running
the model, with only a few manual adjustments
made later. Because the model generally solves
in less than 30 seconds on a Dell Inspiron 6400
laptop, several schedules can be tried out quickly
with, say, alternate course preference values.
For instance, I can try to modify the schedule for
a particular junior faculty member by changing
his or her preference values (or someone elses)
for a specific course. All told, preparing this
schedule took less than three hours, including
data entry and making minor changes to the Fall
2008 model. As more experienced is gained
with the process, it may take even less time to
prepare a high-quality schedule in the future.
Besides reducing the time required to
generate high-quality schedules, running the
model has had other benefits. First, it has kept
our schedule completely within the departments
block allocation (a claim not many other
departments can make), eliminating the need for
staff to spend time looking for additional rooms
to accommodate our classes. Second, its made
the scheduling process more transparent to DS
faculty, who now better appreciate how difficult
it really is to develop a feasible schedule. They
may even perceive the scheduling process as
more objective and fair than the previous manual
approach.
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
One possible area to investigate further is
whether or not a nonlinear objective function (a
more natural choice to ensure back-to-back
assignments of courses) would actually improve
the quality of the schedules found. If I had a
nonlinear solver, I could determine whether or
California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009
91
not the improvement is worth the longer
computational time most-likely required.
Perhaps more importantly, much greater
effort would be required to get this planning tool
adopted by other departments within the COB or
elsewhere who face issues similar to those of the
Decision Sciences department. I have found that
the other COB department chairs have devised
their own manual processes to plan their
schedules, with at least one making limited use
of Excel to partially check the feasibility of their
schedules. However, getting other chairs to
actually adopt an optimization-based approach
such as the one presented here would be a major
challenge for several reasons: (1) they dont
understand or trust mathematical models; (2)
they cant afford to buy an expensive software
package such as OPL Studio; (3) they fear losing
control of the scheduling process; and/or (4)
they prefer not to share the details of their
scheduling process with someone outside of
their own department.
In the future, it would also be desirable
to examine the rescheduling problem, i.e., how
to alter an existing schedule after something has
changed, such as a tenured or tenure-track
faculty member being awarded a sabbatical or a
course release late in the planning cycle. What
is the best way to repair the current schedule so
as to minimize changes from the current
schedule? Should change be defined in terms
of the number of instructors whose schedule
changes, the number of classes that are assigned
to a different instructor or block, or some other
measure? The answer may depend on whether
the rescheduling is done before or after students
have registered for classes, and will likely
require considerable discussion and
experimentation.
VI. REFERENCES
Burke, E. K., and S. Petrovic, Recent Research
Directions in Automated Timetabling,
European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 140 (2), 2002, 266-280.
 Saltzman
An Optimization Model for Scheduling Classes in a Business School Department
Deris, S., Omatu, S., and H. Ohta, Timetable
Planning Using the Constraint-Based
Reasoning, Computers and Operations
Research, Vol. 27 (9), 2000, 819-840.
Dimopoulou, M. and P. Miliotis,
Implementation of a University Course and
Examination Timetabling System,
European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 130 (1), 2001, 202-213.
Ferland, J. A. and C. Fleurent, SAPHIR: A
Decision Support System for Course
Scheduling, Interfaces, Vol. 24 (2), 1994,
105-115.
Foulds, L. R. and D. G. Johnson, SlotManager:
A Microcomputer-Based Decision Support
System for University Timetabling,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 27 (4),
2000, 367-381.
Glassey, C. R. and M. Mizrach, A Decision
Support System for Assigning Classes to
Rooms, Interfaces, Vol. 16 (5), 1986, 92-
100.
Hinkin, T. R. and G. M. Thompson,
SchedulExpert: Scheduling Courses in the
Cornell University School of Hotel
California Journal of Operations Management, Volume 7, Number 1, February 2009
92
Administration, Interfaces, Vol. 32 (6),
2002, 45-57.
ILOG, ILOG OPL Studio 3.5 Users Manual,
ILOG, Gentilly, France, 2001.
Lustig, I. and Puget, J., Program Does Not
Equal Program: Constraint Programming and
its Relationship to Mathematical
Programming, Interfaces, Vol. 31 (6), 2001,
29-53.
Martin, C. H., Ohio Universitys College of
Business Uses Integer Programming to
Schedule Classes, Interfaces, Vol. 34 (6),
2004, 460-465.
Schaerf, A., A Survey of Automated
Timetabling, Artificial Intelligence Review,
Vol. 13 (2), 1999, 87-127.
Schmidt, G. and T. Strohlein, Timetable
Construction - An Annotated Bibliography,
The Computer Journal, Vol. 23 (4), 1980,
307-316.
Shih, W. and J. Sullivan, Dynamic Course
Scheduling for College Faculty via Zero-One
Programming, Decision Sciences, Vol. 8
(4), 1977, 711-721.
Skiscim, C., OPL Studio 3.1, OR/MS Today,
Vol. 28 (2), 2001, 70-72.