UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

Twin Cities Campus

October 20, 2007

Dear Classroom Stakeholder:

Office of Classroom Management

Academic Support Resources

160 Williamson Hall 231 Pillsbury Drive S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55455-02 13

http://www.classroom.umn .edu E-mail: classrm @umn .edu

The Office of Classroom Management in Academic Support Resources is responsible and accountable for all issues relating to general purpose/central classrooms on the Twin Cities campus. This includes all aspects of central classroom support, technology, facilities coordination, planning, scheduling, utilization and the course data base. In this endeavor, OCM is guided by the Academic Support Resources (ASR) mission to make a positive difference in students' lives by providing world class services through innovative technologies and customer support in academic records, student finance , and classroom management.

This letter forwards the 2007 Balanced Scorecard for the Office of Classroom Management. It is a measure of the deliverables provided by OCM and an indicator of the return on investment in the General Purpose Classroom Cost Pool. This is the second year that OCM has provided Balanced Scorecard reporting regarding its performance and services. It is intended as a report to stakeholders and to the university community regarding the performance of the 300 central classrooms in 55 buildings on the Twin Cities campus.

The OCM Balanced Scorecard and other valuable classroom information are available on-line at www.classroom.umn.edu.

If you have any questions or would like to meet with an OCM representative to discuss any central classroom issue, please email us at classrm@umn.edu or call 612-625-1 086.

Thank you for your interest in University of Minnesota teaching and learning in classrooms!

Sincerely yours,

Sue Van Voorhis Director Academic Support Resources

Enclosure: 2007 Balanced Scorecard for Office of Classroom Management

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA Twin Cities Campus Office ofC/assmom Management

Academic Support Resources 160 Williamson Hall 23 1 Pillsbury Dril'e SE. Minneapolis , MN 55455-0213 E-mail: classrm@umn.edu http:IIH1\'H'.ciassmom.umn.edu

2007 BALANCED SCORECARD FOR OFFICE OF CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT

1. MISSION

The mission ofthe Office of Classroom Management (OCM) is to directly support high quality teaching and learning by faculty and staff in University classrooms. OCM is the primary point of contact, and single poin t of responsibility and accountability for all Twin Cities general purpose classroom issues.

2. RESPONSIBILITIES

Classroom Management encompasses all aspects of teaching and learning in classrooms, includ­ing support, scheduling, facilities coordination, planning, and technology. Key areas include classroom space utilization, classroom standards, design, infrastructure, faculty orientation/train­ing, planning, funding, and coordination of maintenance. Other functions include maintaining the course database, preparation of class schedules, final exam schedules and course guides. As a unit of Academic Support Resources, the Office of Classroom Management supports both faculty and students as the One-Stop for all classroom issues .

Website: www.classroom. umn.edu

Functional Unit Description:

OFFICE OF CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT (OCM)

Classroom Support Classroom Techn ical Classroom Faci lities Classroom Planning Scheduling & Services Coordination Course Database

Faculty Support Tech standards, plan- Classroom physical Classroom physical Maintain database -Problem Response ning, design, installa- environment standards, design , all courses Hotline Mgmt tion & maintenance and planning Produce Course Training & Help Classroom facilities Guide, Class

Campus AV Experts ops, maintenance & Future inventory Schedule, Event Lifecycle Cost repair coordination rqmts and plans schedules Classroom Budgets Internal Service Website Organization (ISO) Classroom physical Classroom Project Operate & maintain

Business Unit standards, service mgmt enterprise level levels, and room

Coordination with scheduling systems External sales readiness (ECS, PSSA Inter-CPPM

FF&E standards and face , System 25 ,

management Capital Project Resource 25, X25)

Liaison

Coordination with Manage Central Classroom utili-

FM zation. Produce utilization reports

v2.0

3. PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Office of Classroom Management

Balanced Scorecard Strategic Perspective

How well do we support customers? q ¢=J How productive & efficient are

Can we sustain excellence over time?

Customer Service Perspective: How well does OCM support faculty & students in classrooms?

Key Performance Indicator: Classroom Survey

56%

54%

42%

40%

v2.0

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) Survey Student Ratings of Classroom Phyiscal Environment (Scale of 1 to 7)

- Percent Rating 6 or7 (left axis)

-+- Mean Rating (right axis) 1-------

co Ol 0 .,.... N (") Ol Ol 0 0 0 ~ ,..!.. rh d> 6 I .,.... Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0 Ol Ol Ol 0 0 0

N N N

I OCM Established!

~ L{) CD 0 ~

0 cJ-J o.h 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N

5.5

5.4

5.3

5.2

5.1

5

How would you rate the physical environment in which you take this class, especially the classroom facilities, including your ability to see, hear, concentrate, and participate?

2

CUSTOMER SERVICE PERSPECTIVE (cont)

Key Performance Indicator: Central Classroom Projection Technology

Projection Capable Central Classrooms

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

In 1999, only a few University of Minnesota Twin Cities centra l classrooms had any video-data projection capability, and we were not meeting the needs of faculty or the expectations of students for classroom technology. Today, the University of Minnesota Twin Cities is a Big Ten and national leader in the important area of teaching and learning technology in central classrooms.

• Today 89% of all active central classrooms fully meet the University of Minnesota projection capable classroom technology standard. Additionally the University of Minnesota's Classroom Automated Management System (CAMS) is one of the largest installations of networked projection control systems in the nation.

Other Performance Indicators:

• OCM 's "Projection Capable Classroom" standard system in 267 central classrooms is so successful that departments and colleges have purchased 120 systems for their own spaces. Faculty report that a major benefit is having the same system operating protocol increasingly available everywhere on campus.

• In addition to being the OCM technology department, Classroom Technical Services is an Internal Service Organization (ISO) business unit that is the vendor of choice for campus audiovisual work, accomplishing 74% of all University ofMi1mesota Audio Visual installations. Repeat customers account for 93% of CTS installations.

v2.0 3

CUSTOMER SERVICE PERSPECTIVE (cont)

• OCM website, www.classroom.umn.edu, is established and regarded as a national model for classrooms. Functionality includes detailed schedule viewers for both departmental and central classrooms, photographic coverage of classrooms, simplified technology operating instruction pages, extensive room search capability and 24/7 information for faculty and staff.

• Classroom Hotline - Faculty support operations, procedures, training programs and standards have been fully implemented. Hotline hours have been extended to provide coverage for early evening class hours. "Classroom Rapid Response Teams" are provided on site on each campus at semester start for faster service response and for faculty outreach. Hotline generates 1,115 faculty help responses per semester.

• ADA- Accessibility furniture pool has been developed and implemented, improving response time for student or faculty accommodation needs in classrooms. There are numerous accessibility features included in Tech Upgrade plan design. Classroom entryway and door projects improved classroom accessibility by 27% in 2006-07.

Financial Perspective: How well do resources support central classrooms?

Key Performance Indicator: Funding of Lifecycle Cost in Central Classrooms

Classroom Lifecycle Requirement vs. Recurring Funding

5,500,000 5,000,000 4,500,000 4,000,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000

v2.0

500,000 0 2002 2003 2004

• Lifecycle Requirement

I FUNDED

2005

FY 07 Li fecycle Rqmt: $5. 12M Funded: $3.7 1M 72.4% Funded

2006

D Recurring Funding

2007

4

FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE (cont)

• Significant improvement in recurring funding was made in FY 07. Funding under the new budget model is below total life cycle requirements but is sufficient to support current classroom operations.

Central Classrooms are a mission-essential resource that directly impacts the quality of faculty teaching and student leaming. UMTC generates approximately $70M tuition in central classrooms each semester. Recurring investment in these critical resources is necessary to attain and sustain our institutional goals of excellence and quality.

Key Performance Indicator: Adherence to Central Classroom Standards

Central Classrooms Meeting Established Standards

AREA PCT CRITERIA Lighting 56% UM Facilities Construction Stds Appendix DD

Acoustics 5% UM Facilities Construction Stds Appendix DD

Accessibility 63 % UM Facilities Construction Stds Appendix DD Fumiture 76% UMTC OCM Lifecycle Technology 89% UMTC Projection Capable Classroom Std

Key Performance Indicator: Facilities Condition of Central Classroom Buildings

v2.0

Facilities Condition Assessment of Central Classroom Buildings

Building Type Facilities Condition Needs Index Average Building (FCNI) Age

Buildings with Central .57 47 Classrooms All UMTC Buildings .46 42

Source: FM 's Facilities Condition Assessment (FCA), May 2007

These FCNI scores indicate that central classroom buildings, in the aggregate, are older, and have a lower assessed facilities condition, than campus buildings overall.

5

FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE (cont)

Other Performance Indicators:

• Inventory controls and procedures implemented for all high value classroom tech equipment. Achieved a 100% accuracy report/zero error rate on the biennial PAMS report audit for 2007.

• OCM's management of $15.6M of classroom furniture and $5M of classroom technology is based on systematic approach characterized by metrics, standards, application of economies of scale, focus on readiness and thoughtful use of preventative maintenance.

• Application of economies of scale, "best-practices" in procurement and smart application oftech advances has reduced average tech upgrade cost by 37% while improving system perforn1ance by 300% over seven years.

Internal Process Perspective: How productive and efficient is OCM in delivering service?

Key Performance Indicator: Central Classroom Utilization

Note: An interactive version of this dashboard is located at www.classroom.umn.edu

Central Classroom Utilization Dashboard

Select Semester, Room Location and Size:

Semester Location/ Campus Room Stze

IZ!II!D Fa ll 2005 Mmneapolts < SO

East Bank >s SO,< lOO West Bank St. Paul

>= 100, < 240 >z 24Q

Summary Statistics:

Room Count: 301

70

c: .2

~ 5 " E i=

Time Utilization Breakdown by Day and Clock Hour

Uti lizat ion by Day Ut ilization by Clock Hour

Day-Hour Time Utilization Grid (lighter Colors Indicate More Room Availability)

Sam to Spm 9am to 2pm Average Room Capacity :

Average Daily Hours Supplied :

Time Uti lizat ion Seat Occupancy

Projected

Time Utilizat ion Seat Occupancy

Projected

Average Daily Hours Demanded:

Office of OCM

2696

168 4

Classroom Management

~ Proj. vs Act Otfference

Actua l f7\ 13%

Jy ~ Proj.vsAct.

Difference Actual ~

C2) Show Definitions

Utilization Goals: Ttme Utihzatton 71% Scat Occupancy: 65% ProJ. vs Act . Difference·+/~ 10%

Fall 06 UMTC All Central Rooms

v2.0 6

INTERNAL PROCESS PERSPECTIVE (cont)

•

v2.0

Central Classroom Utilization Dashboard

Select Semester, Room location and Sl:r:e:

kmnter L.ocabO,!C.mpt.s lltoom Slu. IZ!IIl.!ID -~i~lll()()~

Summary Statistics:

Room Count: 272

Average Room Capacity:

Average Dally Hours Supplied :

Average Dally Houra Demanded :

OCM

•• 2435

1554

Classroom Management

Time Utilization Breakdown by Day and Clock Hour

Utilization by Day Ut iliza t1on by Clock Hour

9am to lpm

Time Utilization Seat Oc upancy Time Utilization Seat Occ::uparlty

~~~~:~,~ ~Q) 13~ 'P'ruJ 11 AI.. Doff

Fall 06 Minneapoli s Campus All Central Rooms

Central Classroom Utilization Dashboard

Select Sema5ter, Room Location and Slz.a:

Summary Statistics:

Room Count:

Average Room Capacity:

Average Daily Hours Supplied:

Average Dally Houts Demanded:

Office of OCM

19

81

161

130

Classroom Management

Time Utilization Breakdown by Day and Clock Hour

Utilization by Day

Sam to Spm

Utilization by Clock Hour

ttau RSUM lviUGI

9am to lpm

"" "" ""

Fall 06 St. Paul Campus All Central Rooms

UMTC overall attained 62% (8-5) and 68% (9-2 peak) time utilization versus the 71 % target. This is slightly down from the previous year, primarily due to Nicholson Hall coming on-line in January 2006.

Minneapolis campus 64% (8-5) and 70% (9-2 peak) time utilization versus 71 % target. Within these measures, both East and West Bank experience central classroom shortages during peak time periods.

St. Paul continues to be significantly under target, with 50% (8-5) and 54% (9-2 peak) time utilization, reflecting insufficient demand for existing St. Paul central classroom inventory. Central classroom inventory in St. Paul will be reduced in 2007-08 .

7

INTERNAL PROCESS PERSPECTIVE (cont)

Key Performance Indicator: Accuracy of Departmental Scheduling Input

Great emphasis has been placed on providing departments with improved tools with which to more accurately submit instructional requirements to Scheduling. System and business process changes and upgrades include the PeopleSoft- Scheduling interface (PSSA transactional interface) , the Electronic Course Scheduling (ECS) system, improved Scheduling software (Schedule and Resource 25) and ECS-IMS Data Warehouse reports that provide on-demand information tailored to departmental and collegiate needs . These changes are producing positive results, as demonstrated by tracking and reporting of four key measures:

MEASURE: Projected vs. Actual Enrollment TREND: Consistent, but still above the +-1 0% standard COMMENT: Projected vs . Actual Enrollment was +20% in Fall 06 which was comparable to the two previous Fall semesters .

MEASURE: 60/40 Use of the 9 - 2 Peak Time Period TREND: Consistent COMMENT: In the aggregate, UMTC met the 60/40 target for the Fall 06 semester. Several large colleges were above 60%, but this was offset by smaller colleges being below the maximum. Of note, better compliance with the 60/40 guideline for the 9 - 2 time period has created another peak time problem (Tues/Thurs at 2:30). Additional policy adjustments to spread course loading will become increasingly important in the near future .

• MEASURE: Excess Course Cancellations TREND: Consistent COMMENT: Excessive course cancellations have stabilized, Fall 06 cancellations were at 7%.

MEASURE: Non Standard Course Sections TREND: Not Improving COMMENT: Courses that deviate from approved policy regarding time or day pattern continues to be problematic. Non standard courses increased from I ,297 to l ,334 in Fall 06 over Fall 05 (this does not include authorized exceptions to the standard, such as grad/ professional courses). Efforts continue to reduce the number of non standard courses offered by colleges , as they directly contribute to reduced efficiency and lower utilization.

Key Performance Indicator: Departmental Resource25

The rollout of Departmental Resource25 was expanded to include all departmental classrooms by the end of Fall 2006. There are 207 users from 76 departments/programs representing 13 colleges using R25 . The R25 departmental expansion provides the campus community with a proven business practice and a tool to measure and track utilization of departmental classrooms used for course and event activity.

v2 .0 8

INTERNAL PROCESS PERSPECTIVE (cont)

Departmental Classroom Utilization Dashboard

Note: An interactive version of this dashboard is located at www.classroom.umn.edu.

c ...... acallap,AIW ~ ._, a- ..... AU Colleges wtth Department Classrooms All Area5 -- -­All Rooms

Departmental Classroom

Utilization Dashboard

Time Utilization Breakdown by Day and Clock Hour

Oepartml!'nt classrooms 11 re contrOIIt'CI, scheduleO, malnuuned, and resourcea by the cognizant depa rt~nt

This repart 1nctuoes HEGIS 120 ct.u.srooms wrth maximum capacities greater than ten.

Data Source Departmental R25 Course antt Event Scheduling. Fall 2006. September 5th to December 1-4th

Room Size Dtstribution

2 ...

Summary Statistics:

Room Count:

Average Room Cap•city :

Average Dally Hours Supplied:

Average Dally Hours Demanded :

187

52

1646

578

~ ;::

Utilization by Day Utilization by Clock Hour

N u

DayaHour Time Utilization Grid (Lighter Colors lndrcate More Room Availability)

3]'-36 ..

""' ""' , ... Jsov;

Tl'N , ... "" .,.,. "" -33~ .....

Sam to Spm

YEN

""' ""' .... .... -j,~ ....

WELVE NE wo ... 28'11o ""' , ... ,..,. .,.,. ~ . .... .. -.. - ""' 35% , ... "" ""' ''"' , ... .... .... "" is% """ , ... """ , ... , ... ""'

9am to 2pm

UR AVERAG

36"1. 33% 41~0%

""' , .... ""' , ... ... ,. .. ""' ""

Time Utilization Se~t Occup.i'ncy

Projected

Time Utilization Seat Occupancy

Projected

G "'·l .. Act Difference

Actual

(f) 13%

.L G P,ojvSAct

Difference Actual rn 13%

vY createllla.o, th• Officii .rc1u- "'~-t Benchmark: GP Classroom Ut1hzat•on Goals T1me UUhzat•on: 71"" Seat Occupancy: 65% Proj vs Act D1fference: +/· 10%

Departmental Classrooms UMTC Rooms with Capacity> I 0

Departmental Classroom utilization is not within the purview of OCM, as the control, scheduling, and resourcing of these spaces rests with the cognizant college or department.

However, departmental classroom utilization is a metric of increasing university level interest. In 2006, at the direction of the Provost, OCM provided the enterprise level scheduling software, Resource 25, to departments and the use of this tool became mandatory for all departmental classrooms.

This dashboard provides utilization data for departmental classrooms and it, along with the reporting metrics made available to departments with the software, is a vehicle to assist departments and colleges in maximizing the utilization of this space.

Key Performance Indicator: Tech Upgrade Plan Results by Campus

UMTC Projection Capable Classrooms by Campus Location (Fall 07)

Location Tech Classrooms Total Classrooms Percentage

East Bank 171 199 86%

West Bank 68 71 96%

St. Paul 28 29 96%

TOTAL 267 299 89%

v2 .0 9

INTERNAL PROCESS PERSPECTIVE (cont)

Key Performance Indicator: Central Classroom Readiness

Operational Readiness for Central Classrooms (Academic Year 2006-07)

Percentage of Classrooms Ready -Technology (Projection Capable Classroom (PCC) system monitored in Classroom Automated Management System (CAMS))

Average Number of Classrooms Inspected per Day

Percentage of Classrooms Ready- Facilities/Other Percentage of Classrooms corrected during inspections by OCM

Total Percentage of Classrooms Ready- Facilities/Other

* 1 00% of inventory inspected on average every 2 days

Number of Service Requests initiated by OCM

Number of discrepancies corrected during inspections by OCM

Other Performance Indicators:

97%

160*

57% 7% --

64%

5,815

3,008

Design, construction and performance standards for UMTC Central Classrooms were coordinated with the University community, published and implemented for both Classroom Facilities and Technology areas.

Learning & Innovation Perspective: Can OCM Sustain Excellence over time?

Key Performance Indicator: OCM Staff Development

OCM STAFF DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS 2006- 2007

Advanced/Promoted 16%

Participated in professional conferences, 47% development or training programs

Attained certification. License, degree or 28% formal professional designation

Participated in Regents Scholarship program 25%

Formal Presentations 103

Retention over Two Years 81%

v2.0 10

•

LEARNING & INNOVATION PERSPECTIVE (cont)

Key Performance Indicator: Innovation by OCM staff

OCM staff have demonstrated the continuing ability to generate innovative solutions to class­room teaching & learning needs, the ability to collaborate with the University community regard­ing these innovations, and the ability to successfully implement them on the large scale that is required at the University of Minnesota. Examples:

Classroom Tech Upgrade Program • Classroom Automated Management System (CAMS) • Classroom Equipment Theft Alert System • www.classroom.umn.edu website

Classroom Lifecycle Cost Model Classroom Technology Standards (Projection Capable Classroom) Classroom Standards (University of Minnesota Construction Standards -Appendix DO) Leveraged partnership agreements and programs with colleges Unique classroom metrics and methodology for FM's FCA program

• Classroom FCA solutions adopted by FCA vendor • Scheduling and reporting solutions adopted by System 25 vendor • OCM 's unique synergistic management model for classrooms • Future Flexible Classroom initiative

Low End asynchronous video streaming pilot (Tech Upgrade Phase Ill) • Student Response System white paper

Power Compass user of FM CMMS System initiative (Crystal Reports data and Reports development partner with FM) Classroom Systematic Lighting re-lamping pilot soon to become Twin Cities campus standard Classroom System-wide clock management system soon to become Twin Cities campus standard Digital Signage initiative SCALE-UP classroom pilot (Student-Centered Activities for Large Enrollment Undergraduate Program)

• Departmental Classroom R25 initiative • Event R25 initiative • Provides enhanced tablet display classroom technology options • NTS/VLAN setup project for classroom networking and telecommunication services

v2.0 11