An Open Interactive Timetabling Tool

  • Sylvain Piechowiak
  • Jingxua Ma
  • René Mandiau
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3616)


This article deals with the analysis and design of an interactive decision support system for timetable management. This tool will be able to take hierarchical data organization into account and to maintain coherence of the constraints on this data. Our research which has led to the creation of the VT tool has two aims. The first aim is to provide an open, generic tool which can be developed in many different ways. In order to achieve this aim, we have used an object-oriented approach and we have defined object classes for the modelling of the timetabling problem. The second aim is to analyse the needs in timetable manipulation and to provide a generic organization so that the tool can be used in many situations. To achieve this aim, both user-based and automated techniques are used.


Constraint Programming Teaching Module Timetabling Problem Graphical View Educational Manager 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Abdennadher, S., Schlenker, H.: INTERDIP, an Interactive Constraint Based Nurse Scheduler. In: Proc. PACLP 1999, London (1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Burke, E.K., Kingston, J.H., Pepper, P.A.:Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boizumault, P., Delon, Y., Peredy, L.: Constraint Logic Programming for Examination Timetabling. J. Logic Program. 26, 217–233 (1996)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carter, M.W.: A Comprehensive Course Timetabling and Student Scheduling System at the University of Waterloo. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 64–84. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carter, M.W., Laporte, G., Chinneck, J.W.: A General Examination Scheduling System. Interfaces 24, 109–120 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper, T.B., Kingston, J.: A Program for Constructing HighGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deris, S., Omatu, S., Ohta, H.: Timetable Planning Using the Constraint-Based Reasoning. Comput. Oper. Res. 27, 819–840 (2000)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eglese, R.W., Rand, G.K.: Conference Seminar Timetabling. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 38, 591–598 (1987)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goltz, H.J., Matzke, D.: Combined Interactive and Automatic Timetabling. In: Proc. PACLP 1999, London (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goltz, H.J.: On Methods of Constraint-Based Timetabling. In: Proc. PACLP 2000, Manchester (2000)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, D.G.: Timetabling University Examinations. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 41, 39–47 (1990)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kingston, J.H.: Modelling Timetabling Problems with STTL. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 433–445. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Legierski, W.: Search Strategy for Constraint-Based Class-Teacher Timetabling. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 247–261. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McCollum, B., Ahmadi, S., Burke, E., Barone, R., Cheng, P., Cowling, P.: A Review of Existing Interfaces of Automated Examination and Lecture Scheduling Systems. In: Burke, E.K., De Causmaecker, P. (eds.) PATAT 2002. LNCS, vol. 2740, pp. 262–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Müller, T., Bartak, R.: Interactive Timetabling. In: Proc. ERCIM Workshop on Constraints, Prague (2001)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piechowiak, S., Jouglet, D., Vanderhaegen, F.: A Multi-Point of View for Phone Network System Diagnosis. In: Proc. ICSSSE 1998, Beijing (1998)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Piechowiak, S., Kolski, C.: Analyse et Conception d’un Outil Interactif d’Aide à la Gestion des Emplois du Temps Basé sur les Points de Vue (in French). J. Human–Computer Interaction (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reis, L.P., Oliveira, E.: A Language for Specifying Complete Timetabling Problems. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 322–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsang, E.: Foundations of Constraint Satisfaction. Computation in Cognitive Science Series. Academic, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Willemen, R.: School Timetable Construction: Algorithms and Complexity. Ph.D. Thesis. Technishe Universiteit, Eindhoven, The Nederlands (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoshikawa, M., Kaneko, K., Nomura, Y., Watanabe, M.: A Constraint-Based Approach to High-School Timetabling Problems: A Case Study. In: Proc. 1995 Int. Joint Conf. on AI (IJCAI 1995), Montreal (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zervoudakis, K., Stamatopoulos, P.: A generic object-oriented constraint-based model for university course timetabling. In: Burke, E., Erben, W. (eds.) PATAT 2000. LNCS, vol. 2079, pp. 28–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvain Piechowiak
    • 1
  • Jingxua Ma
    • 1
  • René Mandiau
    • 1
  1. 1.LAMIH-CNRSUniversity of ValenciennesFrance

Personalised recommendations