www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw the management of academic workloads: improving practice in the...

www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw

The Management of The Management of Academic Workloads: Academic Workloads:

Improving Practice in the Improving Practice in the Sector Sector

Professor Peter BarrettProfessor Peter BarrettDr Lucinda BarrettDr Lucinda Barrett

University of SalfordUniversity of Salford


Overview Background Current MAW practice in the sector Overview of MAW Final Report

What How

Recommendations Introduction to rest of programme


Background

Pressure within sector - management of quality and resources, RAE, etc

Sector Surveys - Kinman and Jones, Winefield et al - show staff pressures and stress. Volume and diversity of work problematic

Universities’ difficulties in demonstrating how staff spend time – eg TR.

Problem of tensions between cultural norms of academics - autonomy v managerialism


MAW practice in the sector LFHE funded project – 2005/06 University workload policy Each department should develop its own system Should have various features, eg transparent,

equitable, etc And … no-one outside Personnel ever

seems to know about the policy anyway! Great diversity between and within

institutions – some excellent, a lot adequate, some dreadful

Sampling frame on: grouping (1994, Russell, CMU, etc); Size (10,000-47,000) and regional location - total 8 universities, plus 2 non HE orgs x cross-sectional sample of 7 interviews within each case = 59 interviews


Typology of current practices

7a–2a–6b–7b–3b 8a–8b–6a–2b–5a–5b–4a3a 1b–1a 4b

Ad

va

nta

ge

s

+

Dis

ad

va

nta

ge

s

_

Can be flexible / adaptive to changes

Useful if intimate department with work demands tuned well to individual needs and aspirations

Hard for Head to know all staff / activities if large department and inefficient to do

Hard for individual to measure “equity” and potential problems for transparency, so difficult for Head to “defend” decisions

Problems accommodating large differences in task size

Difficult to feed to faculty level data

Transparency easier to see and equity easier to demonstrate

Model can be tweaked in response to consultation

Good for larger departments – can see outliers

Heads can fine tune

Model can weight elements – such as assessment load

Can work to accommodate employment contract hours

Not inclusive of all tasks

Criteria for Head’s choices unclear

Danger of comparisons / quibbles if very detailed

If using representative hours system may not be realistic

Teaching peaks still not accommodated

Some models may seem inclusive, but cap elements for research or give retrospectively as inflexible in-year

Danger that low R allocations seen as “punishment” by staff with more T, thus danger of polarising staff between T and R

Can limit necessary scope for “local” judgement by Head

Advantages of “partial”, plus …

Equity and transparency demonstrated with a tangible sense of loads

Good for complex inputs and can accommodate different staff role preferences

Ease of linking to faculty level data and other systems

Informal ComprehensivePartial

T T+A T+R


Further findings

Approaches not discipline specific

But size matters - tendency towards comprehensive approaches in departments over 25-30 academic staff



HEFCE MAW Network – 2007/09 - 11

Brunel University Exeter University Greenwich University Kent University Liverpool University Napier University Royal Agricultural College Sheffield Hallam University University College Falmouth University of Salford University of Wales Institute

Cardiff

Focus on implementation

Typically …

•Identifying good practice

•Pursuing action plans

•Sharing experiences

•Extracting general lessons


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sta

ff N

o. *Development

Comprehensive

Partial

Informal

Academic staff by systems used

Institutions


Range of Institutional approaches to MAW

University Policy

University Policy and Framework

University-wide system

Schools Schools Schools

Schools pursue local solutions within broad

policy principles

Schools operate autonomously,

but within framework

Schools make decisions within

interactive institutional system


Social / divergent activity

Technical / convergent

activity

Individual

Uni

vers

ityDepartm

ent

T – monitoring for reasonable consistency

of practice

S – Communicating policy. Training

S – Inputs via Union to steering groups on

policy / model

T – Skill input on MAW models

S – Debate on improvement of MAW model to fit dept

T- improved equity through use of the enhanced system

S – Appraisal discussion re aspirations

T – Allocation of work for given year

S – Debate on articulation of the University policy framework with specific departmental needs

T – Using management information to optimise resources

S – Review sector practice / opportunities

T – create consensual policy / framework and

use data for TRAC, etc

Implementation: levels and activities


Example Prompt Questions

And so on for two pages and then for each of the other five interfaces …


Eg implementation plan

Year / stage

Actions might typically include …

Year / stage 1

Creating a Policy

Year / stage 2

Finding an initial point of leverage

Year / stage 3

Establishing a University Framework Model

Year / stage 4

Extending the coverage of the Framework Model

Year / stage 5+

Achieving an integrated University-wide provision


Example technical system


Example of social dimensions

Res

trai

nin

g

forc

esD

rivi

ng

fo

rces

Actions

R1 Multiple regulation muddying

R3 Lack of senior mg buy in

D2 Improving employee rels

R2 Over-complexity /

lack of flexibility of

model / system

R5 Resources

reqd implement esp people

R4 Differences

between some parts /

desire for autonomy

D1 External factors H+S

etc

D4 Promotion and appraisal

D5 Justify resource

allocations / efficiency gains

D3 Transparency fairness equity

A9 Briefing implementers

reinforcing core objectives

A3 Championing / cultural change

group

A2Staff surveyA7Evidence and discussion

– where are we; why bother;

effective consultation

A8 Risk analysis re

regs etc

A4 Analyse together

A5 Link MAW appraisal, strat

dev etc

A1 Elucidate connection Uni

strat

A10 Training and development

A11 Use to inform decisions eg new

courses

A6 Create a universalising

rationale

A13 Manage model from simple to

complex


Recommendations Universities should create consensually

agreed policies / frameworks for MAW, centred on equity

Heads of school do not have to wait for an institutional initiative, they can start things locally

Staff and unions should actively engage in the development of equity-orientated MAW systems

The HE funding councils have the opportunity to provide a positive stimulus … by encouraging the use of MAW data to support TRAC reporting.

Bodies like the HSE and ECU see potential in MAW data informing these issues and this deserves to be explored further.


Programme 1: school emphasis


Programme 2: institutional emphasis

www.research.salford.ac.uk/maw the management of academic workloads: improving practice in the...

Documents