CHSS/P&R/32/1 College of Humanities and Social Science Planning and Resources Committee, 2 October 2007 College Workload Allocation Model: Discussion Paper 1. Background During the past two academic sessions initial work has been done towards creating a generic College workload allocation model. The impetus for creating such a model was to provide a management tool which could assess existing workload arrangements and inform the allocation of additional tasks. A workload allocation model is generally perceived as being a fair and equitable way of comparing staff workload within a given area and, ultimately, across many areas of activity. In the light of the recent Reward Modernisation project in the University it is now accepted that a workload allocation model is an essential management tool as a way of identifying and balancing core and additional duties to the benefit of both academic managers and members of staff. 2. Design principles of the College model The generic College model has been informed by existing models both within HSS and also Science & Engineering. Its aim is to identify general broadbrush proxies for intensity of activity rather than capturing absolute detail, partly because of the range of tasks within any School and across Schools. It is hoped that the high-level model will provide a starting point for Schools and will allow the College to work towards some standard measures across all Schools. Information in the College model has been aggregated into three main headings: i) Teaching, subdivided into a) Design & Preparation, b) Delivery and c) Assessment ii) Management/Administrative Duties iii) Research Under a fourth heading ‘Other’ the model also allows for part-time or new members of staff to be discounted, where a full load is not expected. The College workload model is based on the assumption that an academic member of staff’s total workload consists of teaching duties, management/admin responsibilities and research. In the case of a teaching-only contract, the total workload is assumed to consist of teaching duties plus administrative responsibilities. Within the model, there is a mixture of credit points (in some, but not many, cases derived from hours spent on a given activity) and weightings. It was decided that it was preferable to use a model in which points are added up rather than starting with an arbitrary ‘total’ figure, then deducting points from this. 3. Current pattern of usage within Schools of workload allocation models All Schools within the College recognise the need for a transparent workload allocation model for use as a management tool. Two Schools (History, Classics and Archaeology, and Management and Economics) had already developed their own workload allocation models, and several of the elements of these have been used as a basis for the generic College model. Several schools have recently designed their own model, drawing largely on the College model for their starting point and then adapting for local usage. One School (Social and Political Studies) already had several different models in use across its subject areas and is now trying to CHSS/P&R/32/1 consolidate one single model largely based on the College one. Three Schools (Divinity, Education and LLC) are currently working on developing a quantifiable workload allocation model, again taking into account the factors outlined in the College model. Concurrently there is a University-level working party looking at creating an institutional-level workload allocation model but recommendations from this project are not imminent, hence the emphasis on further developing and refining the HSS College model for use in the more immediate future. 4. Points for further discussion/clarification a) Director of Studies responsibilities The College model currently allocates points for this administrative duty. However, in the case of a DoS carrying an above-average load of directees, this is separately remunerated and therefore currently not included as an extra credit in the College model. b) Field trips, placements and programmes involving professional requirements Although some Schools have a strategy for coping with some of these more complex duties, further discussion between affected Schools and the College should result in a recommended approach being built into the generic College model. c) Research time: allowance has been made for administrative time associated with research but the current version of the College model – in common with several other models – does not include points for research time. Whilst trying to avoid over-precise measurements in this high-level model, it would however be possible to include a) points for the number of research assistants supervised and b) a ‘block’ allocation for research time. This would allay concerns that research activity was being disregarded in the model and would also identify a ‘block’ which, for staff not engaged in research, would potentially be available for other duties. d) CPD provision (perhaps above a certain income threshold) and representation on external bodies have not yet been included in the College model. 5. Conclusion 5.1 Measures included in the model Members are asked to consider the points raised above and to agree the nature of changes to be incorporated into the existing College workload allocation model. 5.2 Timescale for implementing a workload allocation model Where still necessary, Schools are urged to make progress on developing a workload allocation model for use during 2007/08. The aim is for a broadly consistent approach to be taken across the College, hence the importance of having a generic College workload allocation model in place as a starting/reference point for all HSS Schools. As one of the requirements set out by the Reward Modernisation project, it is important for reasonable progress within a relatively short-term horizon to be made across the whole College towards introducing workload allocation models as a management tool. Members are asked to agree a realistic timescale for fulfilling this requirement. Helen Taylor Resources, HSS College Office 26 September 2007 CHSS/P&R/32/1 Appendix 1 Details of the current College model (subject to amendment in the light of the P&RC discussion) Teaching i) Design & Preparation Design and preparation of courses are allowed for by using a multiplier. One College proposal is to allocate an additional 25% for first time delivery of a course. Other factors considered under this heading: -Courses taught recently/after a gap; -New member of staff delivering a course (but see ‘Other’ heading); -Honours/non honours course; ii) Delivery Four main areas of delivery are considered in the model: -Formal lecturing -Tutorials and seminars -Dissertation supervision (Honours and taught MSc) -PhD supervision (and MSc by research), and Post-doctoral supervision The actual number of hours spent delivering lectures, tutorials and seminars are counted and converted on a 1 hour = 1 point basis. Credit for preparation and assessment time is accounted for separately. Dissertation supervision and PhD supervision are assigned a notional number of points per student (divided proportionally between first/second/co-supervisor). This is based on the assumption that whilst some students may take up more time than others, this individual difference is not something to be accounted for in the workload model. It also echoes the idea found in the School models where credit is given for supervision using average patterns of workload. Supervision of MSc by research is treated in the same way as PhD supervision. In addition, credit is given only for supervision of years 1-4 of a full time PhD and years 1-7 of a part time PhD, based on the principle that only fee- paying students are included in the workload model. iii) Assessment The College model uses group size as a basis of measurement to account for the higher workload associated with large volumes of students. A multiplier is suggested used for large honours courses of over 25, over 40 and over 55 students. Management & Administrative Duties Originally it was suggested that only a limited number of substantial/major managerial duties should be credited in the model, on the assumption that other more standard duties were shared across the workforce and that these were responsibilities encountered by all members of staff. Arguments were however made in favour of a model encompassing a wider range of these duties, with the detailed level of the History and Classics model being supported as a basis for this part of the College model. Crediting smaller duties in addition to major management responsibilities offers value in terms of motivation, by acting as an incentive to undertake these roles (ie. by offering fewer hours of teaching). In addition, it accounts for the often uneven distribution of standard duties amongst members of staff. Research Research time has not been assigned points in the way that teaching and administrative duties have. Research leave is accounted for in the model in terms of a percentage of the average workload. Whilst time spent conducting research is not credited with points, time devoted to the management of a research project is credited as a management/administrative responsibility.