a whole of institution perspective on academic workload ... · institutional awam “facts”...

A whole of institution perspective on academic workload allocation models (“AWAMs”)

Summary slides

Janet Verbyla

Emeritus Professor, USQ

[email protected]: Coach. Consult. Review

Institutional AWAM “facts”

Slide 2Academic Workload Management Workshop, 30 Oct, 2019.

2

“AWAM academic workload allocation model”is not model for allocation of ALL academics’ work (what academics do)is model for allocation of academic work (what has to be done).

With any AWAM, you can please some of the people all of the time, allof the people some of the time but never all of the people all of thetime. (with apologies to Abraham Lincoln.)

No AWAM management system is in itself the full solution but it canhelp. Perceptions influenced to large extent on strength of facts or mythsarising from how AWAMs communicated, set, situated, deployed andMonitored. People at any level in an institution can be the corechallenge when it comes to academic workload allocation.

Academic Workload Management Workshop, 30 Oct, 2019.

HEADLINES i.e. reputation

BOTTOM LINES i.e. finances

Strategy

Performance

KPIs

Budget

AWAM

Institutional AWAM context:


HEADLINES i.e. reputation

BOTTOM LINES i.e. finances

RegulationsRankingsRevenue

Performance

Budget

AWAM

In the beginning i.e. pre-1960s, there were gentlemen’s agreements.

“Staff/student ratios in British universities are high and formal obligations light.

There is freedom in the sense of personal autonomy of an order to be found rarely, if at all, in other occupational groups.

These conditions permit the essential elements of what is considered a ‘gentlemanly’ way of life …

Reputation largely, though not wholly, depends on professional standards…” Halsey et al 1964-5*

*referenced in https://www.kent.ac.uk/cshe/docs/CSHE%20seminar%20Malcolm%20final.pptx

Academic Workload Management Workshop, 30 Oct, 2019. Slide:5

AWAMs since 1990s

1990s: issues surface around • Overwork, workload constraints and inequity of workload

allocations• Lack of workload data around staffing profile (and with that budget)

required to cover teaching commitments

→ Formalization of approach to workload allocation of required teaching duties

→ industrial agreement requirements for such an approach→ Objectives often captured in adjectives e.g. “equitable”,

“transparent”, “manageable” or “reasonable”, “affordable”, and more recently, “strategically aligned”

Academic Workload Management Workshop, 30 Oct, 2019. Slide 6

Meta models (meta-AWAMs) evolution since 1990si.e. institutional model of models for allocation have become much more prescribed and prescriptive.

→ allocations for research and for service/engagement introduced.Initially fixed % but in recent times usually flexs depending on research productivity formula, driven by performance kpis.

→ industrial agreements tighter both with respect to:* acceptable AWAM features (numbers); typically, specified meta- model institutional guidelines/policy/schedule.

These scope both qualitive and quantitive parameters.

* institutional responsibility: notably, institutional oversight committee (mgnt, union, staff reps) checks, approves (or not) and monitors; deals with complaints.

This creates pressure for more standardized local models.Slide 7Academic Workload Management Workshop, 30 Oct, 2019.


Allocation meta-models - usually only one meta model per institution for allocation required of (prescribed) teaching duties – bottom up most common

Top down: allocation* determined by required/FTE; weighting of requiredby income earned, directly, or via EFTSLs

Bottom up: allocate* set max to each staff memberif sum (allocated) < required then

increase max per academic, reduce required or add casualselse

reduce max per academic

*allocation process varies between academic organizational units;

Institutional meta-AWAMs usually (increasingly) cover:

• Process e.g. “available by HECS deadline”

• Common “notions” e.g. which tasks covered, can be included

• Actual numbers usually but might be points:

• Total hours covered by AWAM (often misunderstood)

• Maximums and minimums, e.g. “prescribed teaching duties to be no more than 75% of allocation”, “must have no research allocation”, “must have 10% allocation for service”

• Common “currency” for basic tasks, usually prescribed teaching ones


Commonly claimed AWAM impacts:- better transparency (but can there be too much?)

- equity of process but of parameters and of outcome can be questionable and questioned e.g. “special case” disciplines (and academics)- over-accommodation of claims for exceptions, flexibility, salves can lead to opaqueness and more complexity

- reasonableness but same person at different times, different opinion

- more clarity around what needs to be done; of cost compared with value.- costing capacity but needs to be recognized as incomplete

- complicated to apply and to monitor particularly if overly comprehensive and prescriptive; - likewise its use, if no admin nor system support

Slide 10


Dealing with the people factor

Slide 11


Do genuine consultation – have narrative, listen, adjust or explain why not.

Be clear up front about who will see what and why.

The same exception handling should apply to everyone.

The same AWAM should apply to everyone who is in scope.

Cannot compare AWAMs – details, context, use varies.

There may be systemic issues that require review and revision of AWAM, or other factors e.g. student complaint handling.

Performance management should deal with individual issues re efficiency, effectiveness, productivity.

Concluding thought

Efficiency - doing things rightc/fEffectiveness (productivity) - doing the right things→ The fundamental workload question

→ Are the right things being done?

c/f with the performance question→ Are the things being done right?


a whole of institution perspective on academic workload ... · institutional awam “facts”...

Documents