Further Information
The University has requested that each School’s workload model be compliant with the main principles highlighted in Professor Colin McLeod’s review of the University’s workload allocation models.
It should be remembered the overriding reason for implementing workload models across the University is one of transparency i.e., any member of staff should be able to explicitly see that their workload, given their specific circumstances, is consistent with their peers within their School.
Following the amalgamation of the School of Economics and Commerce and the Graduate School of Management, it was important to develop a workload model that could be applied consistently across both Schools. Each School already had a workload allocation model but they differed quite significantly both in terms emphasis and elements included. The School of Economics and Commerce’s model was predominantly a teaching/supervision allocation model, whereas the GSM extended beyond teaching to include research outputs and all measurable components of a working year.
The proposed draft document draws upon the strengths of both previous models and should be viewed very much as a target allocation, which from year to year may be constrained by operating issues and budget. However, the model does make a statement in relation to where we see the strategic priorities of the School in relation to expectations in the Teaching, Research and Service areas. A recent working paper prepared by Professor Margaret Seares, has initially suggested target allocations in the three core areas of academic life as follows:
Teaching – 45% -55%;
Research – 35%- 45%; and
Service – 5% - 15%.
Professor Seares has indicated that the percentages above relate to 80% of our working week, as 20% can be allocated to approved consulting, in line with the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2006. It is important to highlight that the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2006, Section B- 33.1.11.1, stipulates that consulting is a privilege not a right for staff and should be approved only in those cases where performance is satisfactory.
The draft proposal refers to, what we classify as, a normal workload. Following the description of the development of this normal workload model, an outline of how this model may be adjusted to take into consideration the case of Early Career Researchers, as defined by the University, Faculty enrolled in Higher Degree by Research programs and new appointees to the School will be provided. Expectations of workload will also be appraised relative to opportunity by academic level. Socrates will form the basis of this in relation to research activity as it includes all but three of the items covered by our model.
This draft model to date has been developed through an iterative process with the Discipline Chairs and MBA Director. The Deputy Dean (Operations) initially proposed the Teaching element (with feedback from the Chair of the T&L Committee), while a subgroup of the Research Committee, consisting of Professor Ken Clements, Professor Geoff Soutar and Professor John Cordery drafted the recommendations in relation to the Research Workload Allocation.
The Deputy Dean (Operations) has accepted invitations from the Financial Studies, and Economics Disciplines as well as from staff located in Business School South and Myer St. to outline and discuss the first draft of the model. The comments and concerns of these groups were considered and the model amended where appropriate.
