Towards Estimating & Monitoring Academic Staff Workloads at UKZN

Towards Estimating & Towards Estimating & Monitoring Academic Staff Monitoring Academic Staff Workloads at UKZNWorkloads at UKZN

G R Barnes, MSc Agric, MGSSAG R Barnes, MSc Agric, MGSSA

Management Information, UKZNManagement Information, UKZN

September 2005September 2005

Objective SummaryObjective Summary

To quantify academic staff To quantify academic staff workloadsworkloads

– TeachingTeaching– ResearchResearch– Community outreach & administrationCommunity outreach & administration

To incorporate these into a decision To incorporate these into a decision support framework support framework

– School Planning Decision Support School Planning Decision Support System (SPDSS).System (SPDSS).

ProcedureProcedure

We considerWe consider– What we teach (subjects and What we teach (subjects and

delivery) delivery) – How we teach it (preparation, How we teach it (preparation,

supervision and assessment)supervision and assessment)– Who is currently doing the teachingWho is currently doing the teaching– What research is being doneWhat research is being done

Aim to provideAim to provide

An estimate of the number of An estimate of the number of academic staff needed to support academic staff needed to support the teaching and research the teaching and research objectivesobjectives

Report ratios and indicators to Report ratios and indicators to measure the current status measure the current status relative to our targetsrelative to our targets

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 4

Teaching and Research

Teaching rate (%) 36 36 45

Research rate (%) 23.5 23.5 40

Admin/Outreach rate (%) 40.5 15 15

TOTAL (%) 100 74.5 100

All Academic Staff

Adjusted Staff (FTEs) 16 11.9 12.8

Students per Academic (FTEs) 17.6 23.7 22

Research output (PUs) 565 565 768

Productivity per Academic (PUs) 35 47 60

Scenario Outputs

Constant Increase Decrease

Data IntegrationData Integration

Scenario outputs become inputs Scenario outputs become inputs into:into:– Affordability modelAffordability model– Academic viability modelAcademic viability model– School Business PlanSchool Business Plan

Thank you …Thank you …

ConclusionsConclusions

An attempt to address the very An attempt to address the very sensitive issue of staff workloadssensitive issue of staff workloads

Considered the limitations of previous Considered the limitations of previous investigations and propose investigations and propose enhancementsenhancements

Through a collaborative approach Through a collaborative approach assist the School planning processassist the School planning process

Facilitate a system of monitoring into Facilitate a system of monitoring into the futurethe future

  2005 2006 2007 2008

Teaching and Research

Teaching rate (%) 36

Research rate (%) 23.5

Admin/Outreach rate (%) 15

TOTAL (%) 74.5

All Academic Staff

Adjusted Staff (FTEs) 11.9

Students per Academic (FTEs) 23.7

NSH per Academic (hrs) 1369

Research output (PUs) 565

Productivity per Academic (PUs) 47

Margin over Compensation (1000s) 2995

Scenario Two – revised Admin/OutreachConstant Increase Decrease

Scenario Four – institutional targets

  2005 2006 2007 2008

Teaching and Research

Teaching rate (%) 45

Research rate (%) 40

Admin/Outreach rate (%) 15

TOTAL (%) 100

All Academic Staff

Adjusted Staff (FTEs) 12.8

Students per Academic (FTEs) 22

NSH per Academic (hrs) 1275

Research output (PUs) 768

Productivity per Academic (PUs) 60

Margin over Compensation (1000s) 2771

Constant Increase Decrease

ObjectivesObjectives

To estimate academic staff workloads To estimate academic staff workloads into defined areas of academic into defined areas of academic endeavourendeavour

To facilitate a more objective method To facilitate a more objective method of estimating the staff teaching load of estimating the staff teaching load

– module notional study hours (NSH)module notional study hours (NSH) To identify & quantify To identify & quantify additional additional

parametersparameters To incorporate these into a decision To incorporate these into a decision

support framework support framework – School Planning Decision Support System School Planning Decision Support System

(SPDSS).(SPDSS).

ProcedureProcedure

Initial pilot study Initial pilot study Special Senate Task Team Special Senate Task Team

– Identify the important variablesIdentify the important variables– Determine a set of default valuesDetermine a set of default values

Roll out to SchoolsRoll out to Schools– Establish ‘buy-in’ of the Schools Establish ‘buy-in’ of the Schools – Foster ownership of the dataFoster ownership of the data

Integration with other toolsIntegration with other tools

Inputs & AssumptionsInputs & Assumptions

High-level AssumptionsHigh-level Assumptions Module Enrolment DataModule Enrolment Data Detailed Module Detailed Module

AssumptionsAssumptions Staff AssumptionsStaff Assumptions Research DataResearch Data Graduate DataGraduate Data

Default Values & Default Values & Norms Norms Quantified by the Senate Task Quantified by the Senate Task

TeamTeam Initial deployment of the systemInitial deployment of the system Form the basis of comparisonForm the basis of comparison

– Determine differences between Determine differences between SchoolsSchools

– Evaluate inputs from the SchoolsEvaluate inputs from the Schools

Outputs & ReportsOutputs & Reports

Time & Staff estimatesTime & Staff estimates School Summary AnalysisSchool Summary Analysis

– Summary TablesSummary Tables– Four ScenariosFour Scenarios– Scenario summaryScenario summary

Outputs & ReportsOutputs & Reports

Time & Staff estimatesTime & Staff estimates School Summary AnalysisSchool Summary Analysis

– Summary TablesSummary Tables– Four ScenariosFour Scenarios– Scenario summaryScenario summary

Academic EndeavoursAcademic Endeavours

TeachingTeaching ResearchResearch Community Development & Community Development &

OutreachOutreach AdministrationAdministration

Inputs & AssumptionsInputs & Assumptions

High-level AssumptionsHigh-level Assumptions Module Enrolment DataModule Enrolment Data Detailed Module Detailed Module

AssumptionsAssumptions Staff AssumptionsStaff Assumptions Research DataResearch Data Graduate DataGraduate Data

Institutional TargetsInstitutional Targets

Working year : 219 daysWorking year : 219 days Working day : 8 hoursWorking day : 8 hours Proportional allocationProportional allocation

– Teaching : 45%Teaching : 45%– Research : 40%Research : 40%– Admin/Outreach : 15%Admin/Outreach : 15%

Research productivity : 60 PUs/yrResearch productivity : 60 PUs/yr Minimum SAPSE proportion : 50%Minimum SAPSE proportion : 50%

Inputs & AssumptionsInputs & Assumptions

High-level AssumptionsHigh-level Assumptions Module Enrolment DataModule Enrolment Data Detailed Module Detailed Module

AssumptionsAssumptions Staff AssumptionsStaff Assumptions Research DataResearch Data Graduate DataGraduate Data

Inputs & AssumptionsInputs & Assumptions

High-level AssumptionsHigh-level Assumptions Module Enrolment DataModule Enrolment Data Detailed Module Detailed Module

AssumptionsAssumptions Staff AssumptionsStaff Assumptions Research DataResearch Data Graduate DataGraduate Data

Inputs & AssumptionsInputs & Assumptions

High-level AssumptionsHigh-level Assumptions Module Enrolment DataModule Enrolment Data Detailed Module Detailed Module

AssumptionsAssumptions Staff AssumptionsStaff Assumptions Research DataResearch Data Graduate DataGraduate Data

Outputs & ReportsOutputs & Reports

Time & Staff estimatesTime & Staff estimates School Summary AnalysisSchool Summary Analysis

– Summary TablesSummary Tables– Four ScenariosFour Scenarios– Scenario summaryScenario summary

Time & Staff estimatesTime & Staff estimates

Module Module Module Contact Preparation Assessment Consulting Group Teach Total Acad

Level Count Enrol hrs hrs hrs hrs hrs (%) hrs Staff

2 10 1806 662 (10%) 527 (8%) 5075 (81%) 90 (1%) 0 100 6354 8.1

4 16 871 576 (12%) 763 (16%) 2645 (54%) 881 (18%) 0 100 4865 6.2

3 8 1044 655 (14%) 640 (13%) 3367 (71%) 104 (2%) 0 100 4766 6.1

1 6 425 167 (17%) 182 (19%) 608 (63%) 21 (2%) 0 100 978 1.3

8 9 50 0 0 0 874 (100%) 0 100 874 1.1

9 4 19 0 0 0 648 (100%) 0 100 648 0.83

27 53 4215 2060 (11%) 2111 (11%) 11694 (63%) 2619 (14%) 0 (0%) 100 18485 23

Acad Staff estimate based on 45:40:15

Outputs & ReportsOutputs & Reports

Time & Staff estimatesTime & Staff estimates School Summary AnalysisSchool Summary Analysis

– Summary TablesSummary Tables– Four ScenariosFour Scenarios– Scenario summaryScenario summary

  2005 2006 2007 2008

Teaching Allocation (hrs)

Contact (2004: 2500) 

1658

(16%)

Preparation 

2065

(20%)

Assessment (2004: 9862) 

5833

(58%)

Consulting (2004: 1218) 

535

(5%)

Group teaching 

0

(0%)

TOTAL (2004: 13580)  10092

Summary Tables ...Summary Tables ...

  2005 2006 2007 2008

Staff number estimates (FTEs)

Planned Academic  16

Planned Support  4

Academic to Support Staff Ratio  4

Modules per Academic  3

Credits per Academic  102

Teaching hrs per week  12

Summary Tables …Summary Tables …

  2005 2006 2007 2008

Teaching and Research

Teaching rate (%) 36

Research rate (%) 49

Admin/Outreach rate (%) 15

TOTAL (%) 100

All Academic Staff

Adjusted Staff (FTEs) 16

Students per Academic (FTEs) 17.6

NSH per Academic (hrs) 1020

Research output (PUs) 1176

Productivity per Academic (PUs) 73

Margin over Compensation (1000s) 2101

Scenario Three – revised Admin/Outreach & Research Constant Increase Decrease

  2005 2006 2007 2008

Academic Staff (FTEs)

Scenario 1 16

Scenario 2 11.9

Scenario 3 17.6

Scenario 4 12.8

Productivity (PUs)

Scenario 1 565

Scenario 2 565

Scenario 3 1176

Scenario 4 768

Margin over Compensation (1000s)

Scenario 1 1952

Scenario 2 2995

Scenario 3 2101

Scenario 4 2771

Scenario Summary