Grahame Cooper

The Workload Balancing Model: Feedback and Review

Background to the Model

Grahame Cooper

Aims of the Approach (May 1999)

• Equity in workloads• Not absolute workload

• Provide data for TRAC• Important, but not the core purpose

• Acceptable spread of workloads amongst academic staff– initially within each school– ultimately across the whole University

• Targets of acceptable variation:– School: 10% variation 5% variation– Faculty: 15% variation 10% variation

Grahame Cooper

Issues Addressed

• Purpose, Policy, Model (tool), Norms, Process

• Units of workload– Not directly time (though there is a relationship)

• Research– Pounds (projects), Papers, Postgrads and Presence

• Teaching– Many models were looked at.

• “Normal Workload”– determined by reference to the mean workload

across the faculty

• Commercial & other work (AE)– Handled as individual activities outside normal

workload

Grahame Cooper

Basic Structure of the Model

Staff M

ary

Fred

Alice

George

Nichola

Edgar

9 5

18

13

Activities

Course tutor

Module 1.2 - Knitting

. . .

. . .

. . .

“Effort”

14

13

. . .

. . .

. . .

Single “currency” for all activities(nicknamed: “Wammie”)

Grahame Cooper

Research Allocation

Research Plans

Research

Targets

Workload

Allocation

Research

Outputs

Appraisal

Research Plans

Research

Targets

Workload

Allocation

Research

Outputs

Appraisal

YearN-1

YearN

All defined in terms of 4Ps: Projects, Papers, PhDs, Presence

Allocations assessed by Research InstitutesExpressed as % of workload. 50% Maximum

Grahame Cooper

... Discussions, Focus on Teaching

• Contact hours V credits & student numbers– Traditions (Religion?)– Encourage efficiency and effectiveness

• Teaching weighted by level?– “Final year should be worth more!”– “First year should be worth more!”

• Formulaic approaches– Balance (Modules, Credits & Student Numbers)– Linear or non-linear variation– Variability: Some topics more intense than others

Grahame Cooper

Credits & Student Numbers

• First approximation to module workloads.

• Quantifiable variables identified:– Credits (C), Student Numbers (N)

• Workload = W0 + WC*C + WN*N + WCN*C*N– To first order. (Linear variation assumed)

• Assumption (reasonable approximation):– double Credits double Workload– Implies: W0 = WN = 0

• Formula adopted:(Initial) Workload = WC*C + WCN*C*N

Grahame Cooper

Credit & Student Based Calculation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180Student Numbers

40 Credits20 Credits

10 Credits

Grahame Cooper

… but leave room for common sense

• Calculation gives initial estimate only

• Some factors not easily quantifiable

StudentNumber

Credits

InitialFigure Adjustment

ActualFigure

Explicitly stated academic grounds.

Grahame Cooper

Estimating Actual Numbers

• Many trial calculations done.– 1700 hour year assumed.– Various teaching styles looked at.– Estimates from all schools (est. hours worked):

Grahame Cooper

Example CalculationsTen & twenty credit modules based on conventional, lecture-based approach.

Per Student TotalCredits 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 20.00Number of Students 20.00 50.00 100.00 200.00 20.00 50.00 100.00Per Week Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs HrsPreparation prior to class 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.50 1.50 1.50Delivery (lectures) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 4.00Student Interaction and Support 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 12.00Total 6.75 7.75 8.75 9.75 13.50 15.50 17.50Total over 12 weeks 81.00 93.00 105.00 117.00 162.00 186.00 210.00

Assessment Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs Hrs HrsAssignment setting 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 6.00Assignment marking 0.33 6.67 16.67 33.33 66.67 13.33 33.33 66.67Exam setting - multiple choice 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 4.00Exam marking 0.33 6.67 16.67 33.33 66.67 13.33 33.33 66.67Total Assessment time 15.33 35.33 68.67 135.33 28.67 69.67 137.33

Writing Module reports 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

Total Hours 98.33 130.33 175.67 254.33 192.67 257.67 349.33

Days per year 220.00Hours per day 8.00

Hours per year 1760.00Conversion to workload units:

Standard workload 100.00Hours per workload unit 17.60

Workload for above module 5.59 7.41 9.98 14.45 10.95 14.64 19.85

Current Model:Student Coeff 0.0050

Credit Coeff 0.5000Workload In current model 6.00 7.50 10.00 15.00 12.00 15.00 20.00

Hours in current model 105.60 132.00 176.00 264.00 211.20 264.00 352.00

Grahame Cooper

Teaching “Norms” Calculated

• “Standard Lecture Course”– Credits factor ~ 0.4 to 0.7 (mean: 0.6)– Students factor ~ 0.002 to 0.008 (mean: 0.006)

• “Intensive Lecture Course”– Credits factor ~ 0.2 to 0.65 (mean: 0.5)– Students factor ~ 0.005 to 0.017 (mean: 0.013)

• Other areas looked at:– Dissertations– Labs and team projects– Some management roles

Grahame Cooper

How Prescriptive?

• Even roles with the same name are different in different Schools.

• Different demands of subject areas– Between Schools; Within Schools

• Different development priorities– Research-active / less research active, etc

• Schools have a high degree of freedom within the common model– (Everything in spreadsheet configurable.)

• Other forces may bring balance in Faculty/University. (See next slide).

Grahame Cooper

Forces affecting workload units

Activity

WorkloadPressures

Tendency to

inflate

QualityProcedures

Quality of provision matters

ActivityCosts

Tendency to drive down(or activity

is not viable).

Work

load

Un

its

Quality

Grahame Cooper

Background - Summary

• Distribute and sumapproach

Staff M

ary

Fred

Alice

George

Nichola

Edgar

9 5

18

13

Activities

Course tutor

Module 1.2 - Knitting

. . .

. . .

. . .

“Effort”

14

13

. . .

. . .

. . .

• Teaching: Standard forfirst approximations

• Discretion by Head of School over all parameters (subject to financial viability)

• Interim approaches for research (i.e. research ratings) and commercial activities.– Replaced by four Ps

• Mechanisms in place for activity costing& TR– But main emphasis on workload balancing

Grahame Cooper

The Workload Balancing Model: Feedback and Review

The IT System

Grahame Cooper

IT System Design Principles

• Based on model presented earlier– (and informed the development of that model)

• Structured primarily to support School operations– Additional structure to support summary/review

• Support local variations within model

• Support University-wide analysis & coordination– Including inter-school activities– Support for mapping data into TRAC

• Central database subordinate to School spreadsheets– The School spreadsheet is the master document.– Central database provides linking, reports & backup

Grahame Cooper

The Workload Balancing Model: Feedback and Review

The Spreadsheet

Grahame Cooper

Basic Structure of the Spreadsheet

Grahame Cooper

Activity Summary Table

Mapped into TRAC return headings

Grahame Cooper

Module Workload Coefficients

• Define up to 3 sets of coefficients to approximate different learning/teaching methods

• Coefficients set by the School– Flexibility (subject to viability)

(Initial) Workload = WC*C + WCN*C*N

Grahame Cooper

Tools: Building a Spreadsheet

Add a newheading

Activity with a fixed workload

Add activities with calculated initial workload (3 coeff sets)

Activity provided to another schoolAdd a new column

Change method of a teaching activity

Delete a row

Delete a column

Activity with a % workload

Grahame Cooper

Tools: Using a Spreadsheet

Calculate new standard workload

Allocate all or part of the current activity (inserts a formula)

Show or hide columns

Set or clear the activity leader

Grahame Cooper

The Workload Balancing Model: Feedback and Review

Integration – The Central Database

Grahame Cooper

Integration

School1

School2

Faculty2 School3

School4

Database

Faculty1

Workload InformationInter-School Information

Grahame Cooper

Tools: Database Operations

Link (unlink) an external activity in this spreadsheet to (from) an activity in another school/unit.

Must be on the University network to do these.

Specify the school/unit and year to which this spreadsheet relates.(New sheet.)

Rebuild spreadsheet from the data in the database.

Exchange data with the central database

Grahame Cooper

Reports

• Individual staff workload profiles

• Inter-school activities

• Status report

• Staff workloads summary

• Workload allocations by activity

• List of activities

• More can be added later

Database

Grahame Cooper

Workloads Chart

±5% about standard workload

Grahame Cooper

Grahame Cooper

Process Monitoring

Grahame Cooper

Inter-School Provision Report