Views on TRAC and the UWE workload model

12 th December 2013

Agenda

■

Reflection on the Management Information Project on WLP and what we currently see

■

Workload Allocation Models and TRAC

■

Issues to consider in using WAM for TRAC

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

1

Reflections on the Management Information Project

The key principles of WAM:

Equity Transparency Consultation / continuous improvement

Why wouldn’t you want to apply this to the way you manage workloads?

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

2

Reflections on the Management Information Project

Senior management buy in is crucial to the successful implementation of a new workload planning model.

Involving academic staff in the delivery of training will help secure engagement.

Agree the principles up front and ensure that they are reflected throughout all phases of development;

Top Tips

A TRAC compliant model will need to encompass all activities and include all academic staff, Agreement of the technical dimensions by the key stakeholders will facilitate implementation.

The benefits sought from the process should be identified at the beginning and communicated to all stakeholders; Automating feeder systems (i.e. timetabling, research ledgers etc.) should be a phase two project, to prevent slowing the initial implementation of WLP © 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

3

Reflections on the Management Information Project

Senior management buy in is crucial to the successful implementation of a new workload planning model.

 Involving academic staff in the delivery of training will help secure engagement.

 Agree the principles up front and ensure that they are reflected throughout all phases of development; 

Top Tips – UWE model

A TRAC compliant model will need to  encompass all Agreement of the technical The benefits sought from the process should Automating feeder systems (i.e. timetabling, research ledgers etc.) should be a phase two project, activities and dimensions by the key stakeholders will facilitate  be identified at include all academic staff, Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

the beginning and communicated to prevent slowing the initial implementation of WLP implementation.

to all stakeholders;  © 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a  4

WAMS and TRAC

The key principles of WAM:

Transparency Equity Consultation / continuous improvement

TRAC is a logical additional benefit that a WAM process could provide

• Avoids the need for time allocation surveys – less admin • Arguably a more accurate reflection of true workload compared to time allocation?

• Can be used to inform other management information which require cost drivers such as resource allocation and department profitability.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

5

WAMS and TRAC – What the review of time allocation methods found

Extract from the review of time allocation methods in 2012: Method Workload planning systems Advantages

- Clearer expectations for Academic staff - Feedback from parts of the sector suggest that the process provides more accurate and timely data for TRAC and how academic staff use their time - Better management tool for planning - Easier to distinguish between institution own-funded research and scholarly activity

Disadvantages

- More time is needed (up to 2 years) to implement and refine a university wide workload planning process, such that it provides reliable data to satisfy the TRAC requirements - Workload plans can be more difficult to apply to non-teaching activities, although this is possible - Getting buy-in across the University to adopt this method © 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

6

WAMS and TRAC – What the review of time allocation methods found

Ways in which the burden of time allocation can be reduced:

- Automate the process, including sampling, chasing and data collection - Move to WLM prepared routinely within departments each year - Move to a WLM that maps across to TRAC categories - More ownership by departments as part of normal management practices

In early 2012 - 40 institutions stated that they were looking at refining / implementing WAMs

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

7

Issues to consider in using a WAM for TRAC

TRAC Update 4 sets out the current guidelines for using workload allocation models to inform academic staff time allocation in TRAC. Minimum requirement UWE model design

■ It is used by the institution for purposes other than TRAC (e.g. to plan or manage workloads)  ■ A manager or administrator prepares the planned activity data for each year for each academic member of staff. This is based on a formal process e.g. with plans based on planned modules, courses and students, research projects and activity, other projects and activity, formal leadership and management responsibilities, requirements for scholarship and administrative activity, holiday entitlements and so on. This process is carried out with all academics in the departments covered by this method of TRAC time allocation, every year (i.e. there is no sampling)  ■ Existing definitions of activities are followed. However: i.

Only time ‘managed by the institution’ and likely to represent a relevant use of their resources, is recorded ii. The activity categories of Teaching, Research Other and Support and their sub-categories are recorded as currently, and institution/own funded Research is allocated to Teaching where the primary purpose is Teaching  iii. Academic time spent on Research is recorded at the level of research sponsor type. (It might be easier to do this at year-end rather than at the planning stage); © 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

8

Issues to consider in using a WAM for TRAC

Minimum requirement

■ Each academic agrees to the plan drawn up for them as part of a formal process;

UWE model design

In progress ■ At the end of each year the academic confirms that the plan was delivered, or revises the data. This review would be informed by actual modules/courses and students taught, active research grants, etc (i.e. similar data to that described in the second bullet point above) as well as other events or changes in circumstance during the year that affected workload. Any revisions would be approved by managers; In progress ■ A formal audit of the process is carried out every three years (this does not need to audit individual academic’s activity). This would be arranged by the institution and might, for example, involve their internal auditors.

■ Institutions can use this workload planning/management approach in some departments, and other time allocation methods in other departments. All departments using existing time allocation methods should comply with the existing TRAC requirements as described in point B.4.1 of the Statement of Requirements.

 University wide © 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

9

Issues to consider in using a WAM for TRAC

Academic sign off at the planning “each academic agrees to the plan drawn up for them as part of a formal process” Academic sign off at completion “at the end of each year the academic confirms that the plan was delivered, or revises the data. This review would be informed by actual modules/courses and students taught, active research grants, etc (i.e. similar data to that described in the second bullet point above) as well as other events or changes in circumstance during the year that affected workload. Any revisions would be approved by managers” Allocation by research sponsor Allocate after the year end using cost information?

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

10

Issues to consider in using a WAM for TRAC

Other issues to consider:

-

Completeness of the population

-

What level of response gives robust representative data?

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

11

Open forum

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

12

Thank you

Presentation by Andrew Bush

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavour to provide accurate and timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation.

© 2013 KPMG LLP, a UK limited liability partnership, is a subsidiary of KPMG Europe LLP and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative, a Swiss entity. All rights reserved.

The KPMG name, logo and “cutting through complexity” are registered trademarks or trademarks of KPMG International Cooperative (KPMG International).