Academic Workloads and TRAC Will Foster March

Academic Workloads and TRAC What TRAC requires from a TAS Practicalities to make WLBM fit for purpose Issues and Responses Building on the Basics- Data becomes Management Information

What TRAC requires from a TAS What is needed to achieve a robust method- Schedules are used Cover periods that are representative of 12 months within 3 year cycle 3 In-Year responses Individual academics complete themselves Response rates are statistically sound Data is collected over a 3 year cycle

Practical Steps Individual WLBM School WLBM Mapping Exercise School TRAC Faculty/ University TRAC TRAC % allocations TRAC schedules

Audits/Reviews Internal Audit Reviews QA Review KPMG 2008 QAV Health Check

Issues and Responses Internal Audit Some issues on robustness “The information provided by the WLBM continues to be at least as robust as data obtained under the methods suggested in the TRAC guidance” Internal initiative to improve process

Issues and Responses KPMG QA Review In current form not considered robust under the TRAC guidance To achieve robustness- Academics to review (positively) 3 * Year Classification should be formalised All activities and time to be covered Head of School to undertake reasonableness check

Issues and Responses Meeting with JM Consulting Action Plan Statistical Sampling Statistical Advice (Internal) Simple Questionnaire Statistical Review Better Documentation Clearer Linkage to TRAC definitions

2008 QAV Health Check “should review sample responses. If proven to be +/- 10% the University are advised to introduce an alternative method in accordance with TRAC guidance” Sample results No change Change < 10% Change > 10% 14 10

Building on the Basics Using WLBM for TRAC always seen as a means to achieve internal benefit Activity Costing calculated at School level from Year 1 Pilot Course Costing from 2002 Full Exercise from 2004 onwards Professorial Data Review 2008