MINUTE of the SCHOOL MANAGEMENT GROUP
held in Room 407, 1 University Gardens on 25th February 2015
PRESENT:
Jeremy Huggett, Michael Murray, Lynn Abrams, Thomas Clancy, Michael Given, Pauline
McLachlan, Peter Jackson, Steve Marritt, Jan Stenger, Fiona Macpherson, Ann Gow,
APOLOGIES:
Nyree Finlay.
Table of Contents
Minute of the meeting held 25th February 2015 ......................................................................................... 1
Matters Arising .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Head of School Update .............................................................................................................................. 1
Head of Subject Update ............................................................................................................................. 2
Finance/Administration Update ................................................................................................................. 2
Process Improvement: Exam Boards ......................................................................................................... 3
School Committees .................................................................................................................................... 4
Any Other Business ................................................................................................................................... 4
Action:
1.
th
Minute of the meeting held 11 February 2015
The minute was approved. PMcL will circulate to all School colleagues.
2.
PMcL
Matters arising
2.1 Probation
HR liaison regarding probation would be ongoing.
2.2 Estates
Bi-monthly meetings between JWH, MM and Estates and Building representatives (Deputy Director,
Peter Haggarty (Construction and Capital Projects) and Robert Kilpatrick, Assistant Director
(Operations) arranged until the end of this year.
2.3 Ancestral Studies
Thanks offered to NF and MM on the proposal produced. The HoC would discuss the development
with Neal Juster, including the investment required. JWH was confident that it was an attractive
proposal; offering cross-School/College collaboration opportunities.
2.4 School Disability Officer
JWH would consult and produce a Role Description.
3.
JWH
Head of School Update
3.1 Staff Survey: follow up
JWH had been disappointed with the low turnout at the School Forum on 18 February. JWH sought
feedback and suggestions on how to proceed, for example, the setting up of workshop(s) with
concerned/interested colleagues to develop solutions to particular issues. FMacp suggested that
many of the issues are not within School control e.g. workload. JWH confirmed that there are
elements of workload that are within our control e.g. over teaching (for instance, 20 credits should
equal 20 contact hours; any more may be open to criticism). We must identify issues, ensure that we
have done what we can within our control in order to be able to develop arguments for College/GU
attention.
MM reported that there would appear to be willingness for senior management to tackle these issues
and suggested we use this process to identify issues that require action out with the School.
LA agreed that there were some issues that could be pushed upwards to College, e.g., those
colleagues undertaking School roles, the workload associated with such roles and the lack of
recompense. AG agreed and pointed to particular difficulties for smaller subject areas, where staff
are unable to take on such roles, and the issues concerning research leave for HoSubs.
JWH confirmed that discussion is already underway for developments in communication methods
-1-
and management.
JWH suggested that workshops are arranged pending further WLM developments. A note of the
discussions held at the School Forum would be circulated.
3.2 Strategic Plan
JWH had circulated a note of the discussions held at the meeting on 16 February. JWH urged
colleagues to discuss with their various constituencies in subject meetings, committee meetings and
within the admin team. A further meeting would be arranged for April for feedback on the outcomes
of these local discussions to begin to formulate the School plan.
3.3 IPDF
JWH reported that there were funds still available and requested that HoSubs encourage colleagues to
apply.
3.4 Grant Awards
JWH reported that the HoC is keen for staff to develop grant applications and increase grant awards.
HoSubs were asked to encourage colleagues. This topic would be discussed further at the School
Research Forum meeting next month.
3.5 Equality and Diversity training
JWH encouraged all colleagues to complete the online E&D session. The Humanities completion
rate is currently 58%.
3.6 Academic Returners Policy
JWH reported that a policy was currently being developed regarding academic colleagues returning
from parental leave. The policy would provide an opportunity to support research development.
3.7 GTA Policy
The proposed policy has been returned for further review as it referred to policies no longer in
operation, e.g. Atypical Worker policy, which had been replaced by the introduction of the extended
work-force policy. MM reported that the main issue was in relation to equality of pay given the
diversity of practice outwith Humanities. JWH had raised the issue concerning prep time and the
difference in practice suggested in the policy relative to that currently implemented in Humanities at
the recent CMG meeting.
4.
Head of Subject Update
6.1 HATII – Professorial post: should be advertised by the end of this week.
6.2 Philosophy – Minor Works: PMcL confirmed that Brian Rodger (Estates) was due to meet with
Catherine Martin, College Secretary on Friday 27 February.
5.
Finance/Administrative Update
5.1 Workload Model 2015-16
MM reported and presented on the Workload Model (WLM) project. MM explained what is
expected from the School (and College). MM would oversee the data-gathering exercise and
development of drivers. MM suggested that the most important issue was the identification of
drivers. School level drivers were being developed in discussion with HoSchool.The proposed
timescales for implementation by the project team had slipped, e.g. Humanities WLM was unlikely
to be implemented and in place by end of March 2015.
MM suggested that the process would require significant input from HoSubs. Alongside the
development of the current iteration, MM outlined that the development schedule for the IT delivery
team could also be influenced through a level of engagement. MM would attend the development
teams training session, and suggested that a HoSub accompany him. FMacp agreed to attend.
MM/
FMacp
-2-
Further detailed School-specific training would also be developed and had been agreed with MM and
the central team.
LA was concerned that the model may not be granular enough, e.g. to take account of PGT second
marking. JWH confirmed that the system is live all the time, so could be constantly updated and a
workload snapshot taken at any time. Marking could be input to the system as a Subject/School
specific driver. The Project team was keen to ensure that data is sense-checked and the model works
operationally. It is difficult to capture all activity, particularly small tasks, but it is important that
most tasks are included.
6.
Process Improvement: Exam Boards
MM provided the background to the project and an update of the work previously completed, for
example, clarity of processes and roles, identification of time issues, showing who does what when,
which had resulted in the production of an overview of the entire examination process. MM outlined
that the updated process mapping is based on the previous iteration which involved circa 40-50% of
the School. The current updated has also been updated in discussion with HoSchool, Learning and
Teaching Convenor and Graduate Studies Convenor. Alongside the benefits outlined above, it also
identifies administrative roles undertaken by academics, which could be fed into WLM
developments.
MM presented on the high level stages of the examination process, which had been broken down into
a detailed listing of tasks, sub-tasks, task ownership and when in the academic year these tasks
occurred. PGT examination processes had also been incorporated into the overall process, and not as
an adjunct
Each task owner could clearly identify their responsibilities and when they should be completed.
MM sought confirmation that this approach was useful. MM suggested that if agreed, it could then be
completed for other academic processes, which would contribute to the production of role descriptors,
inform the WLM process and the production of a staff handbook.
JWH offered thanks to MM for the considerable work and effort put into developing these outcomes
and the tools.
FMacp suggested that it may not capture every variable. MM reported that it would allow the
development of consistent practices and provides a baseline for ensuring that administrative roles
undertaken by academic staff were identified and, potentially, quantified. MM outlined that there
does not appear to be any current considerations around how these roles operate within Subjects. For
example, is it ‘reasonable’ to expect a single Exams Officer to be able to operate across larger
Subjects. MM further outlined that there was no expectation that colleagues would be expected to
follow each element on a daily basis. Rather, the approach is designed to act as reasonable
framework. MM referred to the fact that many new colleagues (both administrative and academic)
have outlined that clarity of roles, expectation and process within these areas is to be desired.
PJ agreed that this was an excellent development, suggesting that student absences could be better
administered. MM confirmed that absence management would be the next process to undergo
review.
TC queried whether the information could be taken by HoSubs to their Subjects for discussion with
role-holders, simply for sense-checking. It was agreed to do this, but to avoid re-engineering an
already re-engineered process. MM would welcome wider involvement in this project, and there is an
intention to action this if the current approach is agreed by SMG.
JWH sought feedback on whether this was a valuable exercise to be developed in other areas. It was
agreed to accept and proceed to roll-out across further areas. MM confirmed that there was a further
9 areas to review. Feedback received from current or previous role-holders to be passed to MM.
HoSubs
MM
HoSubs
LA sought an update concerning examination marks inputting. MM confirmed that work was
ongoing with MyCampus gradebook and also EvaExam (for 2016-17).
TC reported on difficulties with examination scheduling and was aware that this is out with School
control. LA agreed that it can hold up making other arrangements, e.g., producing a marking
schedule, and arranging conference attendance. It was felt that Registry should be able to produce
examination schedules earlier. MM outlined that the examination diet is over a similar period on an
annual basis, although noted that we would all welcome earlier confirmation of the detailed timetable.
-3-
7.
School Committees
7.1 Learning & Teaching Committee
MG reported on recent Learning and Teaching activity.
7.1.1 Exam Feedback - MG had produced and circulated School guidance on minimum
examination feedback for approval. The document had previously been discussed at School L&T
committee. MG confirmed that generic feedback could be provided by Course Convenors via
Moodle, with marks for individual exam questions provided to students (via a mail merge
completed by Subject L&T administrators). It was agreed to accept and implement. MG reported
that it was subject to final approval at School L&T committee and ratification at College.
MG
7.1.2 AMR - MG reported that AMRs had raised concerns regarding timetabling and room
allocations. MG asked that ScMG be aware of these concerns. MM confirmed that CTT had
allocated a dedicated colleague who regularly visits each School in person to deal with any issues.
7.1.3 Philosophy PSR - FMacp queried whether the report should go before College L&T
Committee for review and ratification. This had not been the case with recent PSR reports.
FMacp would confirm with the Senate Office.
FMacp
7.2 Graduate Studies
SM reported that School and College level meetings were to be held at on 25 and 26 February.
SM would provide a full report at the next ScMG meeting.
SM
7. 3 Research Committee
PJ reported on recent Research activity.
7.3.1 School Research Forum - PJ confirmed that a School Forum focused on research would be
held on 25 March. Dauvit Broun, Karen Lury and Fraser Rowan would attend. HoSubs were
requested to encourage colleagues to attend.
8.
HoSubs
Any Other Business
8.1 Action Reporting – actions agreed
-4-