PMDS and WLM
- Guidelines for Schools Wednesday, 20 March 2013
1.0 Overview
These guidelines are intended to be used for the implementation and merger of the three
interelated policies (i) WLM and (ii) PMDS and (iii) AAP (formerly FEC). The following policy
documents should also be consulted when using these guidelines: Implementation of Academic
Workload Models (Prof. Gerry Lyons and Dr. Edward Herring ,Version 5 – 2nd February 2012, AC
Minutes AC/12/A3/V.1) and NUI Galway Academic PMDS Procedure (Human Resources). This
document presents an integration of the PMDS, WLM and AAP systems for academic staff only. The
guidelines build on common features of all three systems, eliminates duplication and harmonises
methodology. The rationale and benefits of both systems and how they meet NUI Galway’s goals
and obligations in the Public Service Croke Park Agreement 2010 are comprehensively set out in the
documents referenced above.
2.0 Description
All academic staff are required to report annually on their workload performance, their academic
activity profile and to prepare and agree new workload plans for each new academic year. These
workloads should concisely set out contributions to the mission of the University for high-quality
research, teaching and contribution. Heads of School will have overall responsibility for all individual
workloads within their School and are responsible for assuring fair and equitable workloads across
all staff. The merged PMDS/WLM/AAP process comprises a number of steps:
Step 1: Design Workload Model and Workload Norms
All Schools are empowered to design and implement an appropriate workload model for every
member of staff at their School. Each Workload Model will include (i) Workload Profile, (ii) Workload
Plan and (iii) Workload Norms. See samples attached. The Workload Model, the School Operational
Plan and other university goals should be comprehensively communicated to all School staff.
Workload Norms should clearly allow staff who may not achieve satisfaction in one area (e.g.
research) to compensate by additional work in other areas (e.g. teaching or contribution).
Step 2: Prepare Workload Profile and draft Workload Plan
All individual staff must prepare a Workload Profile and a proposed Workload Plan. These plans
should be aligned to the goals of the School and the University while upholding the principle of
academic freedom to achieve goals in a number of ways. Workload Plans should adhere to Workload
Norms agreed within the School for workloads around teaching, research, and contribution. The
reviewee should also consider their ‘AAP ratios’ and performance ‘ratings’ (See Step 4).
Step 3: Discuss Workloads and Approve Workload Plan
All staff will submit their Workload Profile and proposed Workload Plan to their Head of School or
nominee for their Workload Meeting at a date agreed. The main purpose of the annual Workload
Meeting is to review the Workload Profile and agree a new Workload Plan that is fair and equitable
and meets the acceptable norms of the School. Interim workload meetings can and should also
occur throughout the year to review progress and where necessary offer support, mentoring and
training.
Step 4: Conduct PMDS dialogue and Assign Ratings
A second purpose of the merged PMDS/WLM process is conducting PMDS reviews for all staff, from
which will emerge a PMDS Rating. These ratings inform planning decisions and new staffing plans
across the School and College. They may also highlight where additional support for individual staff
may be required. PMDS Ratings data is also shared with HR. Ratings are assigned to each member of
staff by the Head of School and in consultation with the School Workload Committee comprising the
Head of School and their nominated reviewers. This committee may, as circumstances arise, choose
to invite the Dean of College to participate in its deliberations. The role of the School Workload
Committee are (i) to set School level (or Unit level) Workload Norms, expectations and standards
and (ii) to provide oversight of the review process across the School, with a focus on ensuring equity
and fair application of process based on qualitative in addition to quantitative workload
performance. The rating is based on discussions around the Workload Profile, Workload Plans, and
Workload Norms across all staff in the School, and other factors such as extended leave, etc. A fivepoint scale will be used to allocate ratings as follows:
1. Significantly Misses Expectations – persistently not achieving satisfactory performance or
where work quality and/or quantity is significantly below expectations
2. Does Not Meet Expectations – does not meet agreed work objectives or standards. Support
interventions needed to improve performance
3. Meets Expectations – meets agreed objectives and work standards in both quantity and
quality
4. Exceeds Expectations – exceeds expected level of contribution in quality and quantity,
delivers high quality work
5. Significantly Exceeds Expectations – consistently delivers an exceptional standard of work,
significantly exceeds objectives in quantity and quality
Workload Norms can guide the Head of School and the Workload Committee on how this single
number may be determined. Ratings for all staff should be tabulated using the PMDS Summary of
Performance Reviews - Template Form (appendix 3) and forwarded to HR by the Head of School.
Unsatisfactory ratings can be subject to two types of special intervention, in the first instance, the
Management of Underperformance (appendix 2)and where performance remains unsatisfactory,
possible disciplinary procedure. The Head of School or nominee will inform reviewees of their PMDS
rating after consideration of all ratings by the Workload Committee
3.0 Workload Norms
Schools may agree details of normal workload activities and how PMDS ratings may be calculated in
order to help illustrate, communicate, allocate and finally evaluate fair and equitable workloads
across all staff in their school.
AAP Fractions
AAP fractions (formerly FEC returns) are noted by the reviewee on their Workload Profile and
proposed on their Workload Plan in consultation with their reviewer. These fractions show how
much effort was distributed between research, teaching and contribution, with total effort equal to
1.0. Typical AAP fractions for lecturers for example are 0.4, 0.4 and 0.2 respectively and totalling 1.0.
Schools may decide to set limits or ranges for these fractions for different roles performed by staff or
that meet the goals of the School for increased research in the future. See table below for sample
ranges:
Teaching/Research Staff:
Teaching Focussed Staff:
Research Only Staff:
Leadership Focussed Staff:
Teaching (0.3 to 0.5), Research (0.3 to 0.5) and Contribution (0.2 to 0.3)
Teaching (0.6 to 0.8), Research (0.0 to 0.2) and Contribution (0.0 to 0.2)
Teaching (0.0 to 0.2), Research (0.7 to 0.8) and Contribution (0.0 to 0.2)
Teaching (0.0 to 0.4), Research (0.0 to 0.4) and Contribution (0.5 to 0.7)
Workload Ratings
Workload ratings can be computed in a number of ways according to the norms agreed in each
School. The following scheme may be considered when determining ratings.
PMDS Rating = R*AR + T*AT + C*AC
rounded to nearest whole number, and where
R = Research rating (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5)
T = Teaching rating (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5)
C = Contribution rating (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5)
AR = Research AAP fraction (e.g. 0.4)
AT = Teaching AAP fraction (e.g. 0.4)
AC = Contribution AAP fraction (e.g. 0.2)
Research ratings (R) for each individual might be determined on performance relative to
Discipline/School norms in the following (samples extracted from Promotion criteria): Publications,
Research Students, Research Funding, Academic research qualifications, innovative consultancy
work, Contribution to learned societies and journals, Research leadership, External Examinership,
Contribution to Conferences, Research Collaborations, Commercialisation of Research, Research
Impact, Social and Community Impact, Influence on Economic and Public Policies
Teaching ratings (T) for each individual might be determined on performance relative to
Discipline/School norms in the following (samples extracted from Promotion criteria): Teaching
Experience & Responsibilities, Teaching Skill & Approach, Curriculum & Course Design/Development,
Student Support & Facilitation, Innovation & Leadership, Professional Development & Scholarship.
Evidence of exceptional Contact Hours, Student Feedback etc.
Contribution ratings (C) for each individual might be determined on performance relative to
Discipline/School norms in the following (samples extracted from Promotion criteria): Administration
and management; Professional bodies or disciplinary organisations; Adult & continuing education
(including public education and CPD initiatives); Cultural and creative endeavours; Organisation of
major international events; Civic and public life (including advocacy, public outreach and working
with NGOs & civic organisations or Trade Unions); Contribution to the University community;
Representation of the institution or the sector at national and international levels; Other relevant
examples of leadership and initiative.
Examples
Ratings can initially be assigned under each category i.e. Research, Teaching and Contribution. The
final overall Rating can be a combination of the category rating and academic activity profile (AAP)
values. For example a Senior Lecturer with an AAP of 0.4, 0.4, 0.2 and category ratings of 3, 3, 4 for
Research, Teaching and Contribution respectively may receive a final rating of
3(0.4)+3(0.4)+4(0.2)=3.3 rounded to 3. A University Teacher below the bar with an AAP of 0.0, 0.8,
0.2 and ratings of 0, 4, 4 would receive a final rating of 0(0.0)+4(0.8)+4(0.2)=4. A Personal Professor
with an AAP of 0.8, 0.1, 0.1 and ratings of 2, 2, 3 would receive a final rating of
3(0.8)+2(0.1)+3(0.1)=2.9 rounded to 3.
4.0 Templates
T1: Workload Profile – Sample
T2: Workload Plan – Sample
T3: PMDS Summary of Performance Reviews - Template Form
T4: PMDS Academic Development form
T5: Sample Performance Improvement Plan
T1: Workload Profile – Sample
This Workload Profile should concisely reflect all work completed in the last year and where
applicable research publications completed in the last three years. Only major activities should be
included. Activities and achievements should be included identifying successful, unsuccessful and
emerging research proposals, publications and so on. The Workload Profile together with the draft
Workload Plan should be emailed to the Head of School or nominee at least one week before the
date agreed for the annual Workload Meeting.
QA225: Workload Profile (2012/2013)
Name:
Date: 30th April 2013
Research
Principal Investigator ‘DELIGHT project’ (€1.2m)
Supervised four PhD candidates and mentored two PhD candidates
Develop ‘Industry Partnership’ proposal with Ringfence Engineering
Participate on one international conference committee, Human Optics Conference
Publications
Shields S., ‘Technical Aspects of Human Optics’ Journal of Human Capital, ISI Impact 3.5 - in draft
(Please extract completed publications from IRIS for last three calendar years)
Shields S., and P. Brook, Managing Optics and Change, Gowing Publications, 2011, c.80k words
Shields S., and P. Brook, Virtual Systems and Human Optics ’, Computer in Enterprises, No.1 Vol.23, 2012, ISI
Impact 1.23
Teaching
Teach and examine ‘EI333 Systems Optics’ (6ECTS) to BA (Systems) and M.Sc.(Culture), c.233 students
Teach and examine ‘PP231 Computers and Society’ (6ECTS) to BA (Systems) and M.Sc.(Culture), c.16 students
Redesign ‘EI333 Systems Optics’ module
Supervise ‘EI436 PEP Report’ (3ECTS), for 2 students
Supervise ‘PP405 Final Year Project ‘(12ECTS), for 2 students
Contribution
Chair School Teaching Committee
Review and assess one academic unit as part of University Quality Assessment exercise
Directed the taught M.Sc.(Culture) programme
Collaborate and network with local agencies and intl committees and groups
Redesigned School web site
Conducted four school visits
Academic Activity Profile (AAP)
(Indicate workoad effort for all three activities with total equalling 1.0)
Research:
Teaching:
Contribution:
Total:
0.4
0.4
0.2
1.0
T2: Workload Plan – Sample
This Workload Plan should reflect all work planned for the new academic year. Only major activities
should be included. The draft Workload Plan and the Workload Profile should be emailed to your
Head of School or nominee at least one week before your annual Workload Meeting. This draft
Workload Plan will form the basis for creating a final and agreed Workload Plan for the new
academic year.
QA225: Workload Plan (2013/2014)
Name:
Date: 30th April 2013
Research
Principal Investigator ‘DELIGHT project’ (€1.2m)
Supervise four PhD candidates and mentor two PhD candidates
Develop ‘Industry Partnership’ proposal with Ringfence Engineering
Participate on one international conference committee, Human Optics Conference
Publications (In progress or planned)
Shields S., ‘Technical Aspects of Human Optics’ for Journal of Human Capital, ISI Impact 3.5
Shields S., and P. Brook, Managing Optics and Change, Gowing Publications, 2011, c.80k words
Teaching
Teach and examine ‘EI333 Systems Optics’ (6ECTS) to BA (Systems) and M.Sc.(Culture), c.233 students
Teach and examine ‘PP231 Computers and Society’ (6ECTS) to BA (Systems) and M.Sc.(Culture), c.16 students
Redesign ‘EI333 Systems Optics’ module
Supervise ‘EI436 PEP Report’ (3ECTS), up to 2 students
Supervise ‘PP405 Final Year Project ‘(12ECTS), up to 2 students
Contribution
Chair School Teaching Committee
Review and assess one academic unit as part of University Quality Assessment exercise
Chair taught M.Sc.(Culture) programme
Continue to collaborate and network with local agencies and intl committees and groups
Redesign School web site
Conduct four school visits
Academic Activity Profile (AAP)
(Indicate proposed workload effort for all three activities with total equalling 1.0)
Research:
Teaching:
Contribution:
Total:
0.4
0.4
0.2
1.0
T3: PMDS Summary of Performance Reviews - Template Form
The Workload Committee should review all ratings for staff and moderate where necessary based on
experience across the School. A PMDS Summary of Performance Reviews - Template Form should
be completed by the Head of School for all reviews, T3.
Where a reviewee does not meet expectations or significantly misses expectations, a Performance
Improvement plan is completed by the Head of School, T5.
In exceptional circumstances a review may remain incomplete due to long-term leave or illness. All
disciplinary action must be taken with the support of HR.
Summary of Performance Reviews - Template Form – to be
completed by Head of School and forwarded to HR
Name of School:
All School Annual Reviews completed? Yes / No. If no, please comment:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Head of School Signature: ______________________
Date: __________________
Please add any comments or actions overleaf
SCHOOL / TEAM / UNIT NAME
Summary of Performance Review Meetings
Date of
Meeting
Staff
Name
Post /
Job Title
College/School
Rating
(1-5)
Summary Comments /
Actions
Allocating Ratings
Ratings can initially be assigned under each category i.e. Research, Teaching and Contribution. The final overall
Rating can be a combination of the category rating and academic activity profile (AAP) values. For example a Senior
Lecturer with an AAP of 0.4, 0.4, 0.2 and category ratings of 3, 3, 4 for Research, Teaching and Contribution
respectively may receive a final rating of 3(0.4)+3(0.4)+4(0.2)=3.3 rounded to 3. A University Teacher below the bar
with an AAP of 0.0, 0.8, 0.2 and ratings of 0, 4, 4 would receive a final rating of 0(0.0)+4(0.8)+4(0.2)=4. A Personal
Professor with an AAP of 0.8, 0.1, 0.1 and ratings of 3, 2, 3 would receive a final rating of 3(0.8)+2(0.1)+3(0.1)=2.9
rounded to 3.
T4: PMDS Academic Development form
The Head of School or nominees should detail supports and other interventions that have been or
will be provided to support a reviewee achieve their expected potential and performance.
PMDS Academic Development form
Name:
Post Title:
School:
Date of Meeting:
Name of Reviewer:
Summary of Performance
Significantly
Misses
Expectations
1
Does Not Meet
Expectations
Meets
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
2
3
4
Significantly
Exceeds
Expectations
5
Overview of last year’s achievements, performance:
Specific supports to be provided to reviewee (e.g. training, mentoring):
Other comments/observations:
Reviewee Signature: ________________ Reviewer Signature: _______________
T5: Sample Performance Improvement Plan
The Head of School or nominees should detail supports and other interventions that have been or
will be provided to support a reviewee achieve their expected potential and performance.
The committee should also document all tasks and/or behaviors’ that led to a rating where the
reviewee does not meet (rating 2) or significantly misses expectations (rating 1).
Please refer to the Management of Underperformance, appendix 2 of policy. It is anticipated that
improvement will be achieved with additional supports but where this does not occur, disciplinary
action may be taken. The reviewee should also receive regular mentoring and support meetings
during the new academic year. This form should be filed confidentially within the School.
Sample Performance Improvement Plan
This plan is intended to provide a staff member with the means to improve their level of
performance to a level acceptable to the University. While it is expected that the requisite
improvement will be achieved, where this does not occur, disciplinary action may be taken.
Key task where performance is not satisfactory (as set out in the job/role
description)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Progress Improvements Required
Time
(1)
(2)
(3)
Support to be provided to staff member
By Whom
Time
(1)
(2)
(3)
Comments/Observations
Review Meetings
(1)
(2)
(3)
Reviewee Signature _____________________ Reviewer Signature ______________________