1 / 14

UWE WLM and WAMS

UWE WLM and WAMS. Transferability in Practice?. Key aspects of transferability. Capability : ensuring the potential transferability of the model and system Consultation & collaboration : with HEIs across mission groups

brandi
Download Presentation

UWE WLM and WAMS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. UWE WLM and WAMS Transferability in Practice?

  2. Key aspects of transferability • Capability: ensuring the potential transferability of the model and system • Consultation & collaboration: with HEIs across mission groups • Communication: documentation, implementation in practice, reflection, dissemination • Transferability in practical terms?

  3. Capability: Model and WAMS • A flexible, web-based, multi-user WLM system • Built on proprietary software platforms (Microsoft SQL and .NET) • Parameter driven – can adapt and reconfigure parameters in line with local contexts, objectives • Reduces need for expert ITS input or more fundamental redefinition of the model • Can add additional activities, roles etc • Can scale/weight components of the model – eg for different types of teaching, assessment

  4. User-friendly system accessible to all staff • Can set different levels of access • Flexible currency – bundles, hours, local units • Stand-alone system – can interface with a variety of external systems eg student number planning, staffing, timetabling, not hard-wired • Generic capability to generate TRAC data – including post-92 employment contracts (confirmed by KPMG audit) • Generates workload reports eg departmental summaries

  5. Are there limitations? • Generic, relatively high level, maps onto main activities common to all HEIs • Should work for variety of institutions, mission groups – albeit not fully tested • Generation of teaching requirements based on lectures, number of small groups, assessment, module leadership, programme leadership (but can weight components including set to zero)

  6. Clearly will be limitations • If want to go beyond provisions of parameters, variation of weights/tariffs, capacity to add activities, requires more fundamental work • Interfacing – both inputs and outputs – will be specific to HEIs and therefore require work, human/systems interface (but is therefore adaptable to different contexts) • Any showstoppers?

  7. Capability – summary …. • A fully operational and potentially transferable working system for academic workload management and TRAC reporting. • Web-based/downloadable guidance and documentation for the above – based on UWE in-house documentation • Web-based/downloadable accounts of issues raised by implementation in a UWE context, benefits, barriers, key considerations (technical, managerial, HR/staff relations)

  8. Collaboration • Advisory Group meetings: HEIs and KPMG • Workshops, shared experiences • 1:1 meetings, discussions, conference presentations (BUFDG/TDG) • Participation of KPMG including TRAC audit • Webinars with potential early adopters

  9. Communication • Dissemination of information via UWE website • Five videos published: overview and four ‘how to’s’ demonstrating WAMS • ITF Innovation & Efficiency Hub • Dissemination of information via TRAC DG, other networks & organisations • National conference

  10. Transferability in practice: issues & opportunities • Potentially generic, transferable model and system – but not plug and play • Did not set out to produce ‘solution in a box’ (or a commercial software product) • Finite resource in Leadership Foundation project – and ends December • Transferability for real implies new project

  11. UWE modules still to be completed: roll-over, TRAC output, reports • Not clear as yet what in practice required in resource terms to secure transfer – not trivial • Also issues about longer term expectation (of support, development) but also opportunities - collaborative benefits to partners including UWE

  12. 1. UWE Hub? • Considered building capacity in-house for set-up, ongoing support and development – hub & network? • Would benefit from ongoing collaboration, testing, experience • Not clear what the resource model would be • Not considered core business • Not pursuing

  13. 2. Proof of concept? • Collaborate with selected partner(s) HEI(s) to trial transfer, understand the issues, scale & complexity of the task, resource implications • Dependent on capacity of partner, technical compatibility, procedural and cultural compatibility – and requirements • Need to cover costs • Would demonstrate transferability in practice • Needs clarity re terms of transfer, ongoing relationship, future development - challenges • Doesn’t provide ongoing support, development

  14. 3. Alternatives • Make available via Cloud or other medium – at risk, without support or obligation from UWE • Would require considerable further work to get to this point – and a funding model • Would other HEIs really be able to pick up and run with it – no ongoing support? • Fragmented development, different models • Anticipate continuing need for input from UWE • Must avoid inflating/falling short on expectations • Possible third party – to provide capacity, expertise, ongoing development for sector?

More Related