1 / 17

Brunel Update

Brunel Update. Dave Snowden & Peter Hobson. Summary of School Audit. (Almost) all Heads of School interviewed Current MAW practices elicited Academic/student headcount data gathered Total teaching delivery estimated Some summary outcomes follow below. School Stats comparison.

zuwena
Download Presentation

Brunel Update

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. Brunel Update Dave Snowden & Peter Hobson

  2. Summary of School Audit • (Almost) all Heads of School interviewed • Current MAW practices elicited • Academic/student headcount data gathered • Total teaching delivery estimated • Some summary outcomes follow below

  3. School Stats comparison

  4. Brunel Business School • Student ftes 2209 • Staff ftes 57.4 • Credit volume 2025 • SSR 38.5 • Cred/Staff 35.3 • Single system • Partial approach with reasonable consistency in allowances for management and research tasks – spreadsheet-based

  5. School of Arts • Student ftes 1100 • Staff ftes 51.2 • Credit volume 4380 • SSR 21.5 • Cred/Staff 85.5 • Moving from informal agreements to a more structured semi-formal partial approach. Historic variations across subject areas are being ironed out

  6. School of Engineering and Design • Student ftes 2697 • Staff ftes 104.5 • Credit volume 6995 • SSR 25.8 • Cred/Staff 66.9 • Multiple systems (three distinct subject areas which were historically independent departments). A partial semi-formal approach is used. Nominal T/R split is 60/40 across school

  7. School of Health and Social Care • Student ftes 1694 • Staff ftes 99.4 • Credit volume 3865 • SSR 17.0 • Cred/Staff 38.9 • Partial - Overall plan developed by subject leaders. Detailed work allocation done by thematic teams of ~4 members of staff • Special influence of CPD in this School

  8. School of Social Sciences • Student ftes 2367 • Staff ftes 89.2 • Credit volume 5075 • SSR 26.5 • Cred/Staff 56.9 • Multiple systems based on “departmental” subject area • Politics & History – informal • Psychology– partial but detailed model with rigorous allowances • Sociology – partial/informal • Anthropology - informal • Economics & Finance – partial but pressurised by large class sizes

  9. School of Sport and Education • Student ftes 1411 • Staff ftes 47.9 • Credit volume 2500 • SSR 29.5 • Cred/Staff 52.2 • Not yet audited

  10. School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics • Student ftes 1487 • Staff ftes 76.5 • Credit volume 2860 • SSR 19.4 • Cred/Staff 37.4 • Partial – two parallel “departmental” systems • Generally retreating from rigorous systems

  11. Brunel Law School • Student ftes 720 • Staff ftes 31.8 • Credit volume 1280 • SSR 22.6 • Cred/Staff 40.3 • Small School - single system • Partial approach with rigorous allowances for management, admin and some research activities

  12. MAW System Project • BBS identified as candidate School + SED? • Host system identified (SITS) • System is currently being specified • Funding initially from BBS – expected to be taken on by Brunel • Cost benefit to be presented to SMG shortly

  13. MAW System Project • Brunel Business School will manage the project • Based around an extension of the existing (SITS) student record system • Specified by BBS, SITS support services and validated by at least one other School (SED?) • Cost around £5,000 consultancy (Tribal software development) plus project staff time • Scheduled for rollout during Spring/Summer 2009

  14. MAW System HR database Existing SITS data: Modules Module leaders Assessments Class sizes Teaching patterns PhD students/supervisors Staff IDs Report generator Web interface Schools, HR etc Add weightings etc Manual input New SITS data: Co-teachers Markers Mgt Roles Gender, race, age, etc. Module teaching Module marking Management roles Research roles

  15. Forthcoming presentation to Senior Management Group • Purpose • To increase SMG awareness of our work • To set out the total costs and outcomes of the database project • To set out the benefits and “do nothing” risks • To gain agreement to formally transfer the non-pay costs of the MAW database project to a central area for “political” purposes

  16. Pro’s & Con’s of MAW systems • FOR: • Equality and transparency • Union buy-in • Mitigation of H&S risks • Current strategic plan commits us to it • Gives substantial cost savings (admin time) in early stages of the timetabling process • Likely to significantly improve timetabling data quality • Likely to significantly improve our ability to respond to TRAC developments

  17. Pro’s & Con’s of MAW systems • AGAINST: • Not prepared to act (therefore don’t analyse) • Not prepared to encourage/enforce change on Schools in the interests of achieving a coordinated/consistent approach • Costs 5k plus project team time

More Related