Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Academic workload planning revisited

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This report extends and updates a 1996 paper ondepartmental planning of workload for academicsin UK universities. Categories of workloadplanning system can be discerned by introducinga set of differentiating dimensions. Usingthis taxonomy the situation in departments in a(pre-1992) UK university is explored via casestudy and survey. The study finds a highdegree of variety and limited reliance onformal workload planning systems. The questionof whether these systems are effective isconsidered and leads on to identifying keycriteria for effective systems. Increasedenvironmental pressures are driving departmentsto confront workload planning in a morerigorous and effective manner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackoff, R.L. (1967). 'Management misinformation myths', Management Science14(4), B147-B156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anon. (1999). Transparency Review of Research: Proposal for a New Uniform Approach to the Costing of Research and other Activities in Universities and Colleges of Higher Education.Bristol: JM Consulting Ltd.

  • Becher, T. and Kogan, M. (1992). Process and Structure in Higher EducationLondon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, G.M., Dallinga-Hunter, C., Epelboin, Y., Frackman, E. and Jennings, D. (1994). Information Technology: Issues for Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, T.F. (1996). 'Planning the academic's workload: different approaches to allocating work to university academics', Higher Education32, 63–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G.B. and Olson, M.H. (1985). Management Information Systems. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, F.E. and Trist, E.L. (1960). 'Sociotechnical systems', in Churchman, C.W. and Verhulst, M.C. (eds.), Management Science, Models and Techniques, Vol 2. Pergamon Press.

  • Finlay, P.N. and Gregory, C. (1994). 'A management support system for directing and monitoring the activities of university staff', Journal of the Operational Research Society45, 641–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, B.R., Dukerich, J.M. and Fabian, F.H. (2000). 'The interpretation and resolution of resource allocation issues in professional organizations: a critical examination of the professional-manager dichotomy', Journal of Management Studies37(8), 1157–1187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourley, B. (2001). 'Watch out for scavengers', Times Higher Education Supplement 20th April, p.

  • Henkel, M. (2000). Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higson, H., Filby, J. and Golder, V. (1998). 'A critique of a model for an academic staff activity database developed to aid a department in strategic and operational decision-making', Perspectives2(1), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudon, K.C. and Laudon, J.P. (1998). Management Information Systems: New Approaches to Organization and Technology. Uppers Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leeds AUT (2001). Statement on University Workloads Policy Leeds Association of University Teachers, 17th September.

  • Marcus, L.R. (1999). 'The micropolitics of planning', The Review of Higher Education23(1), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, J., Duberley, J. and Cohen, L. (2000). 'The meaning professionals give to management.

  • Monbiot, G. (2000). Captive State: The Corporate Takeover of Britain. London: Macmillan. '

  • Nichoson, T.A.J. (1989). 'Planning and managing capacity', in Wild, R. (ed.), International Handbook of Production and Operations Management. London: Cassell Education, pp. 77–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Salinger, D. (2002). 'AUT Council Report', in Leeds AUT Newsletter. Leeds Association of University Teachers.

  • Sauve, P. and Stern, R.M. (eds.) (2000). GATS 2000: New Directions in Services Trade Liberalization. Washington: Brookings Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, P. (1995). The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1960). The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stowell, F., West, D. and Stansfield, M. (1997). 'Action research as a framework for IS research', in Mingers, J. and Stowell, F. (eds.), Information Systems: An Emerging Discipline?Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, pp. 159–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stringer, E.T. (1999). Action Research. Sage Publications.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, UK

    T.F. Burgess

  2. Department of Philosophy, University of Leeds, UK

    H.A. Lewis

  3. Departmental Support Unit, University of Leeds, UK

    T. Mobbs

Authors
  1. T.F. Burgess
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H.A. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Mobbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T.F. Burgess.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burgess, T., Lewis, H. & Mobbs, T. Academic workload planning revisited. Higher Education 46, 215–233 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024787907547

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024787907547

Search

Navigation