Mandate: GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING ACADEMIC STAFF PROFILE PER DEPARTMENT

ITEM 6.6 of the Academic committee agenda

Addendum B to: Policy on: “The appointments, promotions and duties of Academic Staff” as approved by Senate on 05/03/2007.

INTRODUCTION

A Task Team was established by the Academic Committee to propose a staff profile for Academic departments. The outcome of such an exercise is to align and standardized academic staff profiles across the 56 newly established academic departments.

The methodology applied was based on analysing the current situation for all new consolidated departments and faculties as approved and implemented from 1 January 2007.

A benchmarking exercise was undertaken with the purpose to compare Academic Staff profiles of UoT’s, Universities and Comprehensive Universities.

The task team has also used various parameters and indicators that guided the process.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1	Flexible Structure vs Fixed Structure

It was evident that two schools of thought still exist with regard to the rationale of fixed structures versus a more flexible structure. It was necessary to compare the two different structures. An analysis indicated the advantages and disadvantages of the two structures (Table 1).

TABLE 1: FIXED STRUCTURE

Advantages of a Fixed Structure	Disadvantages of a Fixed Structure
A fixed structure is documented in an establishment register supported by documented policies and procedures and provides consistency in creating upgrading, freezing and abolishment of posts.	If the fixed profile is already a reality in the department, promotions are lost as a motivation factor for research and publication outputs. If there are no prospects of promotions good staff who are already qualifying or on the brink of completing further studies may be lost for the institution.
Provides the basis for a cost effective budgeting process	Careful planning has to be done within a fixed salary budget.
Serves as the starting point for the development of a person power plan for the Institution.	A department may stagnate after some time if there is no staff turn around.
Ensures that correct ratios exist within the Institution i.e. Snr Lecturers / Lecturers/Jnr. Lecturers
Provides a basis for control to the EMC	It does not empower HoD’s as the post structure is approved by EMC
Staff development can be planned through the specific Junior Lecturer category.	The fixed profile will make it very hard if not impossible to develop trainee lecturing staff from the designated groups, in the scarce disciplines.
In the current transparent promotion policy all staff will know which posts are still available in a department and could equally aspire and apply for promotion	The fixed system would restrict the specific needs whereas the flexible system can, if and when required, be applied as fixed but not vice versa.

TABLE 2: FLEXIBLE STRUCTURE

Advantages of a Flexible Structure	Disadvantages of a Flexible Structure
In our developmental phase some staff may still be busy with bettering of qualifications and therefore not fit into the fixed structure.	Can create a liability to the institution in that temporary/contract appointments can develop into expectations for permanent appointments
Promotions can be used as motivation to study or to hasten up the completion of studies or for research and publication outputs	Positions can disappear when the institution has financial difficulty.
The Faculty and departments should get a fixed number of senior lecturer equivalents in terms of staff salary budget and the Heads of Departments and EXCO should manage this.	A flexible structure cannot be implemented on its own. Permanent employees are already in a fixed structure by virtue of their appointments
Appointments structured to the needs of a department at a specific point in time. A post should be kept vacant and part time lecturers should be appointed with the funds. The flexible system will allow the head of department to manage human resources to the direct needs of the department.	Can lead to inequity in the treatment of staff members within the different faculties of the institution
All in all it will free enhance and strengthen the hands of managers in staff development and general management of the department that will best suit the faculty, staff and industry served.	Will complicate the functioning of support functions due to different approaches by different faculties.
Is open for mismanagement of a salary budget, as the allocation does not support the strategic direction of the institute.

Conclusion:

Each type of structure has its own merits.

2.2	Benchmarking

Benchmarking TUT against a university such as the University of Pretoria (UP) informed the areas that need improvement in terms of performance and productivity of the academic staff although the institution is an established Research University. Comparison was also planned amongst UoT and Comprehensive Universities with a specific target of University of Johannesburg (UJ) and CAPUT as a UoT. However most of the institutions have been through a merger and the replies indicated a lack of quality data, or structures that are in the process of development. The only true comparison was therefore with the University of Pretoria (UP).

UP Academic Staff Profile

At UP, the junior lecturer and lecturer contingent of the lecturing staff component constituted 40% while 35% of the lecturing component was senior lecturers, 10% associate professors and 15% academic professors (Fig 1). This analysis was based on an integrated academic staff allocation model which included workload norms.

Fig 1: University of Pretoria Academic Staff per Occupation Title

METHODOLOGY USED

The task team decided to determine the current academic staff profiles per department by cascading information from faculties down to the department level. The purpose was to determine actual academic profile in TUT as well as per Faculty and Department.

Secondly, the data was drawn from the ITS system and sent to various faculties for verification and corrections on the Human Resources personnel system. The results of this exercise were that only 4 faculties verified and corrected the HR data which was consequently sent to HR for corrections on the system. The following approach was agreed upon:

The proposed occupational title structure was to be used with only five ranks viz. Professors, Associate Professors, Senior Lecturer, Lecturer as well as Junior Lecturer as approved in the policy. TUT has inherited other ranks known as Principal Lecturer, Head of Department and Principal Lecturer/Associate Professor. In order to simplify the task, all other ranks were classified under Senior Lecturer. Therefore an analysis per department was done according to the 5 identified ranks.

The task team analysed each departmental profile through the identification of 8 parameters. The decision was taken to use headcounts (HC), FTE’s (Full Time Equivalent) and TIU (Teaching Input Units) generated by the faculty to determine the size of the particular environment. Staff : student FTE ratio’s, ROU and the staff and programme profile (Cert, NHC, ND, B.Tech, M & D. Tech) gave indications of efficiency and shape.

4.	SITUATION ANALYSIS

TUT Academic Profile (2006)

Tshwane University of Technology employed 855 permanent academic staff (HEMIS data) for the year 2006 of which 7.7% were on Junior Lecturer level; 48.1% on Lecturer level; 37.7% on Senior Lecturer level; 2.4% Associate Professors and 4.1% Professors (Fig 2).

The Senior Lecturer component is made up of the consolidation of Principal Lecturer level as well as Heads of department as the official occupational title and substantive post.

Fig 2: Permanent Academic Staff by Occupational Title

It is clear that, compared to UP the Snr Lecturer component of 37,7% compare well to the 35% component of UP. The Junior Lecturer/Lecturer component of TUT indicates a 55,8% compared to the 40% of UP. It is clear that UP, as a Research University, Professor and Associate Professors component should be higher than TUT (4,1% and 2,4%) which is still on a developmental trajectory. The similar rationale was applied on department level.

Departmental profiles per department

The data as currently on the ITS system and the data reported by the Deans in the Faculty Annual Reports (2006) – Senate submissions, differed. Therefore the Deans were asked to audit and verify the data used for each departmental profile. This information was sent to the HR Directorate to rectify the ITS data. Each profile used is available on request. It must also be noted that there are Research Professors that are linked to a Deans office and not a specific academic department – this must also be corrected.

This process resulted in the following findings:

The 56 Academic departmental profiles differ vastly within TUT and can therefore not be used to propose a fixed staff profile.

These academic staff profiles are not aligned with the programme and student enrolment profiles and therefore no uniform or hierarchical structure can be proposed based on the current situation.

Recommendations:

The academic staff profile of an academic department should reflect the needs of the department and will therefore differ.

The Academic Staff Profile on Institutional level should be a strategic decision that is based on the PQM profile and the strategic drive to increase Research output.

PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE STAFF PROFILE PER ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT

From the previous discussion points and information is it clear that neither a fixed nor flexible structure will suit TUT’s needs.

Recommendation:

It is proposed that specific needs determine the departmental staff profile within the Teaching Input Unit (TIU) generation of the Faculty. The needs of the department will be informed by the 8 parameters as indicated in Table 7.

Institutional context – TIU vs SLE

TUT is currently funded for 72 103 TIU. This forms 69% of the total block grants received from government, which relates currently to a 6,57% share on National level. Therefore each faculty generates a certain share of the total funded 72 103 TIU. The TIU’s relates strategically to 45 308 FTE. As TUT wants to move towards a staff : student FTE ratio of 1:33 it implies that 56 TIU needs to be generated for each SLE funded. A TIU is the weighted FTE within the new Funding Framework.

Therefore if TUT are only funded for 72 103 TIU, then the available pool for SLE’s is 1288 if 100% of the TIU’s are utilized towards SLE application.

Therefore the SLE allocation per department will be calculated as follows:

Weighted FTE = TIU generated

If:	56 TIU = 1 SLE

Then:	TIU generated/ department	= (n) of SLE’s per department

56

Thus: If the cost of the second last notch of a Senior Lecturer Equivalent (Post level 7) is used then the current cost of 1 SLE = R 410 237. This will increase as the salary packages per SLE increases. The management of the SLE will be done through a unit system in the HR Directorate. The unit system will give a sound base for budget control and prevent over spending and a salary creep. The responsible line manager will have more flexibility to align the structure needs with the budget demands.

Units will be allocated to a Faculty/Department based on the number of SLE as generated through the TIU. Each post level will therefore be captured as a fraction of a unit in relation to I SLE.

Therefore the number of SLE’s available will be translated to units as indicated in the following diagram.

TABLE 3: CALCULATION OF THE COST PER SLE FOR ALL POST LEVELS

COST PER UNIT R4 102.37
POST LEVEL	POST	TOTAL COST to COMPANY	UNITS (PERMANENT)	UNITS (TEMPORARY)
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10	72,365 79,807 85,414 94,920 102,084 124,706 140,223 178,237 210,172	17.6 19.5 20.8 23.1 24.9 30.4 34.2 43.4 51.2	16.1 17.6 18.8 20.8 22.3 27.3 30.5 38.8 45.6
9	Junior Lecturer	255,514	62.3	55.4
8	Lecturer	339,661	82.8	73.6
7	Senior lecturer	410,237	100.0	88.8
6	Ass. Professor	498,810	121.6	108.0
5	Professor	597,570	145.7	129.2

Therefore: 1 SLE = 100 units.

Recommendation:

The TIU generated be translated to SLE for planning purposes and units for budget control.

DoE Weightings

The DoE (1999) has also provided weightings through which Higher Education Institutions can determine the number of Academic (Instructional/Research) posts per level. The following table portrays the ideal situation within a University and is derived from the DoE weightings.

TABLE 4: DETERMINING ACADEMIC STAFF PROFILES ACCORDING TO DoE

POST LEVEL	POST	DoE WEIGHTING	TRANSLATED INTO A FACTOR
5	Full Professor	0,052	1
6	Associate Professor	0,145	3
7	Senior Lecturer	0,313	6
8	Lecturer	0,490	10
TOTAL	1	20

Note: The DoE weighting is provided per 1000. For this purpose it has been calculated to an accumulative weight of 1. This weighting does not make provision for Jnr Lecturer level.

PROCESS FLOW

FORMULA

TIU → SLE x DoE weighting per post level = (n) posts for that post level.

56

Note: 1)	DoE guidelines do not make provision for a Jnr Lecturer position

As TUT are funded for only 72103 TIU the funded TIU/department will be applicable.

Recommendation:

The weightings be applied to the SLE component to determine the strategic profile of a department. If applied on Institutional level the strategic profile for TUT will be:

In practical terms it relates to the summary as provided as an example in Table 7.

TABLE 5: EXAMPLE OF INDICATORS PER FACULTY TO BE USED

FACULTY	FTE’s	TIU FUNDED	RESEARCH OUTPUT**	SLE
Sciences	19050.1	21257.1	39.27	379.6
Arts	1549.8	5545.6	1.1	99
Economics	4454.9	6973.8	1	124.5
Engineering	5227.8	15525.8	18.9	277.2
Humanities	16343.2	13583.6	20.18	242.6
ICT	18303.9	6672	2.12	119.1
Management	7395.2	12216	9.03	218.1

* * Research output units for the faculties are for the year 2005 and are not yet audited by the DoE

6.	PRINCIPLES

Principle One: Needs driven structure within TIU generation and funding.

It is proposed that the hierarchical development of the programme profile, student enrolment profile and the generation of Teaching Input Units (TIU) determine the staff profile of an academic department. Therefore the staff profile of the Academic department will change as the needs change. The strategic ratio of 1 SLE : 56 TIU (IOP, p22) or 1 FTE staff : 33 FTE student (SEP statements) should be applied as a criteria. Therefore the allocations of SLE’s to a department should be based on the TIU’s funded with a provision that 60% of Institutional salary budget will be allocated towards the Academic staff salary budget and 40% towards the Administrative Support of the institution (TAS, p8). The weightings per post level will also indicate the strategic profile of a department.

Principle Two: Fixed Administrative Support Staff within a 5SLE margin.

It is also clear that certain identified posts will be fixed as approved by Council in November 2006. The following diagram is the approved Generic and Specific structures per Faculty. Technical or other expertise needed within a department has to be motivated separately but should form part of the SLE allocation.

Diagram 1

Therefore each Faculty will be entitled to a maximum of eight (8) administrative posts – excluding the Associate Dean and its Secretarial post.

The functions of these posts are as follows:

Secretary to the Dean

Faculty Financial Officer

Faculty Administrator

Faculty Research Officer

Faculty Marketer

Faculty Coop Coordinator

Faculty Quality Officer

Faculty Safety Officer

The purpose of application of these posts is flexible. The unit cost of these posts will be determined as follows:

TABLE 6: UNITS VS SLE

Function	Post Level	Units	SLE
Secretary Financial Officer Administrator Research Officer Marketer Coop Coordinator Quality Officer Safety Officer	9 11 10 9 9 8 8 11	62,3 43,4 51,2 62,3 62,3 82,8 82,8 43,4	0,62 0,43 0,51 0,62 0,62 0,83 0,83 0,43
TOTAL	4,89

Note:	The post levels are based on the current situation and are subject to change when the match & place exercise focuses on the job grading.

Recommendation:

It is proposed that not more than 5 SLE’s be allocated towards the 8 administrative posts (excluding the Associate Dean and its Secretary).

Faculties to motivate SLE allocation to DVC for additional support staff through a needs analysis.

The Departmental administrative support staff will be determined according to the criteria as stated in the Addendum A of the policy “The appointments, promotions and duties of Academic Staff” “which relates to an additional minimum 0, 43 SLE (if post level 11).

CRITERIA

In order to determine what the particular hierarchical profile of a particular Department should be and if the department qualify for additional position(s)/post, the following set of criteria is provided to be used as guideline. These must be seen as guidelines only as it is extremely difficult to define a fixed structure due to the diverse nature of all the different departments at TUT.

Criteria one: Hierarchical Academic department staff profile:

Each department should have the flexibility to adjust the needed academic staff profile per level to its needs. The Student Profile, Programme Profile, Strategic Staff Profile and Research Output Profile should inform the needs. Research output profile can be used as an indication of the number of Professors. The necessary parameters that can be used are as follows:

TABLE 7: PARAMETERS AND INDICATORS TO BE USED

Student Profile	Programme Profile	Research Output	Strategic Staff Profile
Head Count (HC) FTE TIU FTE ratio - (Staff:student)	(n) of Certificates (n) of NH Cert. (n) of ND (n) of B Tech (n) of M Tech (n) of D Tech	Research Output Units	(n) of Jnr. Lecturers (n) of Lecturers (n) of Snr Lecturers (n) of Associate Prof (n) of Prof.

Criteria two: Size

It is recognised that size on its own cannot be a deciding factor. However the number of FTE students and the TIU generated should be a contributing factor in deciding the number of Instructional/Research staff based upon a strategic ratio of 1 SLE : 56 TIU. The TIU generated will be adjusted to the number of TIU funded.

Criteria three: Complexity and PQM

Some departments are responsible for more than one qualification of a programme offering and sometimes the different programmes are very diverse in nature. The PQM also refers to the different levels of undergraduate and postgraduate programmes offered by a department. The appointment of the number of Jnr Lecturer, Lecturer, Snr Lecturers and Professors, as proposed by the Policy: “Appointment, Promotions and Duties of Academic Staff” will therefore be determined by the number and level of programmes as well as the diverse nature of these programmes.

Criteria four: Service Subjects

In cases where a programme has service subjects, but receives services from a Service Department, the TIU’s are generated by the service department and therefore allocated to the service department in the format of SLE’s.

Criteria five: Multi Learning Sites

Where a department is responsible for a particular programme on more than one learning site, it may also contribute to the complexity of a particular programme. The complexity of educational offerings within a multi campus milieu will decrease with the consolidation of programmes on the targeted learning site. However, the complexity will still exist if a programme is also offered on the distance learning sites for which a number of SLE’s have to be allocated.

CONCLUSIONS

It is evident that alignment of the Academic Staff Profile with Academic departments is possible through the implementation of a standardized practice of SLE allocation through TIU generation, and managed by Units. Establishing such a practice need to be supported by a migration strategy where cross subsidization will take place.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Academic Committee approves the following recommendations:

The Academic Staff Profile of academic departments will differ and should be determined by the needs of the department.

The Academic Staff Profile of a department will be flexible according to the programme-, student- and research output profile within 60% of the Salary budget allocation of the institution. The administrative support staff per Faculty will be as per approved structures.

The staff : student ratio of 1 SLE : 56 TIU should be used as a strategic indicator to determine the number of SLE per department.

The cost of the administrative support staff / technical support staff for the Faculty should not exceed 5 SLE’s with the provision of motivations for additional administrative staff to the DVC: TLT, if needed.

The national weightings be used as a guideline to determine the number of posts per post level.

A migration strategy allows for an implementation period of 5 years which co-inside with the relocation process.

Convenor:	Dr. E L van Staden	: Director: Strategic Management Support

Task Team members:	Prof F Otieno	: Dean: Faculty of Engineering and Building

Mr J Botes	: Representative for Faculty of Engineering

Dr S Mukhola	: Dean: Faculty of Humanities

Dr S Swanepoel	: Dean: Faculty of Management

Mr A Phalane	: MIS Report Developer

Dr J Pieterse	: Representative for Faculty of Science