Joint Negotiating Committee for Higher Education Staff
ACADEMIC ROLE PROFILES
March 2004
(Amended January 2005)
open this page as a word document
GUIDELINES FOR USE OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF ACADEMIC ROLE PROFILES
Context
The Framework Agreement
The Framework Agreement for the Modernisation of Pay Structures established a Technical Group to oversee the development of a library of indicative role profiles for academic staff and associated guidance on their use, to assist institutions in the process of implementing a new grading structure. Use of this library is not intended as a substitute for proper application of job evaluation processes, but as a means to help in the application of those with a light touch.
The guidance given below is intended to inform the processes developed at institution level for assimilating academic staff into new grading and pay structures. The practicalities of these processes will need to take account of local needs and should be developed in partnership with recognised trade unions, in accordance with the spirit of the Framework Agreement and the JNCHES guidance on Role Analysis and Job Evaluation.
That guidance highlights the importance of using an analytical scheme which is capable of evaluating roles (or jobs) in terms of the various demands made on them. The purpose of using job evaluation is to determine the relative value or size of roles so that a rank order of comparative worth can be established. Use of job evaluation also means that decisions about the grading of roles can be made consistently and transparently, helping to satisfy legal requirements about equal pay for work of equal value.
Technical Group
The Technical Group established under the Framework Agreement included representatives from the AUT, NATFHE, EIS and UCEA . The remit of the Group was to oversee the development of a library of indicative role profiles for academic staff and to publish an agreed library and user guidance, related to the commended model pay structure in Appendix C of the Framework Agreement. Therefore the guidance given below is mainly relevant to those institutions who will implement the model structure in Appendix C 1 or a close variant of that, but others may also find it useful.
National Library of Role Profiles
This national library of role profiles covers academic staff, with profiles for three mixes of activity – largely Research, largely Teaching and Scholarship and a balance of Teaching and Research – over five levels 2 . The latter create a rank order that can be mapped against the model grading structure.
The role profiles are indicative, not definitive, and are intended to describe the demands and responsibilities required of most members of academic staff employed by UK HE institutions.
The profiles provide an analytical mechanism to help inform grading decisions in ways that are transparent and will satisfy the requirements of legislation and case law. They are intended to be used in conjunction with a job evaluation scheme to ensure that all roles found within an institution are analysed and compared using a common approach, as outlined in the JNCHES guidance on role analysis and job evaluation.
The library role profiles have been developed in partnership with the trade unions to provide a simple and straightforward mechanism for analysing academic roles. They were formed from examples of evidence of role requirements supplied by a range of institutions and have been subjected to testing in others. This has been done to ensure that the profiles are:
• typical
• representative
• practically useful
• capable of being analysed using the job evaluation tools used in the sector
• acceptable to academic members of staff and their union representatives.
Whilst the development and testing of the library profiles has been undertaken as thoroughly as practicable, inevitably there is no experience yet of their operational use in HE institutions. UCEA and the academic unions therefore intend to review the profiles, and this guidance, in the light of feedback on their early use; and, if necessary, to agree appropriate revisions.
Use
The primary reason for creating the national library of academic role profiles is to facilitate initial assimilation of the majority of academic staff to the pay structure model in Appendix C of the Framework Agreement, where institutions decide to adopt this approach. The profiles have been designed to be used in conjunction with the job evaluation schemes in use in the sector, not as a substitute. As some institutions have not yet developed their use of job evaluation, the headings used in the national library role profiles could be used to analyse academic roles. However, some appropriate and defensible method must be found to compare academics with all other roles in the same institution.
The recommended process for use of the profiles is outlined below. Institutions are strongly advised to consider the operational implications of the guidance and determine locally with their partner trade unions how to translate it into practice.
Stage 1 Adopting the national library of role profiles
The national library of role profiles has been developed across a range of institutions to provide generally applicable definitions of academic work with varying mixes of activity at each of five levels. It is expected that most members of academic staff will be covered by these profiles.
However, some changes to the library profiles may be required to take account of variations in local circumstances, practice and terminology. This will be particularly the case in small or specialist institutions or to take account of the particular circumstances of certain subject departments – where issues of scale and detail may arise. Any changes should be agreed locally with the recognised trade unions.
Additionally – to help ensure ease and consistency of interpretation, and to assist with scoring under their selected role analysis scheme - institutions in collaboration with their partner unions may wish to elaborate parts of the profiles so that they readily relate to typical local activities, or to add examples of such activities, Where such an approach is found useful, the selection of such examples should be drawn from those found to be common or typical in role analysis or similarly systematic exercises.
Once the library role profiles have been interpreted and elaborated in this way for use at an institution, each role profile will need to be analysed and scored using the HEI's preferred job evaluation scheme.
Stage 2 Development of local benchmark roles
If existing role analysis information on the work of academic role-holders is insufficient for the purposes of making fair and transparent grading decisions, a set of benchmark roles should be developed. These should cover the full range of roles and include examples of typical and atypical roles. The sample of roles should normally allow between 5% and 10% of the total number of academic staff employed in the institution to be included. However, this percentage may be too low to ensure adequate coverage in small institutions.
The selection of roles used as benchmarks should ensure adequate representation of those roles typically occupied by men and by women. It should also contain a representative number of part-time and full-time roles and be equality-proofed in terms of contractual status, race and disability.
(Detailed guidance on the selection and use of benchmark roles has been published to support the use of HERA, in conjunction with the trade unions.)
The benchmark roles should be analysed using the institution's preferred job evaluation scheme. (The HERA scheme allows for the evidence of role requirements needed to create the profiles to be gathered in a number of different ways. These include the use of group discussions, the completion of brief questionnaires, or desktop (soon to become online) analysis. The Hay scheme can also be applied in a variety of ways that support the development of robust local benchmark roles).
The analysis will provide a points score for each of the local benchmark roles. The scores will create a rank order of roles that can be set against the reference points provided by the national library of role profiles. The points scores will also enable academic roles to be ranked in relation to all other roles found in the institution, thus achieving the overarching imperative of ensuring equal pay for work of equal value across all employees.
Stage 3 Allocating individual members of staff to benchmark roles
Once the benchmark roles have been identified, individual members of staff will each be allocated to a specific benchmark role. Decisions regarding this allocation will need to be informed by those who understand the role and have responsibility for the work of the role-holder(s). Normally this will be: by a line manager, in agreement with the role-holder, or by a panel established for the purpose; in accordance with locally agreed procedures; and by identification of the relevant local benchmark role profile on the basis of “best fit”.
In the allocation of roles against local benchmarks, it will be important to set to one side any activities for which the role-holder is rewarded separately – eg any extra or temporary duties for which s/he receives a specific responsibility allowance in addition to the appropriate salary for her/his grade. Allocation to a benchmark is for the purpose of determining grading, not total remuneration.
Stage 4 Matching local benchmark roles against the national library role profiles
The national library of role profiles provides a series of reference points against which local benchmark roles can be compared. This should be done analytically, using a common method for evaluating the two, with the components of the chosen job evaluation scheme as a basis for comparison of the two sets of profiles. The range of profiles in the library, at each of the five levels, should provide a basis for matching most benchmark roles – wherever they are positioned in the continuum of the mix of teaching and research activities and with whatever additions of administrative and other tasks. The key focus should be on determining the level of demand on the role, not its particular balance of activities.
Thus, for instance, the institution may have benchmark roles that are wholly for research. These could be matched for Level against the library profiles for largely research roles, with limited consideration of the “teaching and learning support” element of the library profiles.
Especial care will be needed in the matching of profiles at Level 5. The library profiles for this level represent indicative minima: some HEIs will have more demanding roles which may not be separately designated as a higher level. In particular, where professorial and head of department roles are not co-terminous it will be important to recognise the academic leadership responsibilities of professors (eg for sub-disciplines and for particular activities across the larger department), and to identify the respects in which managerial responsibilities of department heads exceed or substitute for other Level 5 activity. Where the latter is temporary, additional responsibility payments may be more appropriate than substantive regrading.
Stage 5 Matched
If a benchmark role is broadly comparable with one of the library profiles, the former could then be graded in line with the grading for the matched library profile. Rather than focus on the precise points score achieved for an individual benchmark role, it is normal practice to group roles together for grading purposes, each grade having a band of points produced by the job evaluation scheme. These bands will be developed locally in conjunction with trade unions to reflect each particular institution's requirements and coverage of all staff.
Matching of the scored library profiles and the local benchmark roles will create fixed points in the grading structure which can then be used for the assimilation of remaining roles and for comparison with all other roles within the institution.
The concept of “best fit” should be employed to determine whether the national library role profiles and the local benchmark profiles are broadly comparable. This is a matter of judgement that needs to be defensible, both as regards the fit of each element of the profiles and the range of elements broadly matched. The precise meaning of “comparable” must therefore be determined locally in conjunction with partner trade unions. As a rough guide, a benchmark role and national library role profile should be some three-quarters the same overall, and adequately cover the key elements, to be regarded as “matched”.
At some institutions, particularly perhaps small or specialist HEIs, the mix of activities typically required of role-holders will be such that local benchmark profiles will not readily match with the library profiles in terms of the combination of activities detailed for particular levels under each element. In such cases, institutions and their partner unions could consider using the library profiles as reference points for grading in respect of their total job weight – ie by comparing the total score for the library profiles under the selected role analysis scheme with that for the local benchmark roles.
Stage 6 Not matched
If a benchmark role does not have a best fit match with any of the profiles in the national library a full analysis using the institution's chosen job evaluation scheme should be carried out.
The resulting points score can then be used to allocate the role in question into the grading framework created by matching local benchmark roles with the national library.
Stage 7 Assimilating non-benchmark roles
It is likely that most institutions will have some specialist or particular roles that would not fall within their own benchmarks nor have a ready match with the library profiles.
Each of these should be analysed using the chosen job evaluation scheme. This will produce a points score which will enable the roles to be assimilated into the grading framework created by the matching of benchmark roles against the national library.
Process
The matching of local benchmarks against the library profiles needs to use processes that are:
• transparent
• analytical
• participative.
Working in partnership with the trade unions should achieve these aims and ensure that the process and outcomes will be generally acceptable. The benefits of adopting this way of working should include smooth transition to new grading and pay structures and a reduced number of appeals.
Where there are no appropriate existing procedures, consideration should be given to the establishment of a steering group to oversee the process and provide strategic guidance – comprising representatives from the employing institution and trade unions. All members should be trained and have good understandings of the practicalities of equal opportunities policies and legislation and of the institution's chosen job evaluation scheme. The JNCHES guidance on role analysis and job evaluation provides detailed advice on implementation and recommends that trade union representatives are provided with adequate training and sufficient paid facility time to enable them to participate fully in the process.
Role profiles should be created and scored by trained role analysts who then make recommendations on grading to a panel (or panels) set up to finalise decisions, or through such other arrangements as are locally agreed. This provides the required light touch and is know to facilitate consistency. It is also time effective and can lead to the development of high levels of internal expertise and professionalism.
Role analysts can be recruited from staff employed across the institution and include trade union representatives as well as HR professionals. It is recommended that no one role analyst should be expected to score a profile alone. Checks for consistency should be carried out across the outputs of the various role analysts, and the analysts should be encouraged to work together exchanging views and judgements on a regular basis.
Membership of any grading panel(s) will need to be carefully considered and it is strongly recommended that equal membership of “management” and the trade union side is achieved. Issues regarding the chairing and servicing of the panel will also require joint consideration.
All members of the panel(s) will require training, including on the need to take account of the impact group dynamics might have on the fairness and quality of decisions.
Systems will need to be put in place to ensure transparency and reassure employees of the fairness of the process.
Review and Appeals
All employees should be given the right to request a review of the grade to which they are allocated and to appeal against grading decisions. The detail of such local processes should be developed and agreed with partner trade unions.
It is expected that in may cases there will be agreement on three possible stages of review and appeal:
First, if a role-holder does not agree with the benchmark role to which s/he has been allocated, s/he should in the first instance raise the matter with those responsible for the initial allocation. It is possible that the matter could be resolved immediately by agreeing to allocate the role-holder to a different benchmark. This process should be facilitated by specific reference to the relevant graded local benchmark profiles, with decisions and the reasons for them being recorded and reported in accordance with locally agreed procedures.
Second, if the role-holder remains dissatisfied, s/he could have access to a formal review by the sort of joint grading panel outlined above, with locally agreed procedures including consideration of the relative correlation of the role-holder's profile with those for a range of local benchmarks.
Third, if the role-holder continues to dispute her/his grading, s/he should have access to a full role analysis conduct by a trained role analyst with her/his role being scored and allocated to a grade as outlined in Stage 6 above. This would be the final phase of review.
In the event that a role-holder wishes to raise a complaint regarding the way in which any phase of this evaluation has been conducted, they should make use of established local grievance procedures.
In developing appropriate processes, institutions and their partner unions should note in particular that equal pay legislation, and associated case law, requires that:
• the development of benchmarks is analytical, robust and representative;
• the process for allocating individual roles to benchmarks is transparent and conducted according to defined criteria;
• any staff dissatisfied with their allocation to a benchmark should be offered a full analytical evaluation of their role.
Relationship to development of individual roles and careers
The library of profiles should be used to inform grading decisions. The on-going development of specific roles within the institution needs to be discussed between the employee and their manager.
Use of the library should not restrict or alter the existing arrangements for determining role content or developing individuals. If over time the institution's requirements of particular roles change, such roles should be reviewed and if appropriate assigned to a different benchmark (which may be at the same grade or higher). Similarly, if the development needs of an individual – in terms of career progression or otherwise – point to change in their current role, there should be scope for discussion of this and for agreed revisions to their role leading, where appropriate, to their allocation to a different local benchmark.
1 read, where appropriate, in conjunction with the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between AUT and pre-92 HEIs, or the Memorandum of Understanding agreed between EIS/ULA and Scottish post-92 HEIs.
2 The library includes a profile for Teaching and Scholarship at Level 1 which the Technical Group considered appropriate for pre-92 HEIs, but not applicable in the post-92 part of the sector .
ROLE PROFILES
SECTION 1:
Teaching and Scholarship
SECTION 2:
Teaching and Research
SECTION 3:
Research
ROLE PROFILES: TEACHING AND SCHOLARSHIP
NB * THIS PROFILE ONLY AGREED AS APPLICABLE FOR PRE-92 HEIs
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Identify the need for developing the content or structure of modules with colleagues and make proposals on how this should be achieved. • Develop ideas for generating income and promoting the subject. • Develop ideas and find ways of disseminating and applying the result of scholarship. • Sole responsibility for the design and delivery of own modules and assessment methods. • Collaborate with colleagues on the implementation of assessment procedures. • Advise others on strategic issues such as student recruitment and marketing. • Contribute to the accreditation of courses and quality control processes. • Tackle issues affecting the quality of delivery within scope of own level of responsibility, referring more serious matters to others, as appropriate.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• As module leader or tutor, co-ordinate with others (such as support staff or academic colleagues) to ensure student needs and expectations are met. • Manage projects relating to own area of work and the organisation of external activities such as placements and field trips. • Be responsible for administrative duties in areas such as admissions, time-tabling, examinations, assessment of progress and student attendance.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands |
• Balance the pressures of teaching and administrative demands and competing deadlines.
|
11 Work environment |
• Depending on area of work and level of training received, may be expected to conduct risk assessment and take responsibility for the health and safety of others.
|
12 Expertise |
• Possess sufficient breadth or depth of specialist knowledge in the discipline to develop teaching programmes and the provision of learning support. • Use a range of delivery techniques to enthuse and engage students.
|
7 Pastoral care |
• Responsible for dealing with referred issues for students within own educational programmes. • Provide first line support for colleagues, referring them to sources of further help if required.
|
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Resolve problems affecting the delivery of courses within own educational programme and in accordance with regulations. • Make decisions regarding the operational aspects of own educational programme. • Contribute to decisions which have an impact on other related programmes. • Monitor student progress and retention. • Provide advice on strategic issues such as the balance of student recruitment, staff appointments and student and other performance matters. • Spotting opportunities for strategic development of new courses or appropriate areas of activity and contributing to the development of such ideas.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• Responsible for the delivery of own educational programmes. • Contribute to the overall management of the department in areas such as resource management, business and programme planning. • Be responsible for setting standards and monitor progress against agreed criteria for own area of responsibility. • Be involved in departmental level strategic planning and contribute to wider strategic planning processes in the institution. • Plan and deliver consultancy or similar programmes and ensure that resources are available. • Be responsible for quality, audit and other external assessments in own areas of responsibility.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands. |
† |
11 Work environment |
• Depending on area of work (e.g. laboratories, workshops, studios) may be expected to take responsibility for conducting risk assessments and reducing hazards.
|
12 Expertise |
• Required to be externally recognised scholar or teacher. • In-depth understanding of own specialism to enable the development of new knowledge and understanding within the field.
|
† Like all the elements, this builds on the demands in the profiles at lower levels. In this case there is no additional demand.
6 Teamwork |
• Develop and communicate a clear vision of the unit's strategic direction. • Ensuring the enactment of Institutional strategic plans. • Promote a collegiate approach and develop team spirit and team coherence. • Foster inter-disciplinary team working.
|
7 Pastoral care |
• Responsible for the initial resolution of all student issues within and outwith standard procedures. • Overall responsibility for welfare of staff drawing on specialist advice and support as required. • Ensure that an appropriate framework is developed and used for pastoral care issues.
|
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Determine academic standards within own areas of responsibility. • Contribute to the determination of the academic standards framework across the Institution • Determine the final allocation of resources within own area of responsibility. • Act as the final arbiter in local disputes. • Be party to strategic decisions at Institutional level • Lead the development of new and creative approaches in responding to teaching and learning challenges. • Initiate new and original solutions to problems. • Provide advice to external bodies.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• Take overall responsibility for the organising and deployment of resources within own areas of responsibility. • Contribute to Institutional planning and strategic development.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands.
|
† |
11 Work environment |
• Overall responsibility for health and safety in own areas of responsibility. • Ensure that appropriate risk management processes are operational.
|
12 Expertise |
• A leading authority and scholar in the subject, with a considerable national or international reputation. • Possess in depth knowledge of specialism to enable the development of new knowledge, innovation and understanding in the field. • A thorough understanding of institutional management systems and the wider higher education environment, including equal opportunities issues.
|
† Like all the elements, this builds on the demands in the profiles at lower levels. In this case there is no additional demand.
ROLE PROFILES: TEACHING AND RESEARCH
7 Pastoral care |
• Could be expected to act as a module tutor. • Be responsible for the pastoral care of students within a specified area.
|
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Identify the need for developing the content or structure of modules with colleagues and make proposals on how this should be achieved. • Develop ideas for generating income and promoting the subject. • Develop ideas and find ways of disseminating and applying the result of research and scholarship. • Sole responsibility for the design and delivery of own modules and assessment methods. • Collaborate with colleagues on the implementation of assessment procedures. • Advise others on strategic issues such as student recruitment and marketing. • Contribute to the accreditation of courses and quality control processes.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• As module leader or tutor, co-ordinate with others (such as support staff or academic colleagues) to ensure student needs and expectations are met. • Manage projects relating to own area of work.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands |
• Balance the pressures of teaching, research and administrative demands and competing deadlines.
|
11 Work environment |
• Depending on area of work and level of training received, may be expected to conduct risk assessment and take responsibility for the health and safety of others.
|
12 Expertise |
• Possess sufficient breadth or depth of specialist knowledge in the discipline to develop teaching and research programmes. • Use a range of delivery techniques to enthuse and engage students.
|
* where it is an established institutional practice at this level (not normally expected in post-92 HEIs)
7 Pastoral care |
• Responsible for dealing with referred issues for students within own educational programmes. • Provide first line support for colleagues, referring them to sources of further help if required.
|
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Resolve problems affecting the delivery of courses within own educational programme and in accordance with regulations. • Make decisions regarding the operational aspects of own educational programme. • Contribute to decisions which have an impact on other related programmes. • Provide advice on strategic issues such as the balance of student recruitment, staff appointments and student and other performance matters. • Spotting opportunities for strategic development of new courses or appropriate areas of activity and contributing to the development of such ideas.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• Responsible for the delivery of own educational programmes. • Contribute to the overall management of the department in areas such as budget management and business planning. • Be involved in departmental level strategic planning and contribute to wider strategic planning processes in the institution. • Plan and deliver research, consultancy or similar programmes and ensure that resources are available. • Contribute to the management of quality, audit and other external assessments.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands. |
† |
11 Work environment |
• Depending on area of work (e.g. laboratories, workshops, studios) may be expected to take responsibility for conducting risk assessments and reducing hazards.
|
12 Expertise |
• Required to be an externally recognised authority in the subject area. • In-depth understanding of own specialism to enable the development of new knowledge and understanding within the field. |
† Like all the elements, this builds on the demands in the profiles at lower levels. In this case there is no additional demand.
6 Teamwork |
• Promote a collegiate approach and develop team spirit and team coherence. • Foster inter-disciplinary team working. • Develop and communicate a clear vision of the unit's strategic direction.
|
7 Pastoral care |
• Responsible for the initial resolution of all student issues within and outwith standard procedures. • Overall responsibility for welfare of staff drawing on specialist advice and support as required. • Ensure that an appropriate framework is developed and used for pastoral care issues.
|
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Determine the final allocation of resources within own area of responsibility. • Act as the final arbiter in local disputes. • Be party to strategic decisions at Institutional level • Lead the development of new and creative approaches in responding to teaching and research challenges. • Initiate new and original solutions to problems. • Provide advice to external bodies.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• Take overall responsibility for the organising and deployment of resources within own areas of responsibility. • Contribute to Institutional planning and strategic development.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands. |
†
|
11 Work environment |
• Overall responsibility for health and safety in own areas of responsibility. • Ensure that appropriate risk management processes are operational.
|
12 Expertise |
• A leading authority in the subject, with a considerable national or international reputation. • Possess in depth knowledge of specialism to enable the development of new knowledge, innovation and understanding in the field. • A thorough understanding of institutional management systems and the wider higher education environment, including equal opportunities issues. |
† Like all the elements, this builds on the demands in the profiles at lower levels. In this case there is no additional demand.
ROLE PROFILES: RESEARCH
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands |
• Sensory and physical demands will vary from relatively light to a high level depending on the discipline and the type of work • Carry out tasks that require the learning of certain skills. • Balance with help the competing pressures of research and administrative demands and deadlines.
|
11 Work environment |
• Is required to be aware of the risks in the work environment and their potential impact on their own work and that of others.
|
12 Expertise |
• Possess sufficient breadth or depth of specialist knowledge in the discipline and of research methods and techniques to work within established research programmes. • Engage in continuous professional development. • Understand equal opportunity issues as they may impact on areas of research content.
|
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Assess, interpret and evaluate outcomes of research. • Develop new concepts and ideas to extend intellectual understanding. • Resolve problems of meeting research objectives and deadlines. • Develop ideas for generating income and promoting research area. • Develop ideas for application of research outcomes • Decide on research programmes and methodologies, often in collaboration with colleagues and sometimes subject to the approval of the head of the research programme on fundamental issues.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• Plan, co-ordinate and implement research programmes. • Manage the use of research resources and ensure that effective use is made of them. • Manage or monitor research budgets. • Help to plan and implement commercial and consultancy activities. • Plan and manage own consultancy assignments.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands |
• Balance the pressures of research and administrative demands and competing deadlines.
|
11 Work environment |
• Depending on area of work and level of training received, may be expected to conduct risk assessment and take responsibility for the health and safety of others.
|
12 Expertise |
• Possess sufficient breadth or depth of specialist knowledge in the discipline to develop research programmes and methodologies. • Use a range of delivery techniques to enthuse and engage students.
|
* where it is an established institutional practice at this level (not normally expected in post-92 HEIs)
6 Teamwork |
• Lead teams within areas of responsibility. • Ensure that teams within the department work together. • Act to resolve conflicts within and between teams.
|
7 Pastoral care |
• Responsible for dealing with referred issues for researchers within own project areas. • Provide first line support for colleagues, referring them to sources of further help if required.
|
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Resolve problems affecting the delivery of research projects within own area and in accordance with regulations. • Make decisions regarding the operational aspects of own research programme. • Contribute to decisions which have an impact on other related programmes. • Provide advice on issues such as ensuring the adequate balance of research projects, appointment of researchers and other performance matters. • Spotting opportunities for strategic development of new projects or appropriate areas of activity and contributing to the development of such ideas.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• Responsible for the delivery of own research programmes. • Contribute to the overall management of the department in areas such as budget management and business planning. • Be involved in departmental level strategic planning and contribute to wider strategic planning processes in the institution. • Plan and deliver research, consultancy or similar programmes, ensuring that resources are available and required income levels are achieved. • Contribute to the management of quality, audit and other external assessments e.g. the Research Assessment Exercise.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands.
|
† |
11 Work environment |
• Depending on area of work (e.g. laboratories, workshops, studios) may be expected to take responsibility for conducting risk assessments and reducing hazards.
|
12 Expertise |
• Required to be a nationally recognised authority in the subject area. • In-depth understanding of own specialism to enable the development of new knowledge and understanding within the field.
|
† Like all the elements, this builds on the demands in the profiles at lower levels. In this case there is no additional demand.
8 Initiative, problem-solving and decision-making |
• Determine the final allocation of resources within own area of responsibility. • Act as the final arbiter in local disputes. • Be party to strategic decisions at Institutional level • Lead the development of new and creative approaches in responding to research and commercial challenges. • Initiate new and original solutions to problems. • Provide advice to external bodies.
|
9 Planning and managing resources |
• Take overall responsibility for the organising and deployment of resources within own areas of responsibility. • Plan and implement research projects and monitor progress to ensure the achievement of financial and research objectives. • Contribute to Institutional planning and strategic development.
|
10 Sensory, physical and emotional demands.
|
† |
11 Work environment |
• Overall responsibility for health and safety in own areas of responsibility. • Ensure that appropriate risk management processes are operational. |
12 Expertise |
• A leading authority in the subject, with a considerable national or international reputation. • Possess in depth knowledge of specialism to enable the development of new knowledge, innovation and understanding in the field. • A thorough understanding of Institutional management systems and the wider higher education environment, including equal opportunities issues. |
† Like all the elements, this builds on the demands in the profiles at lower levels. In this case there is no additional demand.