You should have an email in your inbox, subject “IMPORTANT: BU’s Workload Planning proposal – what it means and how to respond” that includes links to BU’s workload planning framework proposal, and BU UCU’s analysis of these documents.

The University has released a proposed Workload Planning Framework (WLP) for consultation, intended to apply from 2026–27 onward. This post summarises what the proposed framework says, how it differs from the existing jointly agreed approach, and what its practical implications are for academic staff and students.

The summary below focuses in particular on how the proposed framework aligns with – or departs from – the University’s own stated commitments in BU2035, especially in relation to research, education, and people and culture. It is broken into four sections for a quick read:

• 1. Summary of the proposed WLP principles
• 2. Key points of impact for academic staff
  • a) Research time: a structural reduction with wider knock-on effects
  • b) Workload redistribution, not workload reduction
  • c) Transparency and accountability are weakened
  • d) Alignment with BU2035: values versus mechanisms
• 3. Guide to feeding back to the University
• 4. Background to the proposal and the consultation process

Make your voice heard: BOOK YOUR PLACE on WLP Framework feedback sessions (BU-hosted).

You can also post anonymously on the feedback Padlet, which will only remain open until 17 Feb 2026. Please note: Padlet allows anonymous posts, but anonymity depends on how the link is accessed. Members who wish to reduce the risk of identification should open the Padlet link in an incognito/private browser window, ensure they are logged out of all BU and Microsoft accounts, and avoid logging in when prompted. Absolute anonymity cannot be guaranteed on employer-linked platforms.

1. Summary of the proposed WLP principles

The proposed framework sets out a revised set of principles intended to govern how academic workload is planned, allocated, and reviewed. In headline terms, it emphasises:

• Executive assurance and consistency: workload planning is framed as a mechanism to support institutional planning, reporting, and assurance.
• Financial sustainability: tariffs and workload values are explicitly linked to affordability, benchmarking, and TRAC-informed financial planning.
• Simplification: reduced granularity in workload categories, with broader “bucket” allocations rather than detailed task-level recognition.
• Parity of esteem: recognition of different types of contribution (education, research, professional development, citizenship), without guaranteeing minimum time for each.
• Individual planning processes: annual workload confirmation supported by peer-group discussions and line management oversight.
• Equality and inclusion statements: procedural commitments to reasonable adjustments and anonymised equality monitoring.

Alongside the policy, the University has also released new operational documents, including a proposed tariff matrix and slides outlining how research time would be allocated in practice. These documents materially shape how the principles would operate day to day.

2. Key points of impact for academic staff

When read together, the proposed policy, tariffs, and operational materials represent a significant change from the existing framework agreed in 2019. The points below focus on practical consequences, rather than intent.

a) Research time: a structural reduction with wider knock-on effects

Under the current framework, all academic staff are allocated a minimum of 400 hours per year (pro rata) for research and scholarship.

The proposal replaces this with:

• a baseline allocation of 175 hours, and
• additional research time awarded through competitive bands, based on research plans, “track record”, strategic alignment, and affordability.

This has different implications for different groups of staff:

• For staff who want to research:
  Research time becomes conditional, competitive, and annually reassessed. Long-term planning becomes difficult, and those with heavy teaching, pastoral, leadership, or EDI workloads are structurally disadvantaged in demonstrating the “track record” required to secure additional hours.
• For staff who do not want to research:
  Accepting a 175-hour baseline does not remove workload pressure. The 225 hours removed from research do not disappear; they are reallocated elsewhere. In practice, this means more teaching, more administration, and more responsibility for absorbing gaps created by reduced professional services capacity.
  Importantly, staff would still be required to submit a research and scholarship plan every year, even if they do not wish to pursue research activity.
• For students and education quality:
  Reduced protected research time risks weakening the research-informed teaching environment the University continues to promote. Overloaded staff, regardless of role preference, are less able to provide high-quality education, supervision, and support.

Taken together, this change sits uneasily with BU2035’s stated ambitions around research, education quality, and reputation.

b) Workload redistribution, not workload reduction

The framework does not reduce the overall volume of work expected of academic staff. Instead, it redistributes time away from protected activities (particularly research) into less clearly bounded areas:

• broader “citizenship” and “capacity” allocations,
• increased teaching loads,
• and additional administrative and coordination work, much of it linked to ongoing reductions in professional support services.

This creates a real risk that work becomes less visible, less contestable, and harder to remove, even when workloads become unmanageable.

c) Transparency and accountability are weakened

The existing framework was built on visibility: staff could see how work was distributed and use that information to challenge inequity.

The proposed governance and operations arrangements explicitly state that:

• documentation will not routinely be published, and
• formal minutes may not be taken at operational level.

This reduces the ability of staff – and the University itself – to identify systemic problems, unintended consequences, or unequal outcomes over time.

d) Alignment with BU2035: values versus mechanisms

BU2035 commits the University to:

• valuing its people,
• fostering a supportive and inclusive culture,
• strengthening research and innovation,
• and delivering high-quality education.

The proposed WLP relies heavily on mechanisms that prioritise affordability, executive assurance, and simplified modelling.

There is a growing gap between values stated in BU2035 and mechanisms proposed in the workload framework, particularly where staff wellbeing, career development, and sustainable academic practice are concerned.

Poor research conditions and overstretched staff do not only affect individuals. They directly affect:

• student experience,
• NSS outcomes,
• league tables and REF performance,
• and the University’s ability to recruit and retain staff.

3. Guide to feeding back to the University

The consultation asks staff to comment on the proposed framework. Given limited time and capacity, feedback is likely to be most effective when it focuses on concrete impacts, rather than abstract principles.

You may wish to consider reflecting on:

• Your workload in practice
  What work currently takes significant time but is poorly captured by broad categories? What would happen to that work under less granular allocations?
• The redistribution of research time
  If 225 hours are removed from protected research time, where would that time realistically go in your role? Teaching? Administration? Covering gaps elsewhere? What would that mean for your students and your own sustainability?
• Career development and progression
  How would annual competitive allocation of research time affect your ability to plan your career, apply for promotion, or develop new areas of work?
• Equality and inclusion
  How might competitive, affordability-gated allocation processes affect staff with caring responsibilities, disabilities, heavy pastoral roles, or non-linear career paths?
• Transparency and trust
  How important is visibility of workload data, minutes, and decisions to your confidence that workload planning is fair?
• BU2035 commitments
  Do the mechanisms in the proposed framework support, or undermine, the University’s stated ambitions for research, education quality, and people and culture?

Feedback grounded in lived experience, rather than general statements of support or opposition, is harder to dismiss and more difficult to ignore.

4. Background to the proposal and the consultation process

The current proposal did not emerge from a jointly authored process.

While a workload planning working group existed, the core policy, tariffs, and plans for research & scholarship allocations were written entirely by management. Agreed opportunities for co-authorship and collective drafting were sidestepped or cancelled. Staff and trade union representatives were provided with an initial draft under confidentiality and given a short window to comment; the majority of these comments remain, as they were not taken on board by management.

Crucially, the proposed tariff matrix and the detailed plans for allocating research time were not shared for consultation with staff, Senate, or trade unions before being finalised and released.

This approach is difficult to reconcile with:

• existing joint agreements on workload planning, and
• commitments made during the resolution of the current trade dispute.

Consultation is meaningful only if feedback can shape outcomes. Past experience at BU gives staff reason to be concerned that this consultation risks becoming a procedural exercise rather than a genuine opportunity to revise the framework.

That context matters. Workload planning systems only function when staff trust both the process and the intent behind them.

---

BU UCU will continue to analyse the documents in detail and publish further material to support members in engaging with the consultation.

Illegitimi non carborundum

Your BU UCU Executive Committee