Bournemouth University has now implemented a new Workload Planning Framework for 2026–27.
This framework was not agreed with UCU, and it was not negotiated through collective bargaining. We engaged in feedback during the proposal stage, but the final model was authored, published, and implemented by the University Executive Team (UET) without appropriate consultation, negotiation, or agreement with BU UCU. BU UCU considers this action a violation of both our Local Agreement and the recent Joint Statement between Bournemouth University and UCU: Bournemouth University Redundancies & Changes to Academic Delivery.
We understand most members will not have time to read the full documentation. This post sets out what the framework actually does in practice — and what it is likely to mean for your workload, your research, and your ability to plan your work over time.
A shift in how workload is defined
At first glance, the model looks familiar. It is still based on annual hours (1,626 for a full-time member of staff), and work is still divided into teaching, research, and citizenship.
What has changed is how those hours are decided.
Under the new framework, workload is no longer built up from a detailed account of what staff actually do. Instead, it is built from pre-defined tariffs — fixed values assigned to activities such as teaching, marking, supervision, and leadership roles.
For example:
- Teaching is counted as timetabled hours, with preparation calculated using a fixed multiplier
- Marking is allocated using a standard formula per student
- Roles such as Programme Leader are assigned fixed hour bands based on student numbers
These values are not negotiated locally. They are set centrally and applied across the institution.
Crucially, the policy states that workload planning does not attempt to record every individual task . Instead, large areas of work — particularly administrative, pastoral, and citizenship activity — are grouped into broad categories.
In practice, this means that a significant amount of work becomes less visible within the model.
Central control and annual change
The most important structural change is where control now sits.
The tariffs that determine how much time your work “counts” for are set annually by the University Executive Team. They are explicitly linked to financial sustainability and institutional planning, not staff career development or wellbeing.
This has two direct consequences.
First, workload values are no longer stable. The amount of time allocated to a task can change from year to year, depending on institutional priorities and budget constraints.
Second, there is no built-in mechanism for collective agreement over these changes. The framework allows for annual adjustment of workload values without negotiation, meaning that the intensity of work can increase through tariff changes alone.
This creates a system where workload is not just allocated — it is continuously adjustable by UET, who conduct none of the front-line work of the university.
Planning becomes short-term
Because tariffs and allocations are reviewed annually, the framework makes long-term planning significantly more difficult.
This is particularly clear in the research model.
All staff are required to submit a Personal Research, Innovation and Enterprise Plan (PRIEP), setting out their research activity, outputs, and plans for the coming year. All staff receive a baseline allocation for research (175 hours), which is expected to cover maintaining an active research profile.
Additional research time is not guaranteed. It must be applied for, and is allocated by management through a banding system:
- Band 1 (Enhanced): up to 150 additional hours for significant contributions
- Band 2 (Substantial): up to 300 additional hours for major, strategically aligned activity (meaning, even if your research is top-notch, if management doesn’t think it serves the university’s strategy, you won’t be allocated hours)
These allocations are decided through a two-stage process involving Heads of School and a central panel, with final sign-off by senior leadership. We do not know what the exact process is, what the detailed criteria are, how staff will be judged, how research hours will be allocated to be equitable, or if there will be any quality assurance. We do know that this process will introduce a significant increase in workload for the managers tasked with completing it on an annual basis, for which UET has offered no answer.
Importantly, the total amount of additional research time is limited by a fixed institutional “cost envelope”. Not all strong or credible plans can be supported in any given year. In effect, research time beyond the baseline becomes a competitive, annually allocated resource.
This has clear implications:
- Research planning becomes tied to yearly allocation cycles
- Longer-term or exploratory work is harder to sustain
- Continuity of research time is not guaranteed
Even where a research trajectory is multi-year, the allocation that supports it is decided one year at a time.
Reduced visibility and increased inequality risk
A consistent theme across the framework is simplification — fewer categories, broader allocations, less detailed accounting of work.
While this may improve consistency on paper, it has implications for how workload is experienced. When large areas of activity are grouped into broad categories (particularly “citizenship”), it becomes harder to see who is doing what, how work is distributed within teams, and where additional or uneven burdens fall.
The Equality Impact Assessment acknowledges concerns that workload may be distributed unevenly, particularly in areas such as citizenship work, which are often taken on disproportionately by women and minoritised staff.
At the same time, the system relies on managerial allocation decisions, aggregated categories of time, and limited granularity in reporting. This combination creates a risk that existing inequalities are harder to identify, invisible work remains unrecognised, and workload differences become less transparent across teams.
Research allocation and unequal outcomes
The research banding system introduces a further layer of potential inequality, because additional research time is limited, allocated competitively, and partly based on strategic alignment.
There is an unmitigated risk that access to research time varies significantly across disciplines, career stages, and types of research activity.
The criteria for allocation include:
- perceived quality and value of the work
- likelihood of delivery
- alignment with institutional priorities
- affordability within the overall budget
While these criteria are set out at a high level, how they are applied in practice — and how consistency is ensured — is less clear.
Appeals are also limited. Staff can challenge decisions only on procedural or factual grounds, not on academic judgement or prioritisation decisions.
This means that decisions about who receives additional research time are difficult to challenge, even where staff disagree with the outcome.
Limited consideration of different staff groups
The framework includes general references to equality, diversity, and career stage. However, there is limited detail on how the system will operate for specific groups, including:
- early career researchers
- staff with high teaching loads
- staff returning from leave
- staff undertaking doctoral study alongside their role
For staff PGRs in particular, the expectation is that research activity should support progression of their doctorate, but there is little detail on how workload allocation will be adjusted to make this achievable in practice.
More broadly, while the framework references career development, it is not structured around supporting individual academic trajectories. Instead, it focuses on deliverability of planned activity, alignment with institutional priorities, and efficient allocation of time within available resources.
A more managed model of academic work
Taken together, these changes represent a shift in how academic work is organised.
Workload is:
- defined through centrally set tariffs
- adjusted annually in line with institutional priorities
- allocated within a fixed resource envelope
- monitored through governance structures reporting to UET
Research time beyond a baseline is:
- planned in advance
- evaluated
- allocated competitively
- subject to affordability constraints
And large areas of work are:
- grouped into broad categories
- less visible at the level of individual tasks
This does not automatically determine how the framework will operate in every School or Faculty. Much will depend on local implementation.
However, the structure of the model places greater control at institutional level, and reduces the role of detailed, locally negotiated workload arrangements.
We want to hear from you
We are running a short survey for members on your opinions of this workload planning framework, and the action BU UCU should now take as a branch. Please keep an eye out in your email inbox for “yoursay @ ucu.org.uk” for the survey link.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
Your BU UCU Executive Committee
Discover more from Bournemouth University University and College Union (BU UCU)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
