BU UCU continues to receive concerns from members regarding the implementation of the Personal Research, Innovation and Enterprise Plan (PRIEP) process under the university’s new workload planning framework.

These concerns relate not simply to individual outcomes, but to broader issues of transparency, consistency, fairness, workload allocation, and the ability of staff to meaningfully challenge decisions which may have significant implications for research careers and promotion pathways.

As colleagues will know, BU UCU raised substantial concerns during consultation on the wider Workload Planning Framework earlier this year. The union was not involved in designing the PRIEP allocation or moderation process, and many of the concerns now being raised by members reflect issues we warned about during consultation: namely, the risks created by opaque criteria, highly discretionary decision-making, and insufficiently transparent governance arrangements.

Under the current system, all academic staff receive a baseline allocation for research and scholarship activity, with additional hours allocated through Band 1 or Band 2 PRIEP applications. The university’s guidance states that allocation decisions are based on evaluative judgements regarding the “nature and quality” of activity, “strategic alignment” with university priorities, likelihood of delivery, individual context and trajectory, and affordability within a university-wide cost envelope. The guidance also explicitly states that the process is “evaluative, not based on numerical targets”. 

Members have raised concerns that this creates a highly subjective process without sufficiently transparent or assessable criteria regarding how Band 1 and Band 2 decisions are reached in practice.

The branch has received reports of:

• significant inconsistencies in how the process has been implemented across schools and faculties
• lack of clarity regarding how applications were comparatively assessed
• uncertainty regarding how “strategic alignment” was interpreted
• lack of transparency around moderation and affordability decisions

The branch is particularly concerned by reports that some applications which were considered substantively worthy of higher allocation were nonetheless reduced due to affordability constraints. However, colleagues report that no clear explanation has been provided regarding how those decisions were determined, what comparative methodology was used, or how affordability moderation was applied across the institution.

Members have also raised concerns about the appeals process itself.

The university’s guidance states that appeals are limited to procedural error, material misapplication of the criteria, or factual inaccuracy affecting the decision. At the same time, the guidance explicitly excludes disagreement with academic judgement, strategic priorities, or affordability decisions.

This means that staff are effectively prevented from challenging the substantive evaluative judgements underpinning allocation decisions, despite those decisions relying heavily on subjective and strategic interpretation.

Members have further reported receiving highly standardised appeal responses asserting only that:

• the process was followed
• criteria were applied appropriately
• no factual inaccuracies were identified

Colleagues report receiving little substantive explanation regarding how decisions were reached, how moderation was conducted, or how affordability considerations affected outcomes.

BU UCU is concerned that this creates a situation in which staff are expected to challenge procedural flaws without being provided sufficient visibility of the underlying decision-making process itself.

This matters because PRIEP allocations are not merely administrative decisions. Research workload allocation directly affects staff capacity to produce outputs, develop funding applications, progress toward promotion, and build longer-term academic careers.

BU UCU is therefore seeking greater transparency regarding:

• how moderation decisions were reached
• how affordability considerations were applied
• how consistency was ensured across faculties and schools
• what guidance was provided to reviewers and panels

We are also seeking further discussion through the Joint Interest Group process regarding implementation of the wider workload planning framework and the operation of PRIEP.

We encourage members to continue sharing experiences and concerns with the branch through the General Reporting Form or by submitting a Casework Pro Forma (for individual support).

In solidarity,

BU UCU