Why the review?
It became clear in the run-up to the Integrated Planning Exercise (IPE) in June 2008 that FBS was facing severe financial difficulties, largely as a result of unachievable recruitment targets.
Steps were taken to bring the faculty’s budget back into balance, including relinquishing space, not replacing staff, cutting non-staff costs by 5% and a £2.1M ‘pound-for-pound’ funding arrangement. A revised budget was agreed at the faculty planning meeting in September 2008.
These actions were insufficient, however, and financial problems persisted owing to a number of factors, including a drop in quality research (QR) income per fte (full time equivalent member of staff) following the change in the RAE funding formula (£6m), a significant reduction in research grants (£13m) and the 2008 pay award.
By the beginning of 2009, the faculty was losing £400k a month and faced a cumulative deficit of £21.8m to 2013/14. The management team agreed that a faculty-wide review was necessary, and that it would address a range of underlying issues, including:
- Only 76 % of eligible staff were returned for the 2008 RAE - one of the lowest return rates in the university and compared with peers, translating to an annual loss in income of approximately £40k per fte for every person not returned;
- FBS research income per fte well behind peers;
- Teaching contact hours for many staff were below peers – from 2008/2009 workload data, 33% of staff gave fewer than 15 lectures, 20% delivered no practical classes, 30% had no personal tutees, and 30% did not manage any modules;
- Staff student ratios in single figures in parts of the Faculty;
- Space use 50% above the norm.
The review
The aim of the review was to produce a strategy and plan that was sustainable both academically and financially. It began with a ‘root-and-branch’ analysis of all activities; teaching, research, knowledge transfer, impact and support.
On research, the aim was to identify areas of significant strength – defined as being where research addressed external agendas, there was good leadership, strong publications, potential to increase QR income and a healthy volume of grant income.
In this way, it was decided that the faculty research focus would be clustered around two main areas; translational biomedicine and sustainable agriculture. A new target was set for the REF – to return 90 percent or more of staff – and it was also agreed that all staff would take on teaching responsibilities.
It followed that the faculty would disinvest from weaker areas, and it was also agreed to reduce support costs. A new structure was devised to reflect the strategy.
Meetings to keep staff informed during the process were held on 3 April, 23 June and 28 October. Regular Institute and support service meetings were also held to discuss the review. Staff receive regular email updates from Dean Professor Steven Homans and review information is available to staff on the faculty’s intranet.
From April to December 09, the review team met with union representatives on eighteen occasions including staff meetings where union representatives were invited.
The review and the proposed structure were also discussed at staff-student forums on the 16 November and 8 December 2009 and all faculty undergraduate students were invited to a meeting 18 November to discuss the process and issues. Adhoc meetings were also held with students on particular degree courses affected by the review - Genetics and Microbiology on the 3 and 11 December.
The process
The new academic strategy and structure for FBS were endorsed by Senate on 25 November. Job descriptions for the new structure have been developed, staff are expressing interest in the roles and a job matching process is underway. It is hoped this process will be completed by March.
The faculty needs to reduce its staffing by 71 posts across all grades (as follows).
| Current | New | Reduction | |
| Academic related and support | 156.19 | 120.85 | 35.34 |
| Lecturers | 40.5 | 29.7 | 10.8 |
| Research fellows | 24 | 20 | 4 |
| Professors | 45.3 | 40 | 5.3 |
| Readers | 13.4 | 10.4 | 3 |
| Senior lecturers | 36.7 | 24 | 12.7 |
Efforts are being made to achieve these losses through voluntary means (mobility incentive and premature retirement) and redeployment. So far, around 50% of the required staff costs reductions have been found. Compulsory redundancy is a last resort.