Faculty Workload Model
A weighted workload model built with faculty and union input — covering teaching, advising, research, and service — went live across three campuses in eleven weeks and cut grievances by 81%.
The challenge
Workload had been measured by one proxy for years, and everyone knew it was wrong:
- Workload was calculated from credit hours taught alone, ignoring advising, research, and service
- Faculty with heavy advising loads or committee assignments looked 'under-loaded' on paper
- 47 formal workload grievances were filed in the year before the project, consuming union and HR time
- Each of the 3 campuses applied a slightly different informal weighting, so loads weren't comparable
- Department chairs rebuilt workload spreadsheets by hand every term, each with its own assumptions
How it works
A workload model built with the people it measures
Because the number was contested, the process of building it had to be too:
- 01
Convened faculty and union representatives from all 3 campuses to define what actually counts as workload
- 02
Built a weighted model spanning teaching (credit hours, prep time, class size), advising load, funded research release time, and committee/admin service
- 03
Tested the proposed weights against 18 months of historical assignments to check they matched lived experience
- 04
Ran a shadow term where the new model operated alongside the old credit-hour count for direct comparison
- 05
Deployed the model across all 3 campuses in 11 weeks, training chairs on the new workload reports
- 06
Set a standing quarterly review where the union could flag and adjust weights
What we built
Key capabilities
Counts the whole job
Advising, funded research, and committee service now carry weight alongside credit hours taught.
One standard, three campuses
A single weighting model replaces three informal, incompatible local conventions.
A report, not a spreadsheet
Chairs receive a generated workload report each term instead of building one by hand.
A review channel that works
A standing quarterly review gives the union a real mechanism to challenge and adjust weights.
Before vs after
What changed for faculty and chairs
- Workload grievances/year
- 47 → 9
- Weighting standard
- Per-campus, informal → One model, three campuses
- Chair effort per term
- Manual spreadsheet → Generated report
- Advising & service counted
- No → Yes
- Deployment time
- — → 11 weeks
Business impact
What it changed
Grievances dropped 81%
Formal workload grievances fell from 47 to 9 in the first year under the new model, with the union co-owning the weighting.
Deployed in 11 weeks
All three campuses went live within a single term, without disrupting an active teaching schedule.
Comparable, defensible numbers
Chairs now work from one generated workload report per term instead of a hand-built spreadsheet unique to their campus.
Technology stack
“The model only held up because the people it measured helped define it — that's why the grievance count fell and stayed down.”
Keep reading