Phase III

Peter Haynes - Vice Provost (Education and Student Experience) (Joint Chair)

Mary Ryan - Vice Provost (Research and Enterprise) (Joint Chair)

Daniel Mitelpunkt - Digital Media Laboratory

Jeremy Cohen – Research Software Engineers

Alan Spivey – Associate Provost (Learning and Teaching)

Pat Evans - Facilities Managers

Patrick Brown (Instrument Engineers)

Liz Elvidge (or her representative) - Early Career Researchers

Finn Giuliani, Professor of Structural Ceramics/Academic Facility Manager

Julie King Centre of Academic English

Ana Costa-Pereira, Centre for Languages, Culture & Communication

Richard Fitzjohn, Principal Architect Research Software Engineer

Daniela Olivera Mesa, Technical Analyst.

Laura Lane, Graduate School

Richard Banks – Director of the IDEA Lab (Business School)

Beatriz Jiminez - NMR Facility Manager (FoM)

Nik Matthews - Genomics Facility (FoM)

Tim Venables – Faculty Operating Officer (FoE)

Nicholas Johnson – Research Fellow (FoM)

During the February meeting, the Working Group discussed what the common characteristics of specialist roles should be.  These characteristics will make up the Guiding Principles to identify, both fairly and transparently, which roles fall within scope of this job family across Imperial. The Working Group reviewed some of the requirements of current job descriptions to aid this discussion.

Characteristics agreed upon so far included:

• The job requires knowledge that has required specialist training/qualifications, which are specifically recruited for and cannot be learnt on the job.
• The individual has expertise, which they use to drive development and innovation within their field with independence (as opposed to following protocol).
• In connection with their drive for innovation, roles may make a significant contribution to the writing of grant proposals and may also publish.
• This job family would likely encompass roles at levels 3b to 6.

The Working Group stated that specialist roles can include researchers who are not necessarily PIs or running a research group, but still demonstrate the above characteristics.

The Working Group also discussed ensuring the job family is developed to fully recognise those with vital and specialist skills and work of the individuals within it to optimise their development at Imperial.

The meeting ended with discussions around the Workstream membership.

During the March meeting, the Working Group agreed a definition for the identifying criteria for specialist roles, which was added to the Terms of Reference.

The group finalised the workstream membership and considered potential tasks that would be helpful for the workstream to undertake. It was felt that the Workstream’s input into producing some general Role Profiles for the Specialist job family would be useful – this would help to identify similarities/consistencies between different jobs in different areas that still sit within this job family.

It was also discussed how the ‘Specialist’ job family may fit into the current PTO structure as a fourth stream.

It was felt that career progression of these Specialist roles (both the roles and the individuals that fill these roles) needs careful consideration. These individuals hold expertise knowledge that is critical for Imperial’s Academic mission, therefore ensuring that they are appropriately supported was felt to be vital, both for their personal progression, but also for the beneficial contribution to the University. It was felt that clear guidance on this should be an outcome of this Phase, which would include time allowed for Professional Development.

There was further discussion around which roles would be appropriate in this Job Family. It was also felt that some individuals are misrepresented by their job title; they are in a specialist role with a general job title (i.e. Facilities Manager) - these individuals need to be captured and included. Post-docs were also discussed in terms of relevance to this job family.  

It was agreed that some standard language to use when discussing these roles, and the attributes associated with them, would be beneficial.

The workstream started with introductions and a review of the Terms of Reference of the wider Working Group.

There were discussions around job titles vs job content being the decider for what falls within the specialist job family – with clarity that the content is what will be the decider. Classifying the roles correctly is important so that these do not get lost.

It was felt that progression needs careful consideration, specifically progressing these specialist skills in a way that does not drive greater investment of time in research at the expense of other enabling responsibilities. Furthermore, the responsibilities that contribute to progression for PTO staff (i.e. line management or monetary responsibilities), were discussed and whether these should remain for specialist roles. It was also recognised that removing these may stop people from wanting to take on these responsibilities.

Probation periods were also discussed, and whether 3 months is enough time to see the level of expertise and potential that the individual holds. 

The group also covered Fixed Term contracts, considering the impact of these roles that, due to the nature of the work, function in this way (although individuals who are with the university for over 4 years are placed on open-ended contracts).

The ‘innovation’ aspect of the job family, and how innovation may look different across roles was discussed. It was felt, however, that there will always be ‘blurred lines’ with the characteristics set out for the job family – these cannot be prescriptive. Realistically, some roles may sit less comfortably in this workstream than others – this situation already exists within the college.

Lastly, the workstream were tasked with producing role profiles for Levels 4 and 5 within the specialist job family.

At the June Workstream meeting the attendees, in groups, presented and discussed their initial efforts at completing the Role Profiles template. They captured some of the requirements that they would expect to see at Levels 4 and 5 in ‘Specialist’ roles, whilst also highlighting some of the concerns with the current structures.

Various themes were present when considering what would be expected at these levels, including whether there should be consistencies between what is expected at grades within the Specialist job family, and other job families. An example discussed was management responsibilities - it was recognised that other types of management to line management have valid consideration when it comes to level of responsibilities, such as management of finances and/or facilities.

It was mentioned that expertise and seniority do not always correlate in specialist roles (as may be expected in other roles – i.e. in some cases, those junior in their field may have received most up-to-date training on new specialist skills), and therefore a non-standard approach to progression (and potentially pay) may be needed.

There was consensus across the workstream that those in these specialist roles hold an external reputation, and would be expected to attend relevant external events/conferences.

In terms of qualifications, it was felt that being qualified to PhD level may not be necessary for specialist skills, and that experience/alternate relevant training may be just as relevant.

Additionally, there were reflections that a wide range of roles may fall within the Specialist job stream, therefore fitting these within criteria in the Role Profiles is challenging. Because of this, using ‘pillars’ to structure the Role Profiles may be useful to aid flexibility. Additionally specific discourse may be useful when describing these roles.

There was much discussion around some of the contentions that exist in the current structure – this included discussions around visibility, budget restrictions (and subsequent hiring implications), and general worries around making sure the criteria established captures the roles that its supposed to.   

It was felt that, following initial discussions, the workstream would benefit from doing the Role Profiles task again, to focus on what is needed for the roles, as opposed to recognising what does not currently work.

Following these discussions, the workstream talked through representative Job Descriptions of specialist roles within their area, picking out some of the skills, requirements and language that appeared relevant across other specialist roles.

The Specialist job family Characteristics, originally established by the Working Group, was re-reviewed, and amendments were suggested for the Working group to review.

The June meeting began with an update of what was discussed at the March Working Group meeting; previously the group established Specialist stream characteristics to guide which roles fall in scope, and decided that it would be useful for the Workstream to try and fill out Role Profiles for the Specialist stream.

Following this, a summary was given of the discussions that had gone on in the Workstream (probation times and Fixed-Term contracts, expectations of Specialist roles and how innovation fits in) as well as the outcomes of the Role Profiles task. Key themes/questions from the role profiles task included consideration of how the Specialist job family aligns with other job families, how management may be unconventional within this stream (as the focus is on expertise), and expectations around external profiles.

The Working Group further discussed the need to implement an appropriate promotions process in the Specialist stream, as well as how longer probation periods may work, and how to ensure a sense of belonging is felt within the job family. The question was also raised how individuals were going to be reviewed and transferred into the Specialist job family.

The group revisited the Specialist job family characteristics, which had also been commented on by the Workstream, and made some further amendments.

The group reviewed the Professor of Practice position, to see whether it would be an appropriate route within the Specialist job family – upon review and discussion it was felt that it would not be an appropriate fit as an aspirational route (however individuals could still go for this through usual promotions processes).

The group will meet again in September to continue discussions.