Athena SWAN workshop – Action planning
Although we are not covering action planning specifically today, it is important to note that action plans, or issues linked to action planning (e.g. not
clearly identifying what needs to be addressed) are the commonest reasons that Athena SWAN applications are unsuccessful.
Poor action plan; particularly actions not being SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound) and lacking
measurable targets against which progress can be benchmarked
Descriptive narrative rather than analysis, meaning that actions are not targeted
Action plan not linked to issues raised by the application; issues are identifiable but the applicant does not appear to be planning any
remedial activity
Inappropriate balance between HR policy and process, and proactive action; often manifesting as too much emphasis on “reviewing”
Look at the action plan examples that follow; are they informative; do they detail what will be done and when? Are they SMART? Would you be able to
action the points and report back that they had been completed? Could they be improved?
a.
b.
c.
Some selected points on the preceding action plans
These points are compiled from extracts of the panel’s feedback. They are not an exhaustive appraisal of the extracts, and it should be
remembered that reviews of submissions take place in the round.
a – “The panel felt that in order to confer an award, the action plan needed to be improved. They requested that it be made more SMART.
They would particularly like to see more measurable success measures, and suggested adding numerical values where possible would be
beneficial. In addition, the timescales would benefit from the addition of milestones, and measures which span the three year validity of the
award. This is particularly relevant for the on-going actions.” (It would also be helpful to repeat the column headers at the top of each page.)
b – “The panel found the action plan very clear and well organised and were pleased to see clearly assigned responsibilities. They however
noted that the time span was very front-loaded, and would have expected to see actions covering the whole period of the award. They also
felt that there were some unnecessary actions which aimed to ‘continue’ good practice, and would have preferred to see evaluation of these
practices in their place.”
c – “Accountability from other areas of the institute, not just the SAT members, is welcome. Overall the actions are SMART and they the
success measures column is very good with clear objectives and measurable (numeric) actions.”