VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 46 POSTED ON: 9/5/2011
STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION RETREAT JANUARY 29, 2009 Summary of Proceedings and Next Steps March 2009 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 Overview of the Implementation Retreat................................................................................. 7 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 About this Report.............................................................................................................. 7 1.3 President David Naylor’s Presentation: “The University and the Changing Economic Environment: Getting through 2009, and then towards 2030”......................................... 8 1.4 Dean Catharine Whiteside’s Presentation: “Benchmarks for Excellence”...................... 9 1.5 Morning Roundtable Discussion: “The Faculty of Medicine Drives the University of Toronto: Myth or Fact?”................................................................................................. 11 1.6 Strategic Directions Working Group Presentations........................................................ 14 1.7 Sustaining our Core Business ......................................................................................... 14 1.8 Next Steps and Follow-Up.............................................................................................. 15 2.0 Strategic Directions Working Groups.................................................................................... 17 2.1 Overview of Process for Obtaining Feedback ................................................................ 17 2.2 Working Group Presentations......................................................................................... 19 APPENDIX A: List of Participants ............................................................................................. 42 APPENDIX B: Retreat Agenda ................................................................................................... 44 APPENDIX C: Principles for Stategic Plan Implementation ...................................................... 46 Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 2 Summary of Proceedings Executive Summary On January 29, 2009, approximately 65 faculty and staff leaders participated in a strategic planning implementation retreat. The objectives of the retreat were to review the progress that has been made with respect to the Faculty’s strategic plan, to provide feedback on the proposed recommendations of the strategic directions working groups, and to engage in a dialogue around solutions to critical issues facing the Faculty in the current economic environment. The retreat was an important milestone in the implementation process which began in December 2007 with the release of the white paper Renewal and Focus of the Faculty of Medicine’s Strategic Plan. In May 2008 the Dean’s Executive and All Chairs Committee met to define the 10 strategic directions outlined in the white paper and to generate preliminary goals and projects to realize the directions. The process revealed significant overlap and synergy between the 10 directions. To focus implementation efforts, six working groups were established in September 2008. These include: Leadership, Succession, and Recognition Integration, Collaboration, and Strategic Partnerships Social Responsibility as Academic Responsibility Advancement Infrastructure, Communications, and Connectivity Benchmarks for Excellence The working groups presented the proposed future priorities of their areas at the January 29th retreat. Setting the stage for planning was the President of the University of Toronto, Dr. David Naylor, who spoke to the University’s response to the economic downturn. He made it clear that getting through 2009 “is a clear priority for the University that will require mobilization of all faculty in responding to the economic whirlwind, and assessing the implications of the constrained environment on all aspects of the University including funding, partnerships, and philanthropy.” Dean Catharine Whiteside, leader of the “Benchmarks for Excellence” working group, underscored the need for the ongoing benchmarking of the Faculty’s performance in key domains, both to confirm excellence and to reveal where the Faculty is falling behind (e.g., Infrastructure and Physical Plant). Her presentation was followed by a roundtable discussion in which faculty were challenged to answer: “What can and what should we be measuring?” Performance indicators emerging from the discussion clustered around five key domains: Scholarship and Research, Innovation, Human Capital (leadership) and the Student Experience at the University. A key message heard was that much of the information already exists but is not collected on a regular or systematic basis. An immediate Faculty-wide goal must be to work towards integrating existing data sets and prospective data sources into a comprehensive system for reporting on performance indicators and benchmarks. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 3 Summary of Proceedings The balance of the day was devoted to dialogue, feedback, and ranking of the draft working group reports. All of the working groups were commended for their excellent work and their efforts in driving these directions forward. Overall, there was strong support for all of the proposals, but not all were seen as being at the same stage of readiness for implementation. Detailed feedback on each of the plans is included in this report. In her closing remarks, the Dean reinforced two key themes related to priority-setting and implementation: 1. Reassessing what the Faculty does, and how it does it, is a critically important task in this current economic climate. 2. There is a need to be more strategic in how the Faculty and its Departments are aligned, and in the kinds of opportunities that can be tapped, to facilitate greater sharing of resources and programs within and between our Departments and our affiliated hospitals. It was clear that the strategic work of the Faculty needs to move forward. While ranking of priorities is difficult, the majority of participants confirmed that: Leadership and partnerships/collaborations are important drivers of change that need to be addressed. (“Without these nothing will happen.”). Leveraging collaborations and partnerships, internally and externally, is critical, with a view to developing more efficient and strategic ways of communicating and coordinating shared resources, activities and responsibilities. Engage with our key partners, particularly the TAHSN hospitals and community teaching hospitals to advance shared goals and projects of mutual benefit. Infrastructure renewal and Advancement/Fund-Raising are “fundamental” activities that belong in a category of their own. The Faculty is in urgent need of comprehensive, consistent, and reliable IT systems with up- to-date data that will allow quick and reliable communication among all stakeholders and analysis of important information such as faculty appointments. Priority-setting should take into account the level of investment required to achieve results/outcomes with a focus on identifying practical, low cost activities that might address multiple goals. A risk/benefit analysis would help move to the next steps and determine where major investments should be targeted. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 4 Summary of Proceedings Next Steps and Follow-Up The Strategic Planning Oversight Committee (SPOC) met on March 13, 2009 to review the summary of proceedings and confirm next steps for the strategic plan implementation. It was agreed that: 1. Working Group proposals will be refined to incorporate the feedback provided at the retreat. 2. Where committees and structures are already in place to take responsibility for goals and implementation, handover will take place and the Working Groups, having fulfilled their mandate, will be disbanded. (E.g. Advancement, Infrastructure). 3. The Leadership and Social Responsibility Working Groups will continue to provide direction and further develop the projects that have been proposed to advance their respective strategic directions. Finalized proposals, with budget and resource requirements will be presented to SPOC. 4. SPOC will continue to meet and provide oversight for the strategic planning implementation process. An Accountability Framework will be developed to monitor implementation timelines and progress towards achievement of goals outlined for each of the strategic directions. 5. Immediate implementation priorities for the Faculty are to: a. Establish an expert panel on benchmarking b. Start integrating existing data sets and prospective data sources into a comprehensive system for reporting on performance indicators and benchmarks for the Faculty. c. Accelerate implementation of the Web CV Project and engage the hospitals in advancing this initiative. d. Consolidate and optimize partnerships. Be selective. Focus on TAHSN hospitals and community teaching hospitals with a view to addressing shared goals and leveraging joint resources. e. Implement the visioning process to inform and move forward with the space and physical infrastructure Master Plan. Despite major disruption created by current economic events, the Faculty is moving forward on the trajectory outlined in the 2007 White Paper, with a view to demonstrating tangible progress toward attainment of its vision: to achieve international leadership in health research and education. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 5 Summary of Proceedings Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 6 Summary of Proceedings 1.0 Overview of the Implementation Retreat 1.1 Introduction The Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto sponsored a one-day retreat in January 2009 to examine the progress and lessons learned in implementing their strategic plan [see Figure 1]. The timing of the event provided a unique and important opportunity to take a closer look at the prospects for further progress in light of the current financial crisis and subsequent pressures confronting the Faculty, the University, and the overall economy. More than 65 individuals1 attended the retreat, including members of the Dean’s Executive and the All Chairs Committee, as well as a number of faculty and staff whom had participated as members of the Strategic Directions Working Groups. Opening remarks were given by Dr. David Naylor, President of the University, and Dr. Catharine Whiteside, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. Figure 2 - Implementation Retreat: Objectives 1. Provide an update on the progress of strategic plan implementation since the May 28, 2008 retreat and set the context for planning in the changing economic environment. 2. Review the deliberations and recommendations of the strategic directions working groups and provide input on putting the plans into action, including ranking the proposals in terms of short and longer term priority for the Faculty. 3. Dialogue around critical issues facing the faculty, generating collective solutions to these issues and discussing how best to engage the broader faculty, staff and students in acting on our shared directions. 4. Provide an opportunity for networking and information exchange amongst the senior leadership of the Faculty. 1.2 About this Report This report is an account of the main ideas and insights that emerged from the Implementation Retreat and will be used by the Strategic Planning Oversight Committee (SPOC) as a planning document. Drawing on the advice of the day, the SPOC Committee together with the individual Working Groups will consider the feedback arising from the retreat to modify their plans and assess the level of resources required to support next steps. 1 See Appendix 1 for a list of the retreat participants. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 7 Summary of Proceedings 1.3 President David Naylor’s Presentation: “The University and the Changing Economic Environment: Getting through 2009, and then towards 2030” President Naylor’s opening presentation provided an important context and background to the current challenges being faced by the Faculty and emphasized the importance of the Faculty’s current efforts to re-evaluate its strategic directions, priorities and resources needed to support them. 1.3.1 Highlights of Presentation The economic forecast remains guarded. The recent turmoil in the financial markets – the likes of which we have not seen since the 1930s – will severely limit the University's ability to draw on endowment revenue. Getting through 2009 is a key priority for the University that will require The current environment provides us with an mobilization of all faculty in responding opportunity to seriously rethink some aspects of to the economic whirlwind and what we do and how we do it….There are advocacy assessing the implications of the priorities on which we can and must be active. constrained environment on all aspects Dr. David Naylor of the University, including funding, partnerships, and philanthropy. The status of the endowment is our most acute financial concern. The turbulence of the times demands that the Faculty of Medicine and its hospital partners become more vocal about the current funding realities. The recent federal budget demands that the academic community mobilize to address important issues that were not included in the budget announcement (e.g., no mention of Genome Canada funding). Many of the University’s benefactors have expressed support for the University's strategy, including appreciation for our contingency planning to cover key commitments using internal funds if necessary. Ontario still hasn’t recovered form the early1990s. Real per-student funding remains more than 25% below 1992 levels and more than 25% below the average of the other nine provinces. While the timing of a recovery is uncertain, two things are clear. First, there will indeed be a recovery. And second, thanks to the excellence of our faculty, staff, students, alumni, and friends, we shall weather this storm successfully. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 8 Summary of Proceedings 1.4 Dean Catharine Whiteside’s Presentation: “Benchmarks for Excellence” In her opening remarks, Dr. Whiteside emphasized the importance of the Faculty of Medicine improving its process of benchmarking its performance to help better position the Faculty within the University, with its major partners (primarily the hospitals), Benchmarking refers to the metrics that the FOM identifies to be most applicable in determining success in achieving our and with other stakeholders Vision, Mission and Values. Further, the benchmarks must have provincially, nationally, relevance internally to our faculty, students and staff as well as internationally. to our external partners, stakeholders and broader national and international communities. Dr. Catharine Whiteside 1.4.1 Key Questions How will we know if our programs are effectively preparing future health leaders? How will we know if our efforts are contributing optimally to our communities to improve the health of individuals and populations? How will we be ale to assess whether we have achieved international leadership in health research and education? 1.4.2 Highlights of Presentation The immediate goals confronting To realize our Vision of “international leadership” and Mission of the FOM are to articulate the “preparing leaders” we need to recognize that: priorities for advancing the Faculty’s strategic goals, aligning • U of T is the international “brand” the key indicators of performance, • U of T is the “integrating brand” with the Toronto Academic and benchmarking performance Health Science Network (TAHSN) partners against internal and external • Metrics must be relevant to both the University of Toronto targets. and its partners Establishing benchmarks must have relevance internally to faculty, students, and staff as well as to external partners, stakeholders, and broader national and international communities. The complexity of the Faculty requires that it takes a broad and strategic view of benchmarking that will enable meaningful measurement across the entire organization. The metrics chosen to benchmark In the end, it will be the collective actions of the faculty, staff must reflect those activities and students that will create the reputation of the Faculty of considered to be of ‘highest value’ Medicine and, in turn, translate that reputation into for our faculty, staff, and students relevance for alumnae and alumni, donors and the University enabling them to use these of Toronto. measures as part of their own self- reflection and career advancement. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 9 Summary of Proceedings Figure 3 - Benchmarks for Excellence: Examples of Current Opportunities & Challenges Scholarship and Evidence Research U of T research funding (2/3 attributed to health and biomedical research) The national and international reputation of Faculty awards and recognition (we could do better) the University in large part is dependent on health and Publication number and citation rate is excellent (but we do not track biomedical scholarship collectively) and research Leading through Evidence: Partnerships Tenured faculty number 215 on campus (with no net growth) Collectively, the affiliated hospitals and research Constant growth off campus (in hospitals) institutes constitute the largest investment in 2/3 of doctoral (MSc/PhD) students off campus health and biomedical MD postgraduates and fellows – 3 times the size of the next largest research associated with program in Canada the University. TAHSN (including FoM) supports 50% of all health and biomedical research is done in Ontario PMH (combined with) + Odette Cancer Center (Sunnybrook) is the largest cancer centre in North America Low rate of application Evidence: (knowledge translation) of Human subject research and clinical trials lack effective infrastructure in discovery and IP Toronto Rate of on campus disclosure of IP and commercialization – very low Faculty and students Evidence: dispersed off-campus have mixed institution 30% of faculty in the hospitals fail to recognize U of T on publications allegiance 94 academic practice plans across 13 affiliated hospitals (too dispersed; need to seriously consider convergence for purposes of improved academic achievement) Off-campus scientists are contractual employees of the hospitals Graduates of our Evidence: education programs are “lost” alumnae Low returns on annual U of T campaign Bursary endowments for health professional programs - low Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 10 Summary of Proceedings Older buildings do not Evidence: reflect the excellence of our education and COU space allocations for research – well below standard research achievements Design experts – suggest the MSB is not good enough and constitute increasing risk of reduced performance. 1.5 Morning Roundtable Discussion: “The Faculty of Medicine Drives the University of Toronto: Myth or Fact?” The morning roundtable session focused on a discussion of potential key performance measures to demonstrate the Faculty’s achievements and contributions to the University of Toronto’s ranking as one of the world’s top publicly-assisted universities. The discussions focused on the following questions: What can and should we be measuring so we can become better relative to those measures? What performance measures should the FOM use to fully/effectively demonstrate its achievements as a world leader amongst faculties of medicine? Does this information currently exist? How can we best capture and collect it? Tables were asked to generate a list of potential measures and indicators and to report on the key measures/indicators which they believe are important to demonstrate the contribution made by the FOM to the University. As expected, there were a variety of opinions and ideas on possible measures and indicators. While there was no consensus on specific measures, several broad themes of importance were identified and deemed critical to achieving successful benchmarking and measurement for the FOM. Based on the synthesis of the feedback (see Figure 3), participants believe that measures should be developed in five areas, namely: Scholarships & Research; Innovation; Human Capital (Leaders); Student Experience at the University; Output of Graduates. In addition to specific examples of indicators to support measurement in these five broad categories, participants also raised a number of questions to inform the selection of possible indicators. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 11 Summary of Proceedings Figure 4 - Demonstrating our Value: Potential Measures and Indicators Possible Indicators & Questions To Information/ Targets To Performance Inform The Choice Of Indicators Demonstrate The Faculty’s Measures Achievements & Contributions SCHOLARSHIPS & INDICATOR: PUBLICATIONS Number of publications RESEARCH How does the FOM make a (rankings) difference? How do we Number of citations (rankings) How can we develop demonstrate that difference? Grant revenue and innovation consistency/commonality How do we profile how we make IP Revenue (% of alumni in branding or perhaps a difference to our different captured) joint branding audiences / stakeholders within (university/hospitals)? government? (“cold hard measurables”) Why don’t we focus initially on measuring the things we actually do and create a FOM index based on this information? Degree of connectivity INDICATOR: BRANDING Degree to which FOM and integration of • Brand recognition (student) approaches 100% attribution to U hospitals with the • Hospital vs. University of T in publications University, and • Measures of the quality of our • Reputation of our programs branding as a major medical education and externally topic scholarships • Incentives to hospitals and VPs INNOVATION INDICATORS: Patents and commercialization How can we do a better KNOWLEDGE Rate & disclosure (?) e.g. the job of tracking TRANSLATION glycemic index was invented at innovation in research, SOURCES OF REVENUE U of T. Are we leveraging this? education, and clinical PATENTS care? COMMERCIALIZATION HUMAN CAPITAL INDICATORS: LEADERSHIP Leadership positions held in (LEADERS) POSITIONS Ontario What is happening to the people Leadership positions held coming through the FOM? Who nationally are they? What have they Leadership positions held achieved? internationally What have their success been? Number of quality alumni in What impact have they had in leadership positions (measure the their field, and on society in output and level of influence) general? Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 12 Summary of Proceedings STUDENT INDICATORS: Percentage of chairs of EXPERIENCE AT STUDENT EXPERIENCE committees in different bodies THE UNIVERSITY STUDENT SATISFACTION Postgraduate accreditation (very Do we really attract the best and high) Use before/during / after brightest? Number of trainees at doctoral measures to quantify How do graduates perceive the level student performance quality of their experience at the Number of department events (i.e., where students university? and percentage of students who were in their class); attend extra curricular Admission data activities and level of Quality of evaluations (exit involvement in social surveys). activities OUTPUT OF INDICATORS: Track trainees on what they go GRADUATES CHOSEN CAREER PATH on to do (i.e. to show that we are Where are graduates now? training the leaders (outcomes) Rewards? Positions held? get them to be ambassadors Innovations? Outcomes? Trainee ultimate performance What are the areas they are Track diversity/ international working in (clinical, discovery, metric (i.e., what is the footprint innovation, education and of the university globally? Who partnership)? are we training? Where do they Are our alumni productive, come from/go to? What is our impactful leaders? How can we footprint?) measure this? What happens to Measure student experience (Can our students? exit surveys include a piece that Why aren’t se using the measures student experience in international index (Shanghai both a qualitative and index?) rather than creating our quantitative way?) own? Participants also agreed that the task of identifying appropriate measures and indicators is challenging but quite doable in light of the following: Much of the information already exists but is not collected on a regular and/or systematic basis. There is a need to collect more information (in addition to publication rates) on a consistent basis. Developing unique identifiers across all disciplines, supported by appropriate technology for collection and tracking of information would help to ensure that departments comply with data collection once indicators are selected. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 13 Summary of Proceedings 1.6 Strategic Directions Working Group Presentations Following the discussion of Benchmarks for Excellence, participants heard presentations from each of the Working Group Chairs. Highlights of the presentations, including a summary of the proposed priorities and actions for each of the Working Groups, are presented in Section 2.0 of this report. Following the presentations, participants had an opportunity in a plenary session to ask specific questions to clarify, challenge, or support the proposed goals and projects for the five strategic directions. The afternoon session included five concurrent breakout group discussions led by the Working Group co-chairs. The objective of these sessions were to determine areas of consensus and divergence around the goals and actions proposed in each of the plans, and more importantly, to get a sense of what the relative priorities were for the faculty with respect to each of these proposals. Each group was asked to discuss all five of the strategic directions, share their feedback and provide a ranking of each of the proposals. In addition, Working Group co-chairs took the opportunity to facilitate a more in depth discussion around the strategic direction which they themselves were leading. The feedback from these sessions will be used to inform ongoing planning, implementation and resource allocation with respect to the five strategic directions shaping the work of the Faculty. 1.7 Sustaining our Core Business In her afternoon remarks, Dr. Whiteside noted that a key priority for the Faculty of Medicine in 2009/10 will be to sustain academic productivity during the economic downturn. Contingency planning is both prudent and critical for our future. All revenue/expense budgets within the Faculty of Medicine must maintain a contingency within the structural base. Our financial contingency planning over the last 3 years will enable the Faculty of Medicine to more successfully weather the economic downturn over the next 2 years. The plenary session that followed Dr. Whiteside’s remarks confirmed the overall difficulty experienced by participants in being able to prioritize and/or rank the five strategic directions with respect to their relative importance. Although there was no final consensus achieved on the ranking of the Faculty’s priorities, there was agreement on a number of issues. Among them: Reassessing what the Faculty does and how it does it is a critically important task in this current economic climate. There is a need to be more strategic in how the Faculty and its Departments are aligned and in the kinds of opportunities that can be tapped to facilitate greater sharing of resources and programs within hospitals and between hospitals and the University. The work of the Faculty needs to move forward. While ranking of priorities is difficult the majority believe that: Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 14 Summary of Proceedings o Leadership and partnerships/collaborations are important drivers of change that need to be addressed. (“Without these nothing will happen.”). o Leveraging collaborations and partnerships, internally and externally, is critical, with a view to developing more efficient and strategic ways of communicating and coordinating shared resources, activities and responsibilities. Engage with our key partners, particularly the TAHSN hospitals and community teaching hospitals to advance shared goals and projects of mutual benefit. o Infrastructure renewal and Advancement/Fund-raising are “fundamental” activities that belong in a category of their own. o The Faculty is in urgent need of comprehensive, consistent, and reliable IT systems with up-to-date data that will allow quick and reliable communication among all stakeholders and analysis of important information such as faculty appointments. o Priority-setting should take into account the level of investment required to achieve results/outcomes with a focus on identifying practical, low cost activities that might address multiple goals. o A risk/benefit analysis would help move to the next steps and determine where major investments should be targeted. 1.8 Next Steps and Follow-Up The Strategic Planning Oversight Committee (SPOC) met on March 13, 2009 to review the summary of proceedings and confirm next steps for the strategic plan implementation. It was agreed that: 1. Working Group proposals will be refined to incorporate the feedback provided at the retreat. 2. Where committees and structures are already in place to take responsibility for goals and implementation, handover will take place and the Working Groups, having fulfilled their mandate, will be disbanded. (E.g. Advancement, Infrastructure). 3. The Leadership and Social Responsibility Working Groups will continue to provide direction and further develop the projects that have been proposed to advance their respective strategic directions. Finalized proposals, with budget and resource requirements will be presented to SPOC. 4. SPOC will continue to meet and provide oversight for the strategic planning implementation process. An Accountability Framework will be developed to monitor implementation timelines and progress towards achievement of goals outlined for each of the strategic directions. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 15 Summary of Proceedings 5. Immediate implementation priorities for the Faculty are to: a. Establish an expert panel on benchmarking b. Start integrating existing data sets and prospective data sources into a comprehensive system for reporting on performance indicators and benchmarks for the Faculty. c. Accelerate implementation of the Web CV Project and engage the hospitals in advancing this initiative. d. Consolidate and optimize partnerships. Be selective. Focus on TAHSN hospitals and community teaching hospitals with a view to addressing shared goals and leveraging joint resources. e. Implement the visioning process to inform and move forward with the space and physical infrastructure Master Plan. The Faculty of Medicine Academic Plan 2004-2010 is well underway, and many of its original goals and objectives have been achieved. The strategic plan implementation retreats held on May 28, 2008 and January 29, 2009 took us several more steps down the path set out in that document and in the 2007 White Paper and brought Faculty leaders to common ground. We now have the momentum to lead us to a meaningful consensus on key indicators of performance and success. The current Academic Plan may have a formal end date of 2010, but if our recommendations and strategic priorities are implemented, we have an opportunity to see tangible progress in the attainment of its vision: to achieve international leadership in health research and education. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 16 Summary of Proceedings 2.0 Strategic Directions Working Groups 2.1 Overview of Process for Obtaining Feedback After the May 28, 2008 Strategic Implementation Planning retreat five working groups were established to move forward on the Faculty of Medicine strategic plan. These are: 1. Leadership, Succession and Recognition 2. Integration, Collaboration and Strategic Partnerships 3. Social Responsibility as Academic Responsibility 4. Infrastructure, Communication and Connectivity 5. Be an Advancement Culture A sixth group – Benchmarks for Excellence – co-led by Dean Catharine Whiteside and Deputy Dean Sarita Verma, was also established. Achievements with respect to all the Working Groups, including the benchmarking project, will be highlighted in the Faculty of Medicine’s new annual report to be launched in May, 2009. Input from the roundtable discussions occurring at the January 29 retreat will also be used to inform selection of performance measures and indicators that will be identified to track the Faculty’s ongoing drive to achieve international leadership in health research and education. Five working group reports were pre-circulated in advance of the retreat (numbers 1 to 5 listed above). Included in the following section are highlights of the proposed goals, actions and next steps recommended by each of the Working Groups. Feedback received from participants throughout the day is summarized based on three sources of input: Perspectives from the floor which includes a summary of the high level comments, questions and discussion that took place following the brief presentations made by the Working Group co-chairs A synthesis of the discussions emerging from the small group discussions on each of the five proposals, and A summary of the ranking of each of the proposals’ goals by all groups (where this information was available). Participants were asked to consider each of the Working Group proposals in terms of the following criteria: Strength of proposal, rationale for undertaking initiative, clarity of vision, completeness of goals and supporting actions Implementation issues: human resources, faculty and administrative support, financial and other Implications, overlap and/or enabling projects for other Working Groups State of readiness to implement Risks/and or benefits of proceeding or not proceeding at this time Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 17 Summary of Proceedings The following scale was provided to guide the ranking process: 1 = Never do it, shelve the idea 2 = Nice idea, put on back burner for a later date 3 = Should be done but proposal needs more work 4 = Should be done, ideally within current resources, but would support deploying resources 5 = Must be done, high priority for the Faculty and support resources being allocated to project (s) Feedback from these sessions will be used by the Working Group co-chairs to refine their respective work plans and actions steps. The ranking of goals and relative ranking of all proposals was felt to be problematic by some groups. In particular, it was suggested that Infrastructure, as an enabler for all of the strategic directions – and a major resource investment for the Faculty – needed to be considered in a category of its own. Further, it was suggested that the ranking scores gathered at the retreat, should be considered as the first round of input and this should be followed by a second process for priority-setting developed by Strategic Planning Oversight Committee. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 18 Summary of Proceedings 2.2 Working Group Presentations 2.2.1 Leadership, Succession, & Recognition WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Dr Geoff Anderson Dr Michael Archer Dr Louise Lemieux-Charles, Faculty Co-Lead Dr Susan Lieff Dr Dante Morra Dr Richard Reznick Ms Jean Robertson, Administrative Co-Lead Dr Ivan Silver, Faculty Co-Lead Dr Susan Glover Takahashi Working definition of leadership: Leadership is a process of engaging others to create and agree upon a vision for a program, group, or organizational entity, and of facilitating both individual and collective strategies, innovations, and efforts to accomplish shared goals and objectives. Valuing and nurturing leadership capability (a framework): The working group has developed a framework [See Figure 3] that includes four principles (or frames) which are based on common elements found in the literature on leadership. These principles may be applied to all levels of practice in the Faculty, and for all groups of faculty, staff and students. Figure 5: Strategies and Actions to Address Guiding Principles People Culture Resources Structures & Processes Value Needs assessment Explicit Resource Explicit requirement for of all new leaders recognition & allocation for all reward of development & search & selection leadership support of a processes diversity of leadership experiences & opportunities Nurture Coaching Explicit Resource Leaders performance mentorship allocation to review – Professional role of senior support report on actions to Development leaders development identify and develop leadership Explicit search potential and build for leadership capability interest & potential Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 19 Summary of Proceedings Five priority goals have been identified by the Working Group to foster leadership potential. Recommended actions and measureable outcomes have been developed for each of the priority goals. 22.214.171.124 PRIORITY GOALS & ACTIONS PRIORITY GOALS ACTIONS (1) To continue support Continue support for the Education Scholars Program for proposed and/or Continue to support and promote the Undergraduate Leadership existing key leadership Program programs. (2) To explore the need Define & develop generic capabilities required of academic leaders and feasibility of target post-tenure faculty or clinical faculty who have had their 3-yr developing a general review academic leadership During selection process for new Chairs, include an assessment of program leadership capabilities Develop an orientation program for new Chairs focusing on understanding the leadership role of Chair and on required core skill set (3) To develop a Work with Chairs to identify potential leaders succession planning strategy for senior leadership (4) To identify and Identify potential leaders within the ranks of existing Faculty of develop potential staff Medicine staff leaders and develop a Define potential career paths for aspiring leaders within the Faculty and supporting succession the University planning strategy Explore informal mentorship opportunities within the Faculty Identify the leadership competencies for administrative managers (5) To determine the value Conduct a needs assessment for additional awards and make ascribed to the appropriate recommendations based on outcome different types of awards that are available in the Faculty of Medicine, and externally, and their relationship to the individual’s leadership competencies. Immediate steps that can be taken to move these priorities forward: o Proceed with a needs assessment of academic leadership capabilities o Establish a task force to better identify and develop the competencies of managers within the Faculty. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 20 Summary of Proceedings 126.96.36.199 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FLOOR “We have a tendency to overvalue leadership and undervalue management. The real challenges we have are in the area of academic management. It is time to think about academic management instead of only academic leadership.” “It is time to talk about the elephant in the room. Time versus competency and achievement of credentialing is the real issue that needs to be put on the table.” “The Faculty of Medicine needs to nurture future leaders. We currently do not do this.” “Leadership programs are not as relevant to all parties, nor are they equally distributed.” 188.8.131.52 SYNTHESIS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION Missing elements/ Definition of Leadership questions - The proposed definition of leadership does not acknowledge that in some cases, all people can provide leadership in some manner. Among the questions to be considered are: o Are we looking to create a large number of leaders or a small number? o Are there pre-requisites? o Are leaders required to have a masters or post graduate training? (consensus that Post Graduate training should be required) Assessing Candidates for Leadership - Concerns that there isn’t a systematic method for determining what makes someone a good candidate for leadership. A clearer understanding of core competencies, supported by formal indicators and assessment tools (e.g. one day psychological testing) are needed. - An important element with respect to “teamwork” is missing. (What are the skills sets that one needs to have to be an effective leader in this area?) - There is a need for greater connectivity between the layers (and levels) that we are trying to create through leadership development. - There is a need to address the barriers and gaps between training and opportunity Succession Planning - What about succession planning? Who is second in command? - Consideration should be given to appointing a faculty member who will be the designated leader (different from associate chair etc…). - Greater clarity is needed around the concept of succession planning (Does this require more leadership training? Does it require giving potential leaders greater opportunities to become involved in leadership roles?) Risks - Although leadership training is key, this could potentially pose a risk in the sense that our Faculty would then be sought out/recruited by other institutions; need to ensure that the opportunities are available to Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 21 Summary of Proceedings apply the leadership training. - May be unrealistic to apply leadership skills or competencies learned in small departments – or that sufficient opportunities will be made available to apply skills. - Duplication and overlap with other leadership training programs. Implementation Issues - Relationship to Centre for Faculty Development needs to be considered - HR, faculty, administrative support are not addressed in the proposal - Leadership training is an area in which resources could be pooled to partner with hospitals Overlap - Advancement is looking to train faculty leaders in fundraising and alumni relations - Good leader will enhance social responsibility - Questions around institutional leadership and international leadership – likely best captured under Benchmarks for Excellence strategic direction - Leadership is applicable to all other strategic directions Recommendations/next - Strong agreement with the need to establish a basic academic steps leadership training program. Leadership training needs to be defined for all areas (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, faculty, staff – managerial / non-managerial). - Many hospitals such as Sick Kids have developed management training—i.e. the Paediatrics program for U of T (FoM needs to follow suit); - Hospitals are handpicking future leaders—U of T should do this as well - Select a few with leadership potential; once they hold a senior position start training them for a leadership position. Once individual is identified, need to provide opportunities as well as training. - Address importance of mentorship, which is seen as important as leadership - Need to have leadership programs that establish a continuum - Management training is key and is as important as leadership training. - Need to reframe goal as teamwork training vs. only leadership training Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 22 Summary of Proceedings 184.108.40.206 FEEDBACK ON GOALS/ SUMMARY OF RANKING Goal Comments Preliminary Rankings #1 - Can be accomplished easily 5,4,3/4, 5 Continue support for - Broaden programs included in this goal proposed and/or existing key - Note: one group thought this was too specific and leadership programs should not be considered a strategic goal #2 - Requires needs assessment, but can take advantage of 4,4,5 Explore the need & other programs feasibility of developing a - Strong support for chair orientation program general academic leadership - Need a program where you learn leadership (perhaps program with your team) #3 - Suggestion that this goal could be incorporated into 5,5,5 Develop a succession Goal #2 planning strategy for senior leadership #4 - Strengthen staff development actions 5,3,3, Identify potential staff leaders & develop succession planning strategy #5 - Little support for a leadership award. [More 3,2/3 Determine value ascribed to important for current leaders to create leadership awards opportunities within departments. This is preferred to providing a plaque/award for leadership] - Some suggested mentorship awards might be more effective. - Discussion around merit dollars for chairs; merit dollars for administrative roles Overall - Strong support for this proposal and moving forward with implementation. - One group felt Leadership was the driver for all of the other strategic directions. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 23 Summary of Proceedings 2.2.2 Integration, Collaboration, & Strategic Partnerships WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Dr John Bohnen Ms. Leslie Bush Dr Brian Hodges, Faculty Co-lead Dr Kevin Imrie, Faculty Co-lead Ms. Morag Payton Dr Jay Rosenfield Dr J. Paul Santerre Prof. Molly Verrier Partnerships are fundamental to the work of the FOM. The Faculty’s network of partnerships is extensive and varied, being both internal and external to the FOM and the University. The Working Group has developed the following set of Guiding Principles to inform its work: o Effective partnerships are essential to the achievement of our vision o The partnerships and collaborations in which we engage in must be beneficial to the University of Toronto and to our own strategic objectives o Decisions to pursue or forgo a relationship both involve potential risks that must be clearly understood before deciding to initiate them o Partnerships are entered into for a wide variety of reasons and not all partnerships are deemed equally important o Priorities for initiating partnerships must be based on their strategic importance, their demand on limited resources, how well they are currently functioning and the opportunities to influence them positively Five priority goals have been identified by the Working Group to advance integration, collaboration and strategic partnerships. Recommended actions have been developed for each of the priority goals. 220.127.116.11 PRIORITY GOALS & ACTIONS PRIORITY GOALS ACTIONS (1) To establish new Complete an inventory and assessment matrix of existing partnerships strategic partnerships, across the Faculty to: help evaluate and enhance these partnerships; and internal and external to help identify areas of priority for future partnering opportunities the University Create a website that captures partnership activities by domain (e.g., research/education/clinical) Create a framework for establishing, governing, and administering key relationships (2) To enrich our Participate in joint strategic planning/visioning with affiliates to renew partnerships with the relationships and to address: affiliated hospitals by o Credentialing further integrating o Research ethics shared education and o Shared IT infrastructure Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 24 Summary of Proceedings research goals. o Clinical trials infrastructure o Commercialization opportunities o Shared identify/branding (3) To initiate Create a strategy and process for establishing partnerships with new collaborative ventures community sites for joint educational activities (including a checklist) with community affiliates, and diversify and expand health professional education with a focus on patient- and family- centered quality care. (4) To foster a culture of Endorse the ongoing work of the Dean’s Advisory Committee on commercialization and Commercialization (DACC) entrepreneurship o Recognition; within the Faculty of o Early-stage funding; Medicine. o Mentorship (5) To enhance Endorse the strategic plan of the Office of International Research international research Relations and educational o Encouraging a culture of international research engagement partnership o Recognition of successful collaborations opportunities. o Selectively establishing meaningful research relationships o Integration with education across the continuum o Benchmarking o Revenue Sharing Challenges and opportunities: Large and very diverse organization; Some partnerships complex, involving many parts of the organization; Need to ensure that increased focus does not discourage pursuing promising opportunities; Resources! Immediate steps that can be taken to move these priorities forward quickly: Completion of the inventory of current partnerships and collaborations Key informant interviews to obtain qualitative information from a representative selection of partners Engaging in strategic planning/visioning exercise with affiliated hospitals and healthcare sites to define common initiatives and potential resources to enable these initiatives Communication of recommendations to relevant groups (Dean’s Advisory Committee on Commercialization, International Research Relations Office, TAHSN, Council of Health Sciences) Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 25 Summary of Proceedings 18.104.22.168 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FLOOR “U of T partnerships differ dramatically. Some are fully developed, others simply exist out of necessity.” “Our relationships with the affiliated hospitals and sites are our most important. We need to work better to integrate and work with the hospitals to establish shared values.” “Hospitals need to be an integrated part of this strategic plan. Our future planning should go forward as a consultation involving hospitals as full partners in this process.” “Our behaviour is too insular. It is not possible to separate the university/hospital relationship any longer. It is no longer about ‘them’ and ‘us’…. It is about aligning our message that we value both academic and hospital leadership.” “This is not just about establishing new and more relationships but also about renewing some relationships, and revisiting others.” “The term AHSC [Academic Health Science Centre] needs to be defined explicitly: it means both hospitals and university players.” “The FOM is broader than the hospitals. As we move to further collaboration and integration we need to think also about those relationships. It is time to think about the whole while acknowledging that differences exist…We want graduates to understand the complexity of the whole system and where they can contribute within that system.” “TAHSN is not achieving its potential. Specific areas that could be strengthened include: outreach to the community and facilitating/strengthening our relationship with the hospitals.” “There are different types of relationships, and we need to work on all of them.” “The days of trying to organize a vision and mission around a single department or discipline are over. We need to think about where the strategic advantages are to advance the integration agenda.” Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 26 Summary of Proceedings 22.214.171.124 SYNTHESIS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION Missing elements/ Relationships questions - Clinical faculty: status needs to be renamed; currently refer to this group as being/having only “part time status”. This diminishes their value as a partner, as well as the fact that there isn’t an avenue for promotion; need to also expedite process of granting status - Relationships with government, Royal College should be considered; need to be more proactive in working with them - Consumer, health networks, LHINs need to be addressed - Missing from the proposal: criteria and ranking, what and how, add on with affiliating – what is it? - Need a broader term for “affiliated hospitals” Commercialization - What are the criteria for ROI? How do you determine what is worthwhile; internationalism is important, but need criteria; different priorities for different audiences; need to recognize our own diversity and diversity amongst audiences Risks - High risk partnerships should be offset by risk adverse partnerships; there are high risk departments (entrepreneurial) and low risk departments (traditional) Implementation Issues - Need input from key partners; TAHSN is not living up to its potential - Co-branding; resources are a major issue; TAHSN hospital communication/PR people do not seem to be interested, which makes implementation very challenging - Funding required for international relationships - Commercialization needs criteria around ROI; guidelines for rules of engagement and conflict of interest; will need to look at resources to support. Need greater harmonization between the university and hospitals Overlap - Internationalism and commercialization – is this tied to social responsibility? Recommendations/next - Create “one entity with one academic governance” (vs. functioning steps in silos with each institution having their own separate policies, missions etc…). - Encourage TAHSN to strengthen partnerships—(i.e. people in hospitals “forget” relationship with the university) - Emphasize what the University/ FOM brings to the partnership (i.e., inform our partners we have a lot to offer); start a discourse with our partners - Be more explicit in encouraging hospitals to integrate Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 27 Summary of Proceedings 126.96.36.199 FEEDBACK ON GOALS, SUMMARY OF RANKING Goal Comments Preliminary Rankings #1 - Support proposal to identify criteria for different types of 2,2,4,3 Establish new strategic partnership partnerships; internal & - The focus should not be about creating more partnerships, external rather selecting the right partnerships #2 - Focus on current partnerships, 5,5,5,5 Enrich partnerships with - Goal #2 replace “enrich” with “integrate (i.e. “To Highest affiliated hospitals integrate our partnerships with the affiliated hospitals…”) Priority #3 - High priority, particularly with medical school expansion 5,5,4,5 Initiate collaborative and distributed education ventures with community affiliates #4 - Place more emphasis on promoting this culture and 5,5,5,4 Promote a culture encouraging high risk behavior supportive of - Develop guidelines around rules of engagement and innovation, conflict of interest guidelines. commercialization & - Need to endorse this entrepreneurship #5 - Actions around this goal need more work 4, 5, 3,3 Enhance international - Strengthen international relations in education and other relationships in components (now heavily focused on research) education and research Overall Ranking - Strong support for this strategic direction, in particular goal # 2, with affiliated teaching hospitals seen as most important partnership. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 28 Summary of Proceedings 2.2.3 Academic Responsibility as Social Responsibility WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Ms Caroline Abrahams, Administrative Co-Lead Dr Anna Jarvis Dr Barry Pakes Dr David McKnight, Faculty Co-Lead Dr David Williams Dr Lynn Wilson, Faculty Co-Lead Working definitions, challenges and opportunities: Social Responsibility: The obligations of organizations/institutions to make decisions and take actions that will enhance the welfare and interests of society as well as the organization. An ethical imperative based on mutual obligations. Social Accountability: The commitment of AHSCs to demonstrate social responsibility in their education, research and service activities. Achieved by developing policies and setting measurable benchmarks. Challenges Opportunities Reaching agreement on the distinctive social Support the mission, vision and values of mission of AHSCs the Faculty of Medicine Defining our community Enhance the ‘brand’ of the University of Maintaining a balance between core mission and Toronto and FOM responsiveness to social trends Promote collaboration Working effectively with social and political Use resources wisely in meeting our social institutions, but not subsuming their roles obligations Assessing the impact of curricular changes and Improve the health of our communities community relations on the health of relevant Academic opportunities populations Improve faculty recognition Advancement opportunities 188.8.131.52 PRIORITY GOALS & ACTIONS PRIORITY GOALS ACTIONS (1) To articulate a Develop searchable on-line inventory of SR initiatives in the Faculty of working definition of Medicine (to be undertaken directly by the Working Group on Social Social Responsibility Responsibility) and an understanding of the Faculty of Medicine’s communities (2) To embed Social Develop key performance, reporting, and evaluation criteria Responsibility Create student and faculty awards recognizing SR leadership Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 29 Summary of Proceedings leadership into the culture of the Faculty (3) Develop cultural perform a needs assessment on current curricula competence in the Faculty of Medicine Immediate steps to move priorities forward quickly include: seeking support for continuation of a Working Group which can be sustained for one to two years to lead implementation of the Social Responsibility initiatives with a focus on achieving buy-in of faculty for the SR agenda and initiating implementation of key activities. 184.108.40.206 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FLOOR “Health and wellness of the urban poor, AIDS, the physiology of the critically ill are all important issues. The burning question is how are we going to reconcile the time pressures and resource commitments to accommodate an interest in pursuing study in all of these areas? … The answer lies in integration and in pursuing more horizontal educational opportunities.” “We are still way back: what is social responsibility and what is our role in tackling that enormous agenda? This is a healthy debate.” “The issue is setting up mechanisms to overcome the fact that things are lined up departmentally….if we are going to change philosophically, then fundamentally we need to change things operationally to allow us to strike the appropriate balance to achieve our goals…If we really want to address the needs of disadvantaged populations, we need to develop an infrastructure that will allow us to reach out and involve the right people in these discussions.” “The university needs to work in concert with the hospitals to adopt an agenda that demonstrates social responsibility.” “There is a Shanghai index that ranks Universities by factors of research and grants etc…Toronto is number 24 in the world. We should likely use this index as a way of measuring ourselves as it exists but there is a great opportunity for the University to make a new scoring system—e.g., the World Health Organization has done this with quality of life.” Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 30 Summary of Proceedings 220.127.116.11 SYNTHESIS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION Missing elements/ Lack of clarity on where the agenda is at, and how this fits within the questions work of the Faculty overall. Important for each area/division to define what social responsibility means for them (i.e., What does it look like from their perspective?) Further clarity needed on a number of questions/ issues: - What does SR look like? - What are the social responsibilities? - What / who is our community? (articulate) - What is our role in advancing SR? - How do we balance excellence and sustainability? - Does SR include public outreach? - What does SR mean for the basic scientist? - What would our strategic priorities look like it they were positioned within a ‘social accountability framework’? - Where does/will funding come from to support social responsible activities? - Can we be all things to all people? What/who is our community? Risks - Fear—what would happen if this appeared on the front page of the globe? - Heightened expectations on resourcing ; concern around where will resources come from to support SR agenda - Need major projects of interest Overlap - Should be more aligned with Integration, Collaboration and Strategic Partnerships; this would reduce potential for duplication; - Branding (advancement) and social responsibility - Tension: some saw overlap with every goal – some saw disconnect with all goals Implementation Issues - How do we integrate SR into a limited curriculum? - Hard to measure outcomes – benchmarks need to be included in the proposal - Varying support for initiatives (Global Health very high, Inner City, High, Environment – “green agenda” mixed support); - Need to engage community and partners in defining our commitments; need to engage hospitals explicitly in this process - University/FoM has not identified specific goals, hard to harness initiative to pursue projects which are meaningful but where little work has been done Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 31 Summary of Proceedings Recommendations/next Proceed only when there is clarity in the following areas: steps - How each program defines social responsibility; - What it means for the FOM to be socially responsible; (particularly with respect to areas where it is now strong); - Who the identified community(ies) of focus are; - What the method of measurement will be (e.g., develop a score card/matrix so that U of T can be ranked/measured) - What the process for inclusion of hospitals will be - Require all priorities to be analyzed through a ‘social responsibility lens - Develop greater cohesion around the concept of global health (e.g., reducing carbon footprint) - Put environmental sustainability back on the agenda (“Put green back in”) - Develop awards to promote social responsibility [Note: some group members felt that these awards already exist i.e. Community Services Award] - Work towards improving the Shanghai index and/or consider creating a new index that more accurately measures the contributions of the university. [This would include the weighted indexes around diversity of trainee’s, number of trainees, number of graduate students, number of socially responsible issues addressed etc.] - Identify a few projects and leverage - A conversation about SR needs to happen at the Faculty level (e.g. engage the Faculty through MedEMail) 18.104.22.168 FEEDBACK ON GOALS/SUMMARY OF RANKING Goals Comments Preliminary Rankings #1 - Priority goal, all other goals are subsumed within 5,5 Articulate a working - Inventory is important can function as a celebration, definition of SR and enrichment understanding of the FoM - Support for starting definition communities #2 - “Need to change our attitude before we can change 4,5 Embed SR leadership into our habits” the culture of the faculty #3 - Unclear, not as obvious a goal, seems disconnected 3, 3 Develop cultural from other goals and needs to be refined competence in FOM Overall - Work needs to proceed, but overall plan is not at the state of readiness of some of the others. - Ongoing discussion and dialogue with Faculty and programs needed to answer some of the fundamental questions outlined above. - One group noted that this is the only strategic direction that feels value driven ( “We care about others”) and is something that individuals can relate to. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 32 Summary of Proceedings 2.2.4 Infrastructure, Communications, and Connectivity WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Ms Allison Amin Dr Patricia Brubaker Dr Peter Lewis, Faculty Co-Lead Mr Tim Neff, Administrative Co-Lead Mr Wes Robertson, Administrative Co-Lead Ms Shirley Roll Dr Andrea Sass-Kortsak The FOM currently has three major infrastructure challenges: The renovation and expansion of physical buildings (space): - Distributed infrastructure across numerous buildings ranging in size, age, cost- efficiency - New budget model - Faculty is responsible for the operating costs of all of its buildings as well as the mortgage costs for capital projects - Deferred maintenance The renovation and expansion of IT infrastructure: - Achieving balance between central and distributed services (e.g., University’s student information system & University backbone network) & coordination among Faculty, departments, and programs - Cost-sharing with affiliated hospital partners - Align new research revenues to adequately support IT expenses on-campus Improvements of the quality and completeness of data & communications about our people, their activities and productivity: - Providing easy, quick, and direct communications with all current staff, faculty, and students - Accuracy and timeliness of the HR data in HRIS - Providing complete, transparent, and secure HR data access to all who require it - Relying on the completeness and accuracy of the alumni and donor information in DIS Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 33 Summary of Proceedings 22.214.171.124 PRIORITY GOALS & ACTIONS PRIORITY GOALS ACTIONS (1) To develop a space and Implement a visioning process that will inform the Master Plan — physical infrastructure one that addresses adjacencies, relationships between units, and Vision and Master Plan for cross fertilization between departments. the Faculty that aligns with strategic directions for Perform a cost-benefit analysis of comprehensive vs. basic research and education versions of master plan and recommend optimal process for the incorporating the Faculty. enhancement of our information technology and Assess current space inventory and how we use that space. communication infrastructure capabilities and addressing issues of environmental sustainability. (2) To develop a data master Develop an accurate and complete communications database for plan to address the Faculty. improvements to the quality, consistency, and Address needed improvements to Advancement and Alumni data completeness of data about and the systems in which it is managed. our people and their activities and productivity. Ensure that all faculty and staff appointments, especially clinical, are properly and clearly implemented in all systems Streamline and automate the labour-intensive appointment and promotion processes. Roll-out the WebCV system to provide productivity reporting and benchmarking. (3) To continue to develop the Identify and support central University systems where they can Faculty's IT support reduce the cost and support load of the Faculty, while providing division so that it provides comparable service. an effective and sustainable balance between the IT Identify and centralize applications and functions being run on a operations of the Faculty departmental level where centralization could significantly reduce and those of its cost and risk. departments, its affiliated hospitals, other Health Work more closely with our affiliated hospital partners to cost- Sciences faculties, and the share on major systems that are of clear and significant benefit to University itself. all. Review core internal IT systems and services to determine whether they are appropriately managed and supported; if they are not, determine what changes need to be made. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 34 Summary of Proceedings Immediate steps that can be taken to move these priorities forward quickly: Describe in greater detail the specifications in the area of space planning and will await the results of the master plan analysis to be performed by the Office of Facilities Management and Space Planning before making recommendations to the Faculty on how to proceed. Flesh out the data master plan. Discovery Commons will continue to inform Working Group on its ongoing activities and will make recommendations on priorities. Integrate the evolving IT infrastructure needs of the Faculty with both the space and data master plans. Recommend that the Associate Director, Strategic Communications and Public Relations, perform a review of the various communications vehicles, publications, and strategies to make sure that we take full advantage of our new capabilities. 126.96.36.199 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FLOOR “If we can’t house them, we’ll lose them…” “Consensus from the group is that data mining/data integrity is, for lack of a better phrase, ‘a mess.’ For example, there are no minimal data set rules—are we counting bodies? Etc…” “We need to figure out a way to share the enormous amount of data that is already being collected.” “The lack of connectivity of our learners is a key concern.” “What if U of T took a more proactive leadership role in harmonizing the development of a common IT platform with the goal of working toward one U of T/ TAHSN platform?” “As we reduce our exposure around print publications, publishers are compensating by increasing costs associated with access to electronic records (e.g., Nature)…. What will be the impact of open access on our costs/publications?” “This area has the biggest risk in terms of consequences involved in not pursuing it. This includes the potential for significant loss of human capital…. This belongs in a category of its own because it is an enabler of everything else.” Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 35 Summary of Proceedings 188.8.131.52 SYNTHESIS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION Missing elements/ - WebCV is targeted for cross the board implementation; questions hospitals are the next step of rollout; need to be pushed, need to provide funding to make it happen- why is it taking so long? - Where are curriculum innovations (education) – has this been bundled in #1? - Difficult to connect U of T to hospitals (i.e. data/space/library) since hospital employees have no affiliation with the university; Need to give Uteri’s’ more easily - Space, IT, are areas which are a moving target – need to build in more contingencies for changes in the plan. Risks - Space management must be carefully planned or else it could backfire - Resources are important; huge financial risk - $10 million to $100 million - Huge risk to the Faculty if space and IT plans are not implement; - risk to losing human capital, “If we can’t house them, we lose them” - In this era of cost-cutting, at risk for erring on short term thinking and risk strategic infrastructure development Implementation Issues - All three of the Infrastructure working group’s goals are linked and should be implemented simultaneously - Need more detail on how we are going to do this (especially around the space plan) Overlap - Advancement, works in tandem with Infrastructure as an enabler; obvious opportunities for donors to help develop new and existing buildings and lend their names - IT is key for branding and data collection that is critical to Advancement - Social responsibility – creating environmentally sustainable structures and accessible, welcoming work environments; creating buildings that provide optimal conditions for fulfillment of the FOM core mission - IT overlaps with Integration and Partnerships - IT is an enabler, rather than a strategic direction – it is needed to implement many of the other goals Recommendations/next - Need to determine what can be done in the short term for all steps three goals - Need to break down barriers by working together; create a project or target all faculty data (i.e. credentialing of physicians). - Money/resources could be pooled between the University and the hospitals to gather data Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 36 Summary of Proceedings 184.108.40.206 FEEDBACK ON GOALS/SUMMARY OF RANKING Goal Comments Preliminary Rankings #1 Needs a master plan 3, 5, 5 Develop a space & physical infrastructure vision and master plan #2 Consensus that data mining/data integrity are “a mess” 5, 5, 5 Develop a data master plan #3 5, 5, 5 Continue to develop Faculty’s IT support division Overall Urgency and high priority to move forward with the actions in this strategic direction. All three goals were seen as linked and need to move forward concurrently. Fundamental enabler to all other working groups Infrastructure is so important it should be considered separate from the other strategic directions Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 37 Summary of Proceedings 2.2.5 Be an Advancement Culture WORKING GROUP MEMBERS Mr. Mike den Hann Dr. Dimitri Anastakis Dr. Brenda Andrews Mr. Paul Cantin Ms Julie Lfford Dr. Wendy Levinson Dr. Stephen Matthews Advancement is a driver for key FOM activities providing funding for Faculty and student support, major projects and capital needs. Internal pressures include: a decentralized budget model; decreased endowment returns. Other pressures relate to sophisticated and well resourced competition and the need to consider the University Campaign planning cycle. The faculty needs to build on its Advancement successes to date and cultivate broad-based participation in Advancement activities. The activities include fundraising, programs that engage alumni in meaningful ways, and the proactive management of the FoM’s external identity/ brand. In all these activities, the level of success will grow as Faculty becomes full partners with Advancement staff. In essence, the Faculty needs to develop and become an “Advancement Culture.” Key challenges and opportunities to be considered: Faculty members have multiple allegiances; unreliable or incomplete data (alumni); and lack of understanding of the Advancement process and its value (“ATM culture”). 220.127.116.11 PRIORITY GOALS & ACTIONS PRIORITY GOALS ACTIONS (1) Develop and launch Faculty Consult with key faculty members training / education Recruit Division of University Advancement (DUA) commitment program which include to assist specific workshops for Recruit faculty leads who have been trained elsewhere faculty members and Develop and implement training workshops Faculty leadership Develop and produce support material (2) Develop and begin Work with Advancement Data Working Group and HR data implementation of a plan to project address critical issue of Involve Department of University Advancement data/ information Advancement Data Working Group to develop 12-24 month plan management and reporting Obtain approval and implement plan with benchmarks (% of accurate alumni records) Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 38 Summary of Proceedings (3) Articulate process for Committee to discuss at next meeting to determine objectives and managing and developing critical outcomes the Faculty of Medicine Develop short term and long term plan “brand” (external identity) Immediate steps that can be taken to move these priorities forward: Working group to define benchmarks and further develop branding needs/plan Initiate process to develop faculty training/ education Work with Discovery Commons on 12 month plan for addressing data issue Engage in a research exercise with donors and faculty as the start of developing a brand strategy 18.104.22.168 PERSPECTIVES FROM THE FLOOR “Every hospital is focusing on specific programs that integrate research and education. Bloorview is focused on the care of disabled children, St. Mike’s on the urban poor and disadvantaged, Baycrest on the elderly…[etc]…The obvious next step is to work with our hospitals to figure out where the mission of patient care, research and education really gets integrated and use this as the foundation for building a solid agenda for Advancement.” “It is difficult to get things done given our current organizational structure… Over the next few months, we will need to take on a few of these issues with hospitals (e.g., library issue).” “The brand of the Faculty of Medicine and the University both need to be defined. This is a shared concern that needs to be addressed as part of the strategic plan. Along with this is the looming question of how we co-brand with our hospitals?” “The visual image is important. We all need to look the same.” “The process of telling our story to other people is what branding is all about…. The brand has to about who we really are. We can’t promise something to our community that we can not commit to or deliver on.” “The problem of multiple allegiances and competition between organizations is real and challenging. There is no question that we need to move toward stronger partnerships between the university, the hospital and their Foundations. The question is whether the time is right to move this forward.” “There are already examples where the FOM has partnerships that are advancing common goals. The broader issue relates to the need to develop a Faculty-wide agreement with all hospitals. Though this may not be the time to move this agenda forward, in the short term this is about building trust through partnerships that will lay the foundation to achieve this over time.” “The goal is to create an environment where hospitals and other partners want to be identified with the University of Toronto brand.” Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 39 Summary of Proceedings 22.214.171.124 SYNTHESIS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION Missing elements/ - What are the expectations of faculty in this area? questions - Advancement educations training (goal # 1) is missing leadership element - Where is the discussion around ethical behavior in advancement and advancement training? Risks - Risk of not proceeding is too great. - Misconception of branding…it is very difficult and costs a great deal of money to do right. - This is very important—it can separate U of T from the other institutions; consensus that U o f T is too passive on this front Implementation Issues - Needs to address funding for operating expenses, such as administration, cleaning/maintenance, etc. - Faculty buy in to Advancement is key; need to focus on a target audience (start with leaders and the willing and then branch out – explore implications for tenure and promotions, i.e. service component of PTR requirements Overlap - Possible convergence with Leadership - Data high priority with Infrastructure & Communications group Recommendations/next steps Faculty Development - Identify a person in each department responsible for addressing inquiries related to advancement - Clarify expectations of Faculty; support faculty development in this area - Partner with the hospitals in developing FoM’s Advancement education and training program (goal # 1). - Emphasize advancement as a service to the University Data Collection – Begin with data collection , alumni, etc. Branding - Address current lack of central branding/brand management; FOM needs a tag line that succinctly says what we’re about. - Does brand drive strategic actions or vice versa? (Need to determine order) - Create an environment where partners want to use the U of T brand - Use advancement to generate a culture shift, e.g. promoting the brand of the new Dalla Lana School of Public Health - Begin with branding the Endowed Chairs Program Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 40 Summary of Proceedings 126.96.36.199 FEEDBACK ON GOALS/SUMMARY OF RANKINGS Goal Comments Preliminary Rankings #1 Launch Faculty Training Important, need to integrate into education programs; 5,5,5 program needs to be a core competency for all chairs 3 (overlap Priority to train the chairs, with Support role of faculty as ambassadors Leadership goals) #2 Develop & implement Critical 5,5,5, data/information plan Need to communicate with hospitals and partners High # 3 Articulate and manage Mixed response to branding as priority; process needs to 5, 2, 2 brand be carefully engaged “don’t change who we are to facilitate a branding process” Overall Clear proposal Advancement is an “enabler” not a starter Goals #1 and #2 were highly supported – branding approach is a process that will take more time to achieve consensus and buy-in The review of the Working Group proposals represents an important step in moving forward with implementation of the FOM strategic directions. While there will be ongoing discussions at SPOC as to the relative priority of each of the proposals, the retreat confirmed strong overall support for the five strategic directions and the importance of the Working Groups in leading planning and implementation efforts. Several of the participants expressed the view that two of the strategic directions - Infrastructure and Advancement – should be seem as key enabling strategies for advancing the others. One group represented the interrelatedness of the five strategic directions in the following diagram: Leadership Collaboration Social Responsibility Infrastructure Advancement This interdependence and connectedness of the five strategic directions will be considered as decisions are made with respect to the timing and resourcing of the proposed action plans. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 41 Summary of Proceedings APPENDIX A List of Participants Table 1 David Naylor Catharine Whiteside Sarita Verma Helena Axler Beverley Nickoloff (Ken Meiklejohn – recorder) (Natali Chin – recorder) (Helen Yarish – recorder) (Jeremy Nichols – recorder) Table 2 David McKnight, Facilitator (Social Responsibility Group) Adrian Brown (Obstetrics & Gynecology) Nancy Edwards (CFO) Susan Lieff (CFD, Psychiatry + Leadership Group) Morag Paton (Integration Group) Ken Pritzker (Deputy Speaker, Faculty Council; Laboratory Medicine & Pathology) Michael Ratcliffe (Immunology) Peter Lewis (Infrastructure Group) Table 3 Jean Robertson, Facilitator (Leadership Group) Roy Baker (Biochemistry) Alan Bocking (Obstetrics & Gynecology) Patrick Gullane (Otolaryngology) Anna Jarvis (Social Responsibility Group) John Bohnen (Integration Group) Shirley Roll (Infrastructure Group) Table 4 Paul Cantin, Facilitator (Advancement Group) Denis Daneman (Pediatrics) Mary Gospodarowicz (Radiation Oncology) Mingyao Liu (RIR) Susan Rappolt (Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy) Andrea Sass-Kortsak (Infrastructure Group) Donald Wasylenki (Psychiatry) J. Paul Santerre (IBBME + Integration Group) Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 42 Summary of Proceedings Table 5 Dante Morra, Facilitator (Medicine + Leadership Group) Tim Neff (Infrastructure Group) Avi Hyman (Discovery Commons) Lynn Wilson (Family Medicine + Social Responsibility Group) Brian Hodges (Wilson Centre + Integration Group) Nancy Tucker (Ophthalmology) Maureen Shandling (UGME) Table 6 Mike den Haan, Facilitator (Advancement Group) Caroline Abrahams (Social Responsibility Group) Michael Archer (Nutrition + Leadership Group) Katherine Berg (Physical Therapy) Jack Mandel (Dalla Lana School) Jane Mitchell (Pharmacology) David Williams (Biochemistry + Social Responsibility Group) Kevin Imrie (PGME + Integration Group) Table 7 Ivan Silver, Facilitator (CFD, CE + Leadership Group) Jan Barnsley (Speaker, Faculty Council) Luc de Nil (Speech-Language Pathology) Patrice Bret (Medical Imaging) Pat Brubaker (Physiology + Infrastructure Group) Brian Kavanagh (Anesthesia) Ori Rotstein (IMS) Table 8 Wes Robertson, Facilitator (Infrastructure Group) Wendy Levinson (Medicine + Advancement Group) Barry Pakes (Centre for Global Health + Social Responsibility Group) Lorraine Ferris (Vice Provost, Relations with Health Care Institutions) Howard Lipshitz (Molecular Genetics) Susan Glover Takahashi (PGME + Leadership Group) Richard Reznick (Surgery + Leadership Group) Table 9 Jay Rosenfield, Facilitator (UGME + Integration Group) Molly Verrier (Physical Therapy + Integration Group) Stephen Matthews (Physiology + Advancement Group) Geoff Anderson (HPME + Leadership Group) Julie Lafford (Alumni Relations) Richard Hegele (Laboratory Medicine & Pathology) Louise Lemieux-Charles (HPME + Leadership Group) Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 43 Summary of Proceedings APPENDIX B Retreat Agenda 7:30 a.m. Continental Breakfast 8:00 Welcome and objectives of the meeting Sarita Verma 8:10 Setting the context for planning and action: • The University and the changing economic environment David Naylor • Benchmarks for Excellence Catharine Whiteside 9:00 The Faculty of Medicine drives the University of Toronto: myth or fact? Helena Axler/ Small groups Roundtable discussion to identify the key performance measures which demonstrate the Faculty’s achievements and contributions to the University of Toronto’s ranking as one of the world’s top publicly funded universities. Approximately 20 minutes for table discussion, 10 - 15 minutes for report and discussion in plenary. 9:45 Break 10:05 Strategic Directions Working Group Presentations Moderator: Helena Axler Working Group summary reports for each strategic direction will be pre-circulated. Working Group leaders will present for approximately 10- 12 minutes, highlighting their group’s recommendations, the state of readiness to move forward with their plans and the risks/benefits of proceeding or not proceeding with these plans. All participants will be given summary sheets to rank the projects in terms of their relative importance to advancing the vision and priorities of the Faculty of Medicine. 10:10 Leadership, Succession and Recognition Louise Lemieux Charles 10:20 Integration, Collaboration and Strategic Partnerships Kevin Imrie 10:30 Social Responsibility Lynn Wilson 10:45 Moderated plenary discussion Helena Axler/All This is the opportunity for all participants to ask specific questions to clarify, challenge or support the proposed goals and projects for first three strategic directions. 11:00 Presentations continue Infrastructure, Communications, Connectivity Peter Lewis 11:10 Advancement Mike den Haan 11:20 Moderated plenary discussion Helena Axler/All This is the opportunity for all participants to ask specific questions to clarify, challenge or support the proposed goals and projects for the final two strategic directions. 11:30 Confirming working group recommendations and priorities Small groups Facilitated table discussion challenging, confirming and contributing to the deliberations of the 5 working groups. All tables will briefly discuss and rank their overall support of the Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 44 Summary of Proceedings proposed goals and actions for each of the 5 strategic directions. In addition, each table with be assigned one of five directions reports for more in depth discussion. Working Group co-chairs will facilitate the table discussion. 12:30 Working Lunch Small group discussion may continue through lunch. Working Group co-chairs will meet for the last 30 minutes of lunch to synthesize highlights of feedback. 1:30 Report back on small group discussion Helena Axler/All Highlights of overall project rankings and priority for the Faculty 2:15 Sustaining our Core Business Plenary Objectives of the session: Catharine Whiteside Facilitator: Helena Axler • Given our current economic situation, what are the most important things we can do now to sustain our core business? • What are some potential strategies for financing our core business? • How can we prepare and support our leadership to manage in these times of uncertainty? • How can we engage the broader faculty, students and staff in advancing our vision and helping to sustain our core business? 3:15 Closing remarks and next steps Sarita Verma 3:30 p.m. Planning Retreat Adjourns Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 45 Summary of Proceedings APPENDIX C Principles for Strategic Plan Implementation 1. As part of publicly funded University, the “Vision”, “Mission” and “Values” of the Faculty of Medicine focus our academic achievements on improving the health of individuals and populations through sustained excellence, innovation and leadership development. 2. All faculty, staff, students and alumnae/i create the Faculty of Medicine community whose collective academic and professional activities, coupled with the profile of the University of Toronto, produce our “brand”. 3. To achieve our “Vision” and “Mission”, the Faculty has defined strategic goals and objectives to be implemented through relevant benchmarking by each academic unit and by the Faculty as a whole to continually evaluate measures of success. 4. Each academic unit (Department, Center/Institute, Education Program) within one year of academic leadership renewal will re-define their individual specific strategic directions and implementation plan that align with the overall Vision, Mission and Strategic Plan of the Faculty. 5. Academic and administrative leaders understand that major risk analysis must inform their decision-making and that adjustment to strategic directions requires continual monitoring and management of risk. 6. Every individual matters – we strive to achieve the best environment to create the optimal opportunity for individual career potential and collaborative team function in research, education, creative professional activities and administration. Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 46 Summary of Proceedings
"STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION RETREAT JANUARY 29_ 2009"