Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

STRATEGIC PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION RETREAT JANUARY 29_ 2009

VIEWS: 7 PAGES: 46

									    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.


2.2.1.1 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
2.2.1.2 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.”


2.2.1.3 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
2.2.1.4 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.


2.2.2.1 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
2.2.2.2 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
2.2.2.3 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
2.2.2.4 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



2.2.3.1 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.


2.2.3.2 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
 2.2.3.3 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)


2.2.3.4 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
2.2.4.1 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.


2.2.4.2 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
2.2.4.3 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
2.2.4.4 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”).


2.2.5.1 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


2.2.5.2 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
2.2.5.3 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
2.2.5.4 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

								
To top