strategic planning implementation retreat ......the strategic planning oversight committee (spoc)...

STRATEGIC PLANNING

IMPLEMENTATION RETREAT

JANUARY 29, 2009

Summary of Proceedings and Next Steps

March 2009

APPENDIX 11 APPENDIX 12

Faculty of Medicine Strategic Plan Implementation Retreat 2

Summary of Proceedings

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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

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.

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.

The current environment provides us with an

opportunity to seriously rethink some aspects of

what we do and how we do it….There are advocacy

priorities on which we can and must be active.

Dr. David Naylor



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),

and with other stakeholders

provincially, nationally,

internationally.

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

the FOM are to articulate the

priorities for advancing the

Faculty‘s strategic goals, aligning

the key indicators of performance,

and benchmarking performance

against internal and external

targets.

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

must reflect those activities

considered to be of ‗highest value‘

for our faculty, staff, and students

enabling them to use these

measures as part of their own self-

reflection and career advancement.

In the end, it will be the collective actions of the faculty, staff

and students that will create the reputation of the Faculty of

Medicine and, in turn, translate that reputation into

relevance for alumnae and alumni, donors and the University

of Toronto.

Benchmarking refers to the metrics that the FOM identifies to

be most applicable in determining success in achieving our

Vision, Mission and Values. Further, the benchmarks must have

relevance internally to our faculty, students and staff as well as

to our external partners, stakeholders and broader national and

international communities.

Dr. Catharine Whiteside

To realize our Vision of “international leadership” and Mission of

“preparing leaders” we need to recognize that:

• U of T is the international “brand”

• U of T is the “integrating brand” with the Toronto Academic

Health Science Network (TAHSN) partners

• Metrics must be relevant to both the University of Toronto

and its partners



Figure 3 - Benchmarks for Excellence: Examples of Current Opportunities & Challenges

Scholarship and

Research

The national and

international reputation of

the University in large part

is dependent on health and

biomedical scholarship

and research

Evidence

U of T research funding (2/3 attributed to health and biomedical research)

Faculty awards and recognition (we could do better)

Publication number and citation rate is excellent (but we do not track

collectively)

Leading through

Partnerships

Collectively, the affiliated

hospitals and research

institutes constitute the

largest investment in

health and biomedical

research associated with

the University.

Evidence:

Tenured faculty number 215 on campus (with no net growth)

Constant growth off campus (in hospitals)

2/3 of doctoral (MSc/PhD) students off campus

MD postgraduates and fellows – 3 times the size of the next largest

program in Canada

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

(knowledge

translation) of

discovery and IP

Evidence:

Human subject research and clinical trials lack effective infrastructure in

Toronto

Rate of on campus disclosure of IP and commercialization – very low

Faculty and students

dispersed off-campus

have mixed institution

allegiance

Evidence:

30% of faculty in the hospitals fail to recognize U of T on publications

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

education programs

are “lost” alumnae

Evidence:

Low returns on annual U of T campaign

Bursary endowments for health professional programs - low



Older buildings do not

reflect the excellence

of our education and

research achievements

and constitute

increasing risk of

reduced performance.

Evidence:

COU space allocations for research – well below standard

Design experts – suggest the MSB is not good enough

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.



Figure 4 - Demonstrating our Value: Potential Measures and Indicators

Possible

Performance

Measures

Indicators & Questions To

Inform The Choice Of Indicators

Information/ Targets To

Demonstrate The Faculty’s

Achievements & Contributions

SCHOLARSHIPS &

RESEARCH

How can we develop

consistency/commonality

in branding or perhaps

joint branding

(university/hospitals)?

Why don’t we focus

initially on measuring

the things we actually do

and create a FOM index

based on this

information?

INDICATOR: PUBLICATIONS

How does the FOM make a

difference? How do we

demonstrate that difference?

How do we profile how we make

a difference to our different

audiences / stakeholders within

government?

Number of publications

(rankings)

Number of citations (rankings)

Grant revenue and innovation

IP Revenue (% of alumni

captured)

(―cold hard measurables‖)

Degree of connectivity

and integration of

hospitals with the

University, and

branding as a major

topic

INDICATOR: BRANDING

Brand recognition (student)

Hospital vs. University

Measures of the quality of our

medical education and

scholarships

Degree to which FOM

approaches 100% attribution to U

of T in publications

Reputation of our programs

externally

Incentives to hospitals and VPs

INNOVATION

How can we do a better

job of tracking

innovation in research,

education, and clinical

care?

INDICATORS:

KNOWLEDGE

TRANSLATION

SOURCES OF REVENUE

PATENTS

COMMERCIALIZATION

Patents and commercialization

Rate & disclosure (?) e.g. the

glycemic index was invented at

U of T. Are we leveraging this?

HUMAN CAPITAL

(LEADERS)

INDICATORS: LEADERSHIP

POSITIONS

What is happening to the people

coming through the FOM? Who

are they? What have they

achieved?

What have their success been?

What impact have they had in

their field, and on society in

general?

Leadership positions held in

Ontario

Leadership positions held

nationally

Leadership positions held

internationally

Number of quality alumni in

leadership positions (measure the

output and level of influence)



STUDENT

EXPERIENCE AT

THE UNIVERSITY

Use before/during / after

measures to quantify

student performance

(i.e., where students

were in their class);

extra curricular

activities and level of

involvement in social

activities

INDICATORS:

STUDENT EXPERIENCE

STUDENT SATISFACTION

Do we really attract the best and

brightest?

How do graduates perceive the

quality of their experience at the

university?

Percentage of chairs of

committees in different bodies

Postgraduate accreditation (very

high)

Number of trainees at doctoral

level

Number of department events

and percentage of students who

attend

Admission data

Quality of evaluations (exit

surveys).

OUTPUT OF

GRADUATES

INDICATORS:

CHOSEN CAREER PATH

Where are graduates now?

Rewards? Positions held?

Innovations? Outcomes?

What are the areas they are

working in (clinical, discovery,

innovation, education and

partnership)?

Are our alumni productive,

impactful leaders? How can we

measure this? What happens to

our students?

Why aren‘t se using the

international index (Shanghai

index?) rather than creating our

own?

Track trainees on what they go

on to do (i.e. to show that we are

training the leaders (outcomes)

get them to be ambassadors

Trainee ultimate performance

Track diversity/ international

metric (i.e., what is the footprint

of the university globally? Who

are we training? Where do they

come from/go to? What is our

footprint?)

Measure student experience (Can

exit surveys include a piece that

measures student experience in

both a qualitative and

quantitative way?)

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.



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:



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.



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.



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



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.



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

of all new leaders

Explicit

recognition &

reward of

leadership

Resource

allocation for

development &

support of a

diversity of

leadership

experiences &

opportunities

Explicit requirement for

all

search & selection

processes

Nurture Coaching

Professional

Development

Explicit

mentorship

role of senior

leaders

Explicit search

for leadership

interest &

potential

Resource

allocation to

support

development

Leaders performance

review –

report on actions to

identify

and develop leadership

potential and build

capability



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

for proposed and/or

existing key leadership

programs.

Continue support for the Education Scholars Program

Continue to support and promote the Undergraduate Leadership

Program

(2) To explore the need

and feasibility of

developing a general

academic leadership

program

Define & develop generic capabilities required of academic leaders

target post-tenure faculty or clinical faculty who have had their 3-yr

review

During selection process for new Chairs, include an assessment of

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

succession planning

strategy for senior

leadership

Work with Chairs to identify potential leaders

(4) To identify and

develop potential staff

leaders and develop a

supporting succession

planning strategy

Identify potential leaders within the ranks of existing Faculty of

Medicine staff

Define potential career paths for aspiring leaders within the Faculty and

the University

Explore informal mentorship opportunities within the Faculty

Identify the leadership competencies for administrative managers

(5) To determine the value

ascribed to the

different types of

awards that are

available in the

Faculty of Medicine,

and externally, and

their relationship to the

individual‘s leadership

competencies.

Conduct a needs assessment for additional awards and make

appropriate recommendations based on outcome

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.



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/

questions

Definition of Leadership

- 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



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

steps - Strong agreement with the need to establish a basic academic

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



2.2.1.4 FEEDBACK ON GOALS/ SUMMARY OF RANKING

Goal Comments Preliminary

Rankings

#1

Continue support for

proposed and/or existing key

leadership programs

- Can be accomplished easily

- Broaden programs included in this goal

- Note: one group thought this was too specific and

should not be considered a strategic goal

5,4,3/4, 5

#2

Explore the need &

feasibility of developing a

general academic leadership

program

- Requires needs assessment, but can take advantage of

other programs

- Strong support for chair orientation program

- Need a program where you learn leadership (perhaps

with your team)

4,4,5

#3

Develop a succession

planning strategy for senior

leadership

- Suggestion that this goal could be incorporated into

Goal #2

5,5,5

#4

Identify potential staff

leaders & develop

succession planning strategy

- Strengthen staff development actions 5,3,3,

#5

Determine value ascribed to

awards

- Little support for a leadership award. [More

important for current leaders to create leadership

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

3,2/3

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.



2.2.2 Integration, Collaboration, & Strategic Partnerships


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


(1) To establish new

strategic partnerships,

internal and external to

the University

Complete an inventory and assessment matrix of existing partnerships

across the Faculty to: help evaluate and enhance these partnerships; and

help identify areas of priority for future partnering opportunities

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

partnerships with the

affiliated hospitals by

further integrating

shared education and

Participate in joint strategic planning/visioning with affiliates to renew

relationships and to address:

o Credentialing

o Research ethics

o Shared IT infrastructure



research goals.

o Clinical trials infrastructure

o Commercialization opportunities

o Shared identify/branding

(3) To initiate

collaborative ventures

with community

affiliates, and diversify

and expand health

professional education

with a focus on

patient- and family-

centered quality care.

Create a strategy and process for establishing partnerships with new

community sites for joint educational activities (including a checklist)

(4) To foster a culture of

commercialization and

entrepreneurship

within the Faculty of

Medicine.

Endorse the ongoing work of the Dean‘s Advisory Committee on

Commercialization (DACC)

o Recognition;

o Early-stage funding;

o Mentorship

(5) To enhance

international research

and educational

partnership

opportunities.

Endorse the strategic plan of the Office of International Research

Relations

o Encouraging a culture of international research engagement

o Recognition of successful collaborations

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)




―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.‖



2.2.2.3 SYNTHESIS OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION

Missing elements/

questions

Relationships

- 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

steps - Create ―one entity with one academic governance‖ (vs. functioning

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



2.2.2.4 FEEDBACK ON GOALS, SUMMARY OF RANKING


Rankings

#1

Establish new strategic

partnerships; internal &

external

- Support proposal to identify criteria for different types of

partnership

- The focus should not be about creating more partnerships,

rather selecting the right partnerships

2,2,4,3

#2

Enrich partnerships with

affiliated hospitals

- Focus on current partnerships,

- Goal #2 replace ―enrich‖ with ―integrate (i.e. ―To

integrate our partnerships with the affiliated hospitals…‖)

5,5,5,5

Highest

Priority

# 3

Initiate collaborative

ventures with

community affiliates

- High priority, particularly with medical school expansion

and distributed education

5,5,4,5

#4

Promote a culture

supportive of

innovation,

commercialization &

entrepreneurship

- Place more emphasis on promoting this culture and

encouraging high risk behavior

- Develop guidelines around rules of engagement and

conflict of interest guidelines.

- Need to endorse this

5,5,5,4

#5

Enhance international

relationships in

education and research

- Actions around this goal need more work

- Strengthen international relations in education and other

components (now heavily focused on research)

4, 5, 3,3

Overall Ranking

- Strong support for this strategic direction, in particular goal # 2, with

affiliated teaching hospitals seen as most important partnership.



2.2.3 Academic Responsibility as Social Responsibility


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

mission of AHSCs

Defining our community

Maintaining a balance between core mission and

responsiveness to social trends

Working effectively with social and political

institutions, but not subsuming their roles

Assessing the impact of curricular changes and

community relations on the health of relevant

populations

Support the mission, vision and values of

the Faculty of Medicine

Enhance the ‗brand‘ of the University of

Toronto and FOM

Promote collaboration

Use resources wisely in meeting our social

obligations

Improve the health of our communities

Academic opportunities

Improve faculty recognition

Advancement opportunities



(1) To articulate a

working definition of

Social Responsibility

and an understanding

of the Faculty of

Medicine‘s

communities

Develop searchable on-line inventory of SR initiatives in the Faculty of

Medicine (to be undertaken directly by the Working Group on Social

Responsibility)

(2) To embed Social

Responsibility Develop key performance, reporting, and evaluation criteria

Create student and faculty awards recognizing SR leadership



leadership into the

culture of the Faculty

(3) Develop cultural

competence in the

Faculty of Medicine

perform a needs assessment on current curricula

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.


―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.‖




Missing elements/

questions Lack of clarity on where the agenda is at, and how this fits within the

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



Recommendations/next

steps Proceed only when there is clarity in the following areas:

- 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

Articulate a working

definition of SR and

understanding of the FoM

communities

- Priority goal, all other goals are subsumed within

- Inventory is important can function as a celebration,

enrichment

- Support for starting definition

5,5

#2

Embed SR leadership into

the culture of the faculty

- ―Need to change our attitude before we can change

our habits‖

4,5

#3

Develop cultural

competence in FOM

- Unclear, not as obvious a goal, seems disconnected

from other goals and needs to be refined

3, 3

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.



2.2.4 Infrastructure, Communications, and Connectivity


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





(1) To develop a space and

physical infrastructure

Vision and Master Plan for

the Faculty that aligns with

strategic directions for

research and education

incorporating the

enhancement of our

information technology and

communication

infrastructure capabilities

and addressing issues of

environmental

sustainability.

Implement a visioning process that will inform the Master Plan —

one that addresses adjacencies, relationships between units, and

cross fertilization between departments.

Perform a cost-benefit analysis of comprehensive vs. basic

versions of master plan and recommend optimal process for the

Faculty.

Assess current space inventory and how we use that space.

(2) To develop a data master

plan to address

improvements to the

quality, consistency, and

completeness of data about

our people and their

activities and productivity.

Develop an accurate and complete communications database for

the Faculty.

Address needed improvements to Advancement and Alumni data

and the systems in which it is managed.

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

Faculty's IT support

division so that it provides

an effective and sustainable

balance between the IT

operations of the Faculty

and those of its

departments, its affiliated

hospitals, other Health

Sciences faculties, and the

University itself.

Identify and support central University systems where they can

reduce the cost and support load of the Faculty, while providing

comparable service.

Identify and centralize applications and functions being run on a

departmental level where centralization could significantly reduce

cost and risk.

Work more closely with our affiliated hospital partners to cost-

share on major systems that are of clear and significant benefit to

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.



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.


―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.‖




Missing elements/

questions - WebCV is targeted for cross the board implementation;

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

steps - Need to determine what can be done in the short term for all

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



2.2.4.4 FEEDBACK ON GOALS/SUMMARY OF RANKING


Rankings

#1

Develop a space & physical

infrastructure vision and

master plan

Needs a master plan 3, 5, 5

# 2

Develop a data master plan

Consensus that data mining/data integrity are ―a mess‖ 5, 5, 5

# 3

Continue to develop

Faculty‘s IT support

division

5, 5, 5

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



2.2.5 Be an Advancement Culture


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‖).



(1) Develop and launch Faculty

training / education

program which include

specific workshops for

faculty members and

Faculty leadership

Consult with key faculty members

Recruit Division of University Advancement (DUA) commitment

to assist

Recruit faculty leads who have been trained elsewhere

Develop and implement training workshops

Develop and produce support material

(2) Develop and begin

implementation of a plan to

address critical issue of

data/ information

management and reporting

Work with Advancement Data Working Group and HR data

project

Involve Department of University Advancement

Advancement Data Working Group to develop 12-24 month plan

Obtain approval and implement plan with benchmarks (% of

accurate alumni records)



(3) Articulate process for

managing and developing

the Faculty of Medicine

―brand‖ (external identity)

Committee to discuss at next meeting to determine objectives and

critical outcomes

Develop short term and long term plan

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


―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.‖




Missing elements/

questions - What are the expectations of faculty in this area?

- 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



2.2.5.4 FEEDBACK ON GOALS/SUMMARY OF RANKINGS


Rankings

#1 Launch Faculty Training

program

Important, need to integrate into education programs;

needs to be a core competency for all chairs

Priority to train the chairs,

Support role of faculty as ambassadors

5,5,5

3 (overlap

with

Leadership

goals)

#2 Develop & implement

data/information plan

Critical

Need to communicate with hospitals and partners

5,5,5,

High

# 3 Articulate and manage

brand

Mixed response to branding as priority; process needs to

be carefully engaged

―don‘t change who we are to facilitate a branding

process‖

5, 2, 2

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.



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)



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)



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



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



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.

strategic planning implementation retreat ......the strategic planning oversight committee (spoc)...

Documents