The Implementation Phase

During the Planning Phase, the College of Medicine identified seven key areas to prioritize as immediate initiatives to pursue in year one of the strategic plan implementation. To oversee these initiatives and the implementation of all 10 strategies that comprise the strategic plan, the COM has developed a formal oversight structure. This governance structure is different than that of the planning phase and has been established to be inclusive of the key leaders who will be necessary to provide input and oversight in our implementation roll-out. The structure will also ensure that input is regularly being solicited by multiple groups, including the College Executive Committee.

Executive Planning Council Heading link

Strategic Plan Implementation

As per the above diagram, the implementation stage of the strategic planning process is being overseen by the Executive Planning Council. The Executive Planning Council is well-suited to provide guidance and oversight as it is comprised of the executive Dean and each of the regional deans along with the leads for each of the 10 strategy committees.

In order to keep the community informed and to solicit additional input, regular updates on the progress of the implementation are being provided to the college executive committee as well as other college leadership committees via the office of strategic initiatives, which is headed by the Assistant Dean for Strategic Initiatives and Planning, Vanessa Peoples.

Strategy Leads have been identified who will be responsible for ensuring each strategy’s successful implementation. Each Strategy Lead will chair a strategy working group which will drive the action planning for each strategy based on the output from the planning phase. These groups will be comprised of members from all campuses and will collaborate closely with additional functional representatives from each of the campuses to ensure appropriate integration of the strategic plan across campuses and eventually at the departments and division level within the campuses. The hard work is just beginning, but we are comfortable that we have a clear and unified direction in which to proceed.

Strategy Committee Members Heading link

Education Strategy Committee

  • Ray Curry (Chair)
  • Simon Alford
  • Leila Amiri
  • Dawood Darbar
  • Ron Gaba
  • Olga Garcia-Bedoya
  • Trish Georgas
  • Heather Heiman
  • Hanna Hinkle
  • Francis McBee Orzulak
  • Jeff Smith

Voting Members

  • Mark Gonzalez (Chair)
  • Michael Blackie
  • Ayana Blair
  • Aoshuang Chen
  • Brandon Chow
  • Lourdes Janette Delgado-Serrano
  • Kara Fess
  • Mary Harvey
  • Robert Hillwig
  • Alicia Hulbert
  • Cody Lund
  • Alphonso Mejia
  • Nina Paroff
  • Tushar Patel
  • Laura Amanda Perry
  • John Rashid
  • Reyalyn Villegas

Ex Officio & Advisors

  • Kathleen J Kashima
  • Tim Lacy
  • Julie Mann
  • Geoff Thames
  • Jonathan R Fisher
  • Bellur Prabhakar (Chair)
  • Alan Diamond
  • Gelila Goba
  • Bin He
  • Ramaswamy Kalynasundaram
  • Nick Kane
  • Brian Layden
  • Orly Lazarov
  • Robin Mermelstein
  • Subhash Panday
  • J.P. Jin
  • Kamran Avanaki
  • Ian Papautsky
  • Jalees Rehman
  • Maria Seimionow
  • Deepak Shukla
  • Lea Smucker
  • Bento Soares
  • Angela Tyner
  • Heather Prendergast (Chair)
  • Rhea Begemen
  • Enrico Benedetti
  • Rachel Caskey
  • Terry Vanden Hoek
  • Scott Jones
  • George Kondos
  • Anand Kumar
  • Harsha Kumar
  • Lisa Lenz
  • Louis Papoff
  • Jonathan Radosta
  • Travis Romagnoli
  • Mary Lou Schmidt
  • Kunal Vora
  • Tom Wyatt (Chair)
  • Alisa Smith (Doane)
  • Hoss Fatemi
  • Carrie Foust
  • Susan Grebner
  • Cathy Grimsted
  • Katie Hession
  • Trevonne Thompson
  • Michael Wesbecher
  • Gloria Elam (Chair)
  • Jo-Ann Archey
  • Hana Hinkle
  • Alesia Hawkins Jones
  • Alyssa Lawrence
  • Annia Martial
  • Anna Serrano
  • Constance Umbles-Sailers
  • Elsa Vazquez-Melendez
  • Michelle Mariscalco (Chair)
  • Morgan Benson
  • Steve Brown
  • Peter Burkiewicz
  • Ray Curry
  • Sarah Stewart de Ramirez
  • Luisa Di Pietro
  • Michael Flavin
  • Patrick Godwin
  • Paul Gorski
  • Sandeep Jain
  • Sean Koppe
  • Andrew Kreppel
  • Jerry Krishnan
  • Karen Lenehan
  • Janet Lin
  • Abby Litwiller
  • Teresa Lynch
  • Gia Mac Nicholov
  • Peter Pfanner
  • Bellur Prabhakar
  • Nancy Tartt
  • Pauline Maki (Chair)
  • Gillian Coombs
  • Cathy Grimsted
  • Jessica Hanks
  • Memoona Hasnain
  • Robert Hyde
  • Stephanie Joe
  • Andre Kajdacsy-Balla
  • Claudia Lora
  • Sarah Lutz
  • Allan McLachlan
  • Steve Simms
  • Alex Stagnaro-Green
  • Shannon Dowty (Chair)
  • Brooke Baizan
  • Jacqueline Berger
  • Ted Ebersold
  • Catherine Ellyin
  • Marci Fanti
  • Barbara Gottesman
  • Cathy Grimsted
  • Terenda Jones
  • Nick Kane
  • Tim Lacy
  • Natalie Meza
  • Michael Paprzyca
  • Andre Pavkovic
  • Karen Righeimer
  • Brett Ruiz
  • Rosa Setterstrom
  • Yolonda Silas
  • Michael Wesbecher
  • Todd Van Neck (Chair)
  • Cesar Alvarado
  • Anna Beckmann
  • Nick Curran
  • Maritza Delgado
  • Eric Dubrowski
  • Cathy Grimsted
  • Nick Kane
  • Dolly Metha
  • Carol Schuster
  • Ben Van Vorhees
  • Kunal Vora

Process FAQs Heading link

Implementation Process & Responsibilities: FAQs for Strategy Committee Chairs

Is the strategy committee responsible for the actual implementation of the Key Activities within each Tactic?

This does not mean that the committee itself will undertake all of the work that each of these Key Activities entails. Rather, it means that the group will provide oversight, help define available options for achievement, estimate resource requirements and constraints, and monitor status. The group will identify and engage with the relevant functional leads to manage the detailed development, and the group will continue to provide oversight for the development of those detailed plans. There will not be a separate set of strategy committees outside of these committees that works specifically on the detailed implementation. As and when committees can leverage decisions, information, or programs initiated by other groups within or outside of UI COM, we encourage this as a starting point with which to expand our strategic agenda.

How will we determine whether the recommended Key Activities are feasible?

There may be various paths or options for achieving tactics that require different levels of resources. In cases where the proposed Key Activities require incremental resources or significant reallocation of existing resources, the committee will be charged with thinking through potential options with similar results and lesser resource constraints. Once the available options/paths have been established, the Dean’s Office can help estimate the total cost for each option. Please use the attached “SP Request for Estimate” form to write up and submit a detailed description of options to Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning. Options can then be reviewed with the Dean.

Where do we go once we know the committee needs additional resources or data in order to advance the implementation of its Key Activities?

Once the committee members have a common and agreed understanding of what is needed to move forward, a request for data or resources should be submitted to the Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning using the “SP Request for Resources” form.

Upon the Dean’s approval, the assistant dean will then work with the appropriate people in the Dean’s office to help identify those additional resources and/or secure the necessary data/information.

Do we have any background data, such as SWOT analysis, Peer Comparisons, etc., we can review to advance our thinking on focus for path forward?

Yes, during the planning phase, with the assistance of our external consultants, an intensive background analysis of our organization was completed. The output of that analysis can be found in the link below.

Also, the Deans office now has its own Data Analytics group. This group may already have or in some cases may be able to help us secure background data that could be useful to our analysis. Please let the Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning know if there is specific data which you think would be helpful.

Do you have any suggestions for how to go about thinking through Strategy-wide Success Metrics? I know that these will be published and monitored on our online dashboard, so I want to make sure we establish the right set of metrics.

Yes, for a summary of helpful hints for generating your committee’s strategy-wide success metrics, please review the “Strategy Metrics Guide” below.

If you are still feeling you need additional information or support, please do not hesitate to reach out to the Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning to discuss.

What should our committee be focusing on if we have finalized our Key Activities as well as our Strategy-wide Success Metrics

Great! It is time to start building and monitoring the detailed action plans around each Key Activity. Ideally these plans will be developed in writing, agreed by the entire tactic subcommittee (when applicable), and submitted for approval to the strategy committee. If additional support is needed in the development of these plans, please don’t hesitate to reach out to the Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning.

What role does my committee have in populating the online Dashboard?

The Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning, with the support of the COM web coordinator, will copy the Key Activities and Strategy-wide Success Metrics, once finalized, from your respective IMT into the online dashboard. There is no additional effort required by your committee. Once Key Activities and Strategy-wide Success Metrics are populated in Dashboard, the Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning will work with you to update the online status of your Tactics and Metrics at least every other month.

Action Planning Heading link

Once each subcommittee has finalized its Key Activities, it is time to start building and monitoring the detailed action plans around each Key Activity. Ideally these plans will be developed in writing, agreed by the entire tactic subcommittee (when applicable), and submitted for approval to the strategy committee. If additional support is needed in the development of these plans, please don’t hesitate to reach out to the Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning.

Here is some additional guidance for beginning your action planning:

  • First, within the IMT (in the Strategy BOX folder) complete columns J through AH for each Key Activity.
  • Then, start building the detailed action plans around each Key Activity.

Please feel free to leverage this basic outline action planning format if useful in order to build action plans.

Strategy Metrics Heading link

Reference Article: https://hbr.org/2012/10/the-true-measures-of-success

Commonly agreed key indicators that will help use measure successful achievement of our respective strategy goals. Ideally these metrics will be a bit more strategic than operational in nature, but they may overlap with metrics that we will want to monitor long-term

  • They help us translate our vision into measurable goals/targets.
  • They are tied directly to overall goals/objectives not to actions (completing an action won’t necessarily indicate success of strategy goal).
  • They are a small but relatively comprehensive set that in aggregate help quantify strategy success; so, keep it simple → 3-8 metrics per strategy is ideal (no more than 10)
  • They are easily measurable and objective, so they can be measured and updated regularly
  • They are easy to understand – there is no confusion on how to measure (formula is clearly defined); if you are not sure if the metric has been clearly defined, ask yourself what formula will give me the current value of the metric?
  • They may enable us to compare our success with peers in the industry while still reflecting/prioritizing our unique focus.
  • They enable us to make long-term decisions based on projected impact on metric rather than instinct
  • At the end of the planning period, if we can answer the question – “Did we achieve what we originally set out to do?,” then our objectives and metrics were clear
  • The strategy committees are charged with determining the best set of metrics we should use to measure the success of the respective strategy.
  • The strategy committees (with assistance from the Assistant Dean for Strategic Planning as needed) are charged with defining the specific formula we will use to determine the value of the selected metrics.
  • The strategy committees are charged with setting a stretch (2025) target for each metric. In some cases, it will be helpful to gather the baseline value for each metric prior to assigning a stretch target.
  • In many cases, the strategy group will need assistance securing the data needed for each metric. The COM Deans Office and Data Analytics group will assist with that.

Global Metrics Heading link

During the implementation process, we will further develop success metrics for each of our ten key strategies as well as the individual tactics within these strategies. The below is a list of the more general metrics which will likely indicate success of our strategic planning process as whole. These metrics were brainstormed with the oversight committees during the planning phase.

  • Student education satisfaction/engagement survey scores
  • Faculty and staff satisfaction/engagement survey scores
  • Number of student applications and yield rate among diverse candidates
  • Number of faculty/staff recruitments and yield rates among diverse candidates
  • Growth in gifts and endowments
  • Operating revenue and expense ratios (operating revenue per faculty FTE, expenses per total FTE, expenses per staff or faculty FTE, etc.)
  • U.S. News & World Report Rankings
    • U.S. News & World Report COM ranking
    • Number of ranked specialties
  • Research grant $/PI
  • Team- and center-based grants as a percentage of total grant funding
  • Access to care: average number of days to the third next available appointment (all types)
  • Average WRVUs per CFTE (all departments, divisions)
  • Social accountability