McGill University Faculty of Medicine Administration Excellence Learning Collaboratives

DRAFT – For Discussion Purposes Only

McGill UniversityFaculty of Medicine

Administration Excellence

Learning CollaborativesApril 12 and 15, 2010

1


Agenda

I. Introduction

II. Summary of Peer Institution Interview Findings

III. Discussion of Models

IV. Next Steps

2


Why Admin Excellence?

• Feedback from Departmental Administrators: frequently expressed frustration concerning workload, lack of support, communication…

• Became aware of serious vulnerabilities following contingency planning exercises

• Need for immediate replacements when someone would fall absent or leave a position – no protection, lack of back-up systems, flexibility… When casuals are provided as an emergency backfill, they typically do not have training required to “jump in” to the position

• Change/increase in the regulatory environment and workload; increasing demands on your time from your Chair/Faculty/Central….

• Non-stop requests for additional positions and re-classifications of current positions

• All of this was in conjunction with an awareness that the financial situation at the Faculty was changing…there would be no additional resources forthcoming…

• Faced with this situation, we made the commitment to “big picture” planning: finding a way to re-allocate current resources in a way that would provide you with additional support, reduce risk, and address your concerns.

3


Administration Excellence Goals

Transform the Faculty of Medicine’s Administrative Support Services into one focused effort that will enable the best possible service levels in:

•Student Centered Stewardship – undergrad to post-grad to doctoral to post-doctoral

•Human Resources – recruitment to retirement or exit

•Financial Services – financial management of the Faculty, its departments, and research funds

•Facilities Management – responsible management of all facilities

•Stakeholder Affairs – relations with donors, alumni, students & faculty

4


• Working with the Project Team, Huron has developed possible alternative organizational models considering the following functional areas:

• Huron has worked with the Project Team to analyze the anticipated benefits and challenges of alternative models that could help us to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of our administrative resources.

– Undergraduate medical education

– Graduate medical education

– Graduate biomedical sciences

– Undergraduate sciences

– Continuing medical education

– Research

– Financial management, oversight, and processing

– Faculty affairs, including recruitment

– Human resources and staffing

– Overall operational administration

Project Objective and ApproachMcGill has engaged Huron to assist in developing alternative organizational models for the administration of the Faculty of Medicine’s academic/clinical units.

5


Timeline

6

Today’s Learning Collaborative marks the 20th week of this phase of the engagement. The project team has met weekly throughout this period.

7-Dec 14-Dec 21-Dec 28-Dec 4-Jan 11-Jan 18-Jan 25-Jan 1-Feb 8-Feb 15-Feb 22-Feb 1-Mar 8-Mar 15-Mar 22-Mar

Phase I - Project Setup

Review background materials

Collect and review data

Draft frameworkObtain feedback from Steering Committee on strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats

Phase II - Peer Profiling

Contact peer institutions

Refine interview guide

Conduct interviews

Summarize interview findings

Phase III - Alternative Model Development

Draft alternative models by functional area

Assess risks and benefits of each alternative with Project Team

Review with Steering Committee

Refine models

Agree upon next steps

Steering Committee Meeting

Project Team Meeting

Week

v

v vv

v


Today’s Meeting Goals

7

The goal of today’s meeting is to discuss three conceptual administrative support models identified by the Project Team.

Learning Collaborative members are asked to:

•Review the interview findings to have an idea of what other organizations are doing

•Discuss potential models (decentralized vs. centralized) of a new administrative organization:

• Benefits to the Faculty of Medicine

• Challenges to implementation and how to resolve

•Provide you with the opportunity for further reflection on how this could work in your area; we are looking for your feedback in terms of concrete concerns and solutions for improvement

Summary of Peer Institution Interview Findings


9

MethodologyHuron interviewed four Canadian Faculties of Medicine to augment information obtained from the literature and our work with academic health centers in the United States.

• Interviews aimed to gain insight on the approaches and models used by other faculties of medicine in providing effective and efficient administrative support to academic departments, units and centres and their faculty members

• Interview focus areas included:• Administration (overall structure)• Structure and distribution of responsibilities within the following functional areas:

•

•

•

• Huron performed interviews with:– McMaster University– University of Alberta– University of British Columbia– University of Toronto

• The following slides include interview findings as of March 9, 2010

– Undergraduate medical education

– Graduate medical education

– Graduate biomedical sciences

– Undergraduate sciences

– Continuing medical education

– Research

– Financial management, oversight, and processing

– Faculty affairs, including recruitment

– Human resources and staffing

– Overall operational administration


Interview Institution Demographics

10

SchoolMedical

Students

Residents and

Fellows

#Residency Programs

Faculty Departments

F/TP/T

PaidP/T

VolunteerBasic

Science Clinical

University of Alberta 630 812 54 708 - 1,800 7 13

University of Toronto 902 2,507 74 2,687 - 2,229 9 14

University of British Columbia

1,006 1,236 62 556 111 3,296 3 16

McMaster University 541 794 44 642 - 1,294 3 9

McGill University 698 917 69 1,462 126 960 8 14

Notes:Medical Students source: Academic Year 2009/10, AFMC (http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/Enrol2009-1.pdf)Residents and Fellows source: 2008 data, AFMC (http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/cmes/CMES2009.pdf )Faculty source: Academic Year 2007/8 data, AFMC (http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/cmes/CMES2009.pdf )Full-time faculty includes Professors, Associate Professors, Assistant Professors, Instructors and OtherResidency Program source: Respective institution websitesDepartment information source: Respective institution websites

http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/Enrol2009-1.pdf

http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/cmes/CMES2009.pdf

http://www.afmc.ca/pdf/cmes/CMES2009.pdf


Interview Summary

• Most transactions occurred at the department / unit / centre level with approval and oversight at the Faculty and / or University level

• Administrative structures of the departments / units / centres varied considerably; structures were largely a factor of size, complexity and history

• Institutions interviewed did not report having a benchmark for support in the functional areas

• There has been a movement towards “professionalizing” the administrators within the departments / units / centres

– Some institutions have focused on creating a career ladder for these positions– Some have created forums for sharing best practices and professional development activities

• All interviewees continue to monitor the balance between centralization and decentralization of functions. Sample strategies include:

– Designation of department / unit / centre-focused personnel within central Faculty functional offices

– Grouping of departments / units / centres into “schools” with an administrative lead

11

While interviews revealed some variation across Faculties, several key common themes emerged.

Interview themes were highly correlated with Huron’s experience with medical school and academic health center administration in the U.S.


McMaster University

• Department chairs have 5-year terms, limited to 2 terms. The same individual serves as Chair and Chief for clinical departments

• Business manager positions were “professionalized” approximately 15 years ago: require an MBA

• Have recently undergone tremendous growth, doubling size of MD, Nursing and PA programs

• There is a centralized clinical practice plan, which actively manages physician compensation and business arrangements

• Research institutes are joint ventures on behalf of university and hospital

• Structure is a “decentralized federation”; departments can spend funds as they wish as long as they remain within annual budget approved by the Finance Committee

• McMaster has instituted a structure with 3 key administrative leads in the deans’ office: Clinical Services, Education Services, and Research Services

• Administrative structures within departments and across missions/functional units vary considerably. Examples include:– HR (functions autonomously from University): 3 HR consultants, 3 assistants, 2 managers– Finance: 4 managers, 5 transactional– Education: ranges from 4 in PA program to 20 each in UME and PGME

• Administrative structure within departments and within the deans’ office supports a career ladder for administrative staff

12

Huron conducted a phone interview with Kevin Sulewski, Director of Clinical Services and Susan Birnie, Director of Education Services on February 19th, 2010.


University of Alberta

• The University of Alberta has recently remodeled its organizational structure, creating eight schools, which were designed to achieve better synergies within research and education as well as to improve communication and collaboration. The structure is too new to determine how effectively and efficiently it functions. There is a general sense that it “can’t be worse”.

• The reporting structure still primarily is to the department chair, but each school has a lead that sits on a faculty management committee, which functions in an oversight capacity

• Each school has a research lead, an education lead and an administrative lead. Each school also has a coordinating committee, which is responsible for communication, policy development, and more local level issues.

• The Dean’s Office is involved in the recruitment of administrators (APOs). The Executive Director meets monthly with the APOs. Some smaller departments have combined APOs.

• Most of the administrative functions of interest to this engagement are handled in a similar way: – A central office is responsible for the oversight of activities, but the departments also have local personnel to

perform the functions– Staffing and organization are largely functions of historical decisions; there are not standards for

administrative support in these areas– Each department has a fixed budget and must manage resources within these parameters

• Significant resistance to this restructuring and no new money was expended. The Dean has played a key leadership role throughout

13

Huron conducted a phone interview with Dr. Verna Yiu, Vice Dean, Faculty Affairs at the University of Alberta on February 8th, 2010.


University of British Columbia

• Department administrative structures vary by size and activity level. Range is described below:– Small departments have 1 administrator and 1 staff person who handles HR, finance– Largest department has 1 director, 1 staff member in finance and in HR and support staff

• Across functions, departments largely perform transactional activities and approval occurs at Faculty and University levels. Exceptions include:

– Graduate biomedical science support largely exists within the department– CME is largely centrally managed– Research grants are typically assembled at department level and then approved by Faculty and University.

Post-award and pre-award expertise is at the PI-level.

• Some functions have instituted departmental support in central Faculty areas (e.g., Finance), where support staff are located in the central functional office, but their activity is focused on a specific department(s)

• Departments can use their money as they see fit, as long as they remain within budget

• HR, Finance and Faculty Affairs: Faculty/University provides central support, departments handle transactions

• Major challenges include: – Provincial model of the Faculty and corresponding geographic challenges– Achieving the appropriate balance between department and Faculty responsibilities

14

Huron conducted a phone interview with Tammy Brimner, Executive Director for Faculty Affairs, on February 19th, 2010.


University of Toronto

• Key position of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) works closely with the Dean and CFO

• Departmental administration has a senior executive/business manager, who reports to the Chair with a dotted line report to the CAO. Amount of support staff within the departments varies by size and activity level

• Business managers/administrators have formed a group which meets regularly to share best practices, provide input to the Faculty on key issues and conduct professional development activities

• Rule of thumb used for budgeting at the Faculty is 80% of budget should be in faculty support, 20% on administrative costs (including salaries). Some tolerance for deviation from these percentages, but used as a guideline.

• Recently initiated department grouping into sectors with some direction to identify economies of scale; however, program has had minimal success to date

• In general, transactions are handled at the department level; oversight is central (Faculty/University)

• Each year, chairs present a 5-year budget for central approval. Onus is on the academic heads to review management reports on a monthly basis

• Have decentralized practice plans. Department chairs work closely with the practice plans to ensure appropriate distribution of revenue for research and education activities

15

Huron conducted a phone interview with Catherine Whiteside, Dean on February 19th, 2010.


Literature Review: University of Minnesota

• Key Objectives:↑ Departmental access to high quality service↑ Improved oversight of administrative functions within department↑ Enhanced recruitment and retention of professional administrators↑ Opportunities to develop best practices, policies, standards↓ Administrative Costs

• By late 2005, five administrative centers were created to serve the clinical departments:

• Subsequent centers were formed for additional clinical and basic science departments

16

ALRT MEND OPEN SOUP FM/Ophthal/Psych

Anesthesiology, laboratory medicine, radiology, several Institutes

Medicine, emergency medicine, neurology, dermatology, Stem Cell Institute

OB/GYN, pediatrics, otolaryngology, neurosurgery

Surgery, orthopedics, urology, physical medicine and rehabilitation, Lillehei Heart Institute

Family medicine, ophthalmology, psychiatry

The University of Minnesota (UMMS) formed administrative centers for support of their academic departments and units in the late 1990s. Key objectives in developing the model at the University of Minnesota are outlined below.

Source: Mitsch, Peter; Campbell Jensen, Allison. Academic Medicine, Vol. 82, No. 3 / March 2007


Example of UMMS Administrative Center Organizational Chart (1998 – present)

UMMS – Example Organizational Structure

17

Oversees administrative services and Department Administrators; reports up to Department Heads and Dean’s Office

• Differentiated structures meet department needs (e.g. some functions such as GME remain based in the departments; some place second-tier administrators throughout the departments)

An overview of the UMMS administrative center model is presented below; the structure varies slightly by administrative center due to customization.



UMMS – Successes and Challenges

Lessons learned via implementation: – Smoothest transitions were where one “anchor” dept with robust infrastructure is built upon– Not one size fits all; grouping departments based on similarities matters

2005 evaluation findings:– Finance and HR functions require focused expertise and use of information systems best provided at

the administrative center level– Post-graduate medical education department-based model is appropriate, but recommended adding a

center-level PGME supervisor position for consistency (could be filled internally)– Responsibilities and reporting roles not always consistent across centers; the medical school director

of finance and administration would officially oversee this

18

Successes Challenges

• Successfully implemented new systems (grants management, budgeting and GME); structure proved resilient and flexible

• Cost savings in comparison to traditional model (up to $3M annually)

• Wide department head support• Highest quality service for all departments

• Complex role of center directors: must balance needs of multiple department heads and dean’s office; risk of being overextended

• Difficult to determine initial staffing/distribution of work

• Merging previously independent teams / creating a center “identity”

The administrative center model has overcome several initial challenges to achieve the appropriate balance between “efficient” centralization and “locally responsive” decentralization. A formal evaluation of the model was completed in 2005.


Discussion of Administrative Models


20

Organizational EffectivenessThe success of any organizational structure is highly dependent upon a set of key characteristics.

• Generally, effective organizations reveal the following characteristics:– Organizational structures are designed to support streamlined processes, provide for

effective delegation, and eliminate unnecessary layers of management– Balanced process control (centralized versus decentralized) exists within and across

organizations to maximize administrative efficiency and empowerment– Organizational structures provide for defined accountability and are supported by formal

performance measurement and evaluation systems– Organizational structures provide for effective communication channels among the

different units involved in the overall process, specifically at transition points between units

• In our experience, there is no best practice for organizational structures – the best organizational structure is the one which best fits your organization:

– Centralized, decentralized, and hybrid models can all be effective, provided leadership is strong and lines of communication promote transparency and responsiveness , and high-quality service is delivered to constituents

• Working with the Project Team and using the information obtained from the interviews conducted, published literature and Huron’s academic health center consulting experiences, three models were developed for consideration by the Steering Committee


Shared ValuesMcGill’s history and the values it holds

StructureHow is McGill’s

administration organized? The reporting relationships

among people and units

StrategyWhat is McGill’s strategy?

The set of actions describing how superior services will be

delivered, given resource constraints

SystemsHow does work get done?

The procedures, processes, and

information used to administratively manage

Style

How do leaders behave? The way administrative

management communicates shared values and

information

SkillsWhat are McGill’s core skills

as an organization? The administrative capabilities that McGill

possesses

StaffWho is in the organization? McGill’s administrative,

personnel described collectively

*Note: Originally developed by McKinsey & Co.

The 7-S Model recognizes that organizations cannot be described by their structures alone. Rather, the interplay and alignment between all seven dimensions must be considered.

Framework – 7-S Model

21


Considerations in Determining an Appropriate Administrative Model

22

• Department / Unit Factors:– Geography– Size: (e.g., faculty, trainee, revenues and expenditures, # of grants, # of accounts)– Complexity of academic structure (e.g., divisions)– Mission emphasis– Hospital / institute / other responsibilities – Management style of the Chair

• Functional Factors:– Technology and other available resources– Risk / complexity– Level of competence required for administrative staff (e.g., generalist vs. specialist)– Funding– Incentives

• Implementation Factors:– Culture– Training– Resource availability– Expectations for service levels– Timing / staging

Culture can have a considerable influence on whether or not a structure / model functions in the way in which it was designed.

There are a number of factors which can influence the appropriateness of a model within a particular organization. These factors are described below.


23

Faculty of Medicine’s Current Support Model

Unit A Unit B Unit C

Report to Unit Heads and Director of Administration; Liaise with Other Central

Faculty Administrative Offices

Dedicated Admin Staff

Unit A


Unit B


Unit C

Dedicated Unit Admin Staff

All Units

Each unit has a dedicated administrator responsible for all functions; however, administrative staffing levels and functions within the units varies.

Advantages:+ Flexibility, local decision-making and autonomy + Local expertise and resources to meet faculty

needs+ Physical proximity of team

Disadvantages:– Administrators must be “jack of all trades”;

spread thin, not able to fully specialize in any one area

– Decision-making processes and transactions not consistent across units

– Potentially duplicative resources and efforts may result in higher costs than more centralized operations

– Limited cross-coverage for administrative functions

– Limited incentives to share resources and / or best practices

– Limited central control results in a potential for higher risk

– Silo-ed communication– Potential for isolation of administrative staff

Note:The term “unit” is used in the following slides in reference to departments, schools, centres, and institutes


24

Model #1: Function-Dependent Support


Report to Unit Heads and Director of Administration

Function 1Unit Admin Staff

Unit A

Mix of Unit Admin Staff and Centralized Support Services, Based on Function


Unit B

Functions 2 & 3Centralized Support Services within Central Faculty of Medicine Offices


Unit C

Units have dedicated administrators for certain functions within a given area and centralized support services for other functions.

Within centralized

support services,

staff may be “assigned’ to

units


Function-Dependent Support Model – Advantages & Disadvantages

25

+ Centralized administrative pool allows for efficiencies resulting from economies of scale, potential financial savings, shared expertise

+ Seamless administrative coverage for centralized functions+ Centralization of functions represents a departure from a structure with “jack of all trades”

administrators. This may allow for greater specialization of knowledge and skills, create opportunities to build a professional “career ladder” for administrative staff and enhance satisfaction and retention

+ Can serve as a first point of transition to an administrative centre model

Disadvantages:– Potentially duplicative resources and efforts may result in higher costs for non-centralized

functions– Consistency of processes and transactions may not hold across units for non-centralized functions– Limited cross-coverage for non-centralized administrative functions– Communication can be challenging across units and with the central Faculty– Within shared functions, prioritization between various unit needs may be challenging– Merging previously independent teams and creating a new “identity”

may be difficult

Advantages: + Balance between “efficient” centralization and “locally

responsive” decentralization+ Dedicated administrators for functions requiring local

expertise and resources to better meet faculty needs+ Adaptability and customization based on unit and functional

needs




Unit A

Mix of Unit Admin Staff and Centralized Support Services, Based on Function


Unit B

Functions 2 & 3Centralized Support Services within Central Faculty of Medicine Offices


Unit C

Within centralized

support services,

staff may be “assigned’ to

units


Centralized Support Services

26

Function-Dependent Support Model – Illustration For illustrative purposes, the function-dependent support model at the Faculty of Medicine could function as depicted below. Specific tasks within each functional area could be centralized to achieve efficiencies.

Unit Admin Staff

Human Resources:-Payroll transactions – academic and admin-Performance process-Screen and interview admin candidates-Job descriptions-Immigration

Finance-Establish policies, procedures & controls-Purchasing-Process Expense Reports

Education:-Coordinate UME student/advisor match-Manage clerkship scheduling system

Research:-Pre-review grant submissions-Monitor post-awardfinances

Human Resources:-Timesheets-Performance reviews-Determines job duties-Tenure and promotion dossier

Finance:-Approve purchasing requests-Manage unit resources

Education: -Set clerkship rotation schedules-Advise students

Research:-Grant writing



Model #2A: Administrative Centre

Grouped units are served by an Administrative Centre. A Centre Manager partners with the Unit Heads, overseeing high-level strategy, managing ad hoc projects and overseeing high-level operations. Supervisors oversee day-to-day operations and are supported by a team of transactional personnel.

27

Director of AdministrationUnit Head A Unit Head B

Finance Supervisor

Transactional Personnel

(e.g., expense reports)

Education Supervisor


(e.g., scheduling)

Research Supervisor


(e.g., grant coordination)

HR Supervisor

Transactional Personnel (e.g., job

requisitions)

Administrative Centre ManagerFunctional Supervisors also have dual reporting to respective central Faculty of Medicine offices:-Finance-Education-Research-HR


Administrative Centre Model - Advantages & Disadvantages

28

+ Centralized administrative pool allows for efficiencies resulting from economies of scale, potential financial savings, shared expertise

+ Seamless administrative coverage+ Establishes Administrative Center Manager as point person for unit heads+ Centralization of functions represents a departure from a structure with “jack of all trades”

administrators. This may allow for greater specialization of knowledge and skills and enhance satisfaction and retention

+ Centre structures allow for the creation of management positions in various functional areas, generating opportunities for staff to further develop their knowledge/skills and progress in their careers

Disadvantages:– Complex role of Centre Managers in balancing operational and strategic needs as well as needs of

multiple unit heads and Faculty– Communication and accountability across units and with the Faculty may be challenging– Merging previously independent teams / creating a centre “identity”

may be difficult


responsive” decentralization+ Specialization allows individuals to build expertise in a

rapidly changing environment and focus efforts without being distracted by other priorities

+ Uniformity and quality-control of decision-making and processes; can develop “best practices” within and across centres

Director of AdministrationUnit Head A Unit Head B

Finance Supervisor





(e.g., scheduling)

Research Supervisor

Transactional Personnel(e.g., grant

coordination)

HR Supervisor

Transactional Personnel(e.g., job

requisitions)

Administrative Centre ManagerFunctional Supervisors also have dualreporting to respectivecentral Faculty of Medicine offices:

-Finance-Education-Research-HR


Model #2B: Administrative CentreGrouped units are served by an Administrative Centre. An executive-level Strategic Advisor partners with the Unit Head, overseeing high-level strategy and managing ad hoc projects. Functional supervisors oversee day-to-day operations and are supported by a team of transactional personnel and report to the Director of Administration.

29

Unit Head AUnit Head B


(e.g., scheduling)


(e.g., grant coordination)

Transactional Personnel (e.g., job

requisitions)

Director of Administration

Strategic Advisor

Functional Supervisors also have dual reporting to respective central Faculty of Medicine offices:-Finance-Education-Research-HR

Finance Supervisor


Research Supervisor

HR Supervisor




Administrative Centre Model - Advantages & Disadvantages

30

processes; can develop “best practices” within and across centres+ Centralized administrative pool allows for efficiencies resulting from economies of scale, potential

financial savings, shared expertise+ Seamless administrative coverage+ Centralization of functions represents a departure from a structure with “jack of all trades”

administrators. This may allow for greater specialization of knowledge and skills and enhance satisfaction and retention

+ Centre structures allow for the creation of management positions in various functional areas, generating opportunities for staff to further develop their knowledge/skills and progress in their careers

+ Advisor functions as strategic partner to unit heads, without day-to-day operational distractions

Disadvantages:– Complex role of functional supervisors in balancing needs of multiple unit heads and Faculty– Multiple point persons for unit heads may be confusing– Communication and accountability across units and with the Faculty may be challenging– Merging previously independent teams / creating a centre “identity”

may be difficult


responsive” decentralization+ Specialization allows individuals to build expertise in a

rapidly changing environment and focus efforts without being distracted by other priorities

+ Uniformity and quality-control of decision-making and

Unit Head AUnit Head B


(e.g., scheduling)

Transactional Personnel(e.g., grant

coordination)

Transactional Personnel(e.g., job

requisitions)

Director of Administration Strategic Advisor

Functional Supervisors also have dual reporting to respectivecentral Faculty of Medicine offices:

-Finance-Education-Research-HR

Finance Supervisor


Research Supervisor

HR Supervisor




Administrative Centre Model: Illustration

31

For illustrative purposes, hiring a secretary and submitting a grant application within the administrative centre model could function at the Faculty of Medicine as depicted below.

PI

FinanceSupervisor

ResearchSupervisor

HR Supervisor

HR Transactional

Personnel

• Identify need for position

• Would like to pay from grant

• Job description• Job posting• Interviewing of

candidates• Joint selection

• Confirm funding source and availability

• Confirm allowability for particular grant

PI

FinanceSupervisor

HRSupervisor

ResearchSupervisor

• Scientific proposal

• Review/advise on budget

• Work with PI to develop the budget

• Confirm compliance with funding agency, Faculty and University policy

• Ensure resources exist and/or are planned (space, equipment, etc.)

• If staffing needs, advise on classification

• Contribute budgetary information

Research Transactional

Personnel

Illustrative Example: Hiring a Secretary Illustrative Example: Submitting a Grant Application



32

For illustrative purposes, the self-study process in the administrative centre model could function at the Faculty of Medicine as depicted below.

Chair

Finance Supervisor


HR Supervisor


ResearchSupervisor


• Must complete a self-study for reappointment

• Compile data and appendices

• Summarize trends and key points


Strategic Advisor

• Assist in drafting self-study• Analysis of data• Draft highlights• Benchmarking and external trends










33


Discussion


Next Steps

• Learning Collaborative members to review documentation – Provide written feedback – pros and challenges/cons, with recommendations for

improvement, to Christine and Melina by April 23rd

• Obtain feedback from key stakeholders– Steering Committee (on-going)– Medical Managers– Deanery and FLC

• Additional meeting targeted for mid-end of June to review and synthesize feedback

• Make modifications and perform further analysis

• Describe implementation considerations, key milestones, and timeline

35


Implementation Considerations

• Culture:– What aspects of the Faculty of Medicine’s culture support these models? – What aspects will create barriers to implementation? What can be done to address these?

• Staffing:– What core competencies are needed in each of the key administrative positions?– What staffing levels will be appropriate in the new model?– Are there enough individuals at the Faculty today to fill all key positions?

• Processes:– Do processes in each area function in an efficient and effective manner? – What changes need to be made?

• Resource availability:– What systems (technological, other) exist today to facilitate activities in each functional area?– What functional areas need existing resources?

• Training:– What training should be developed to fill any knowledge and / or skill gaps?

• Expectations for service levels:– Within each functional area, what is the service expectation for faculty members, administrators, and

the central Faculty?• Timing / staging:

– What is the appropriate timeframe for implementation?– Should implementation occur in phases? If so, how?

36

The following questions will assist in developing an implementation plan for the administrative model selected.

Documents

McGill University Faculty of Medicine Administration Excellence Learning Collaboratives