Strategic Planning Process Dean Stanley Lemeshow October 2007

1. Strategic Planning Process Dean Stanley Lemeshow October 2007

2. CPH Strategic Planning Timeline SPH established as independent entity August 2003 CEPH Confirmation of Accreditation May 2004 SPH Strategic Plan February 2005 CEPH site visit October 2003 1st faculty retreat under new Dean, September 2003 SP kickoff March 2004 SP retreat September 2004

3. Identify mission, vision, and values Understand external environments and competition Conduct internal analysis of resources and capabilities Conduct stakeholder survey Set strategic goals Identify strategic initiatives to support the goals Develop an action plan for implementation Use strategic indicators and performance tracking Review annually assumptions, trends and goals Strategic Planning Process

4. College leadership was committed and spent time working with the strategic planning group to brainstorm and develop directions and ideas Planning group included key stakeholders and was facilitated by a professional planning consultant Planning group met bi-weekly for 6 months and included stakeholder input Interviews with division chairs, faculty leaders, employers, state agencies, staff, and students Web-based surveys targeted faculty, alumni, students, and employers Focus groups with faculty, staff, and students Process – Stakeholder Involvement

5. Develop a shared vision of the future that is inspirational, realistic, credible and attractive Develop objectives and focus energy in achieving these objectives. Planning group to include key stakeholders and facilitated by professional planning consultant Ensure ample opportunities to solicit stakeholder input into the process Process – Vision and Mission

6. Process – Environment • This includes factors that may influence the college’s strategic directions and operations. • Through retreats, interviews, and focused groups, the committee identified the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats that helped frame our discussions on setting strategic goals and identifying strategies.

7. International World population growth and globalization International dimension improves reputation National Increasing need for public health education and intervention Aging population Public health workforce reaching retirement age Health disparities Bioterrorism Fast growth in national health expenditures Admission to public health majors increased more than 50% in 10 years Environment – International, National

8. State Only accredited public health college in Ohio Located in state capital Good statewide public health infrastructure State education support decreased every year from 1998-2003 University Academic Plan sets ambitious goals Budget restructuring creates incentive for expansion Affiliation with largest health sciences campus in the nation Newly attained academic status separate from College of Medicine New Dean determined to get the school into the top 20 Environment – State, University

9. SWOT Analysis SampleService Strengths Opportunities • Office of Public Health Practice • Strong city, state health depts. • University encourages and supports outreach • Many potential external partners • Strong city, state health depts. • Practice placements are extension of service • Grants available for collaboration • Enhanced public health interest Weaknesses Threats • Limited funding for service activities • Other MPH programs in the state could fill this niche • Territorial nature of other extensions • No agreed definition of service • Service not part of the culture • School had minimal infrastructure

10. Internal Assessment – Survey Respondents

11. Sample -- Strategic Planning Survey Percent who considered the following as “A Major Strength” or “A Strength” 63% 70% 48% 53% 29% 44% 37% 58%

12. Process – Goals, Strategy Development • Based on the analysis of strengths and strategic opportunities, identified a set of strategic goals that CPH should achieve within a specific timeframe. • These goals were designed to be in close alignment with the University’s academic plan as well as fitting our unique environment. • Associated with the strategic goals was a set of tactics to achieve the targeted performance. These tactics reflected what our stakeholders believed are the most important to help achieve our objectives.

13. One of the inherent rationales for strategic planning is the realization that we are constrained by limited resources. Thinking strategically means that we need to set priorities and make decisions that have trade-offs. An implementation plan was developed to translate our goals and strategies into specific, disciplined, and time-sensitive sets of actions. We also prioritized programs and made strategic investment decisions based on such priorities We also developed performance metrics to track, assess, and reward progress towards achieving our goals Prioritization and Implementation

14. Sample Implementation Plan

15. Sample Performance Indicators Indirect Cost Recovery and Release Time from Research Grants, FY 2000 - 2007 Highlights: OSU SPH’s total indirect cost recovery increased significantly from the low of $359,455 in FY04 to the height of $846,443 in FY07. Total release time has been on the rise and was at $1.3 million in FY07. Data Source: OSU SPH Internal Financial Data.

16. Bring together the right people, beyond leadership. Ensure representation of all key stakeholders, including those external to the university. Leadership must signal that the strategic plan is a top priority. Ensure that your final plan connects with the university’s and college’s priorities. Decisions from budgeting to personnel to space planning should be related to the strategic plan. Strategic planning is about deciding who you ARE and who you ARE NOT. Take-Away Points

17. Allow sufficient time to fully develop the ideas and build consensus. Engage a strategic planning professional. Designate a staff person who will take ownership of the process. Clearly, the strategic planning process should follow faculty governance procedures, and the content of the plan is shaped by stakeholders. When you think you’re done, you’re not done. Take-Away Points

18. 2007 Plan Update Review of Focus Group feedback, SWOT analysis, tactical review at Faculty Retreat September 2007 Strategy included in Dean’s Advisory Board retreat October 2007 Draft of update presented to faculty January 2008 Focus Groups (faculty, staff, students, alumni) Spring, Summer 2007 Survey of key stakeholders November 2007 Final draft completed Spring 2008 Discussion of top priorities at faculty meeting October 2007