Search

The authors developed a Web-based mission-based reporting (MBR) system for their university's (UC Davis's) health system to report faculty members' activities in research and creative work, clinical service, education, and community/university service. They developed the system over several years (1998-2001) in response to a perceived need to better define faculty members' productivity for faculty development, financial management, and program assessment. The goal was to create a measurement tool that could be used by department chairs to counsel faculty on their performances. The MBR system provides measures of effort for each of the university's four missions. Departments or the school can use the output to better define expenditures and allocations of resources. The system provides both a quantitative metric of times spent on various activities within each mission, and a qualitative metric for the effort expended. The authors report the process of developing the MBR system and making it applicable for both clinical and basic science departments, and the mixed success experienced in its implementation. The system appears to depict the activities of most faculty fairly accurately, and chairs of test departments have been generally enthusiastic. However, resistance to general implementation remains, chiefly due to concerns about reliability, validity, and time required for completing the report. The authors conclude that MBR can be useful but will require some streamlining and the elimination of other redundant reporting instruments. A well-defined purpose is required to motivate its use.

Purpose To describe the utility of school-wide use of mission-based reporting (MBR) for medical school deans and department chairs. Method All faculty members in the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine reported their clinical, creative, teaching, and service activities for 2000–2001 to the MBR system. The authors report on school-wide and department MBR profiles, and profiles by rank and academic series. They validate MBR by comparing individual results with actual merit actions reviewed independently by the school's academic personnel committee. Results A total of 419 faculty members (85%) completed their MBR reports. The average faculty member spent considerably more than 50 hours per week fulfilling the missions of the school, and full professors and faculty members in academic series supported by state funds were the most productive in investigative and creative work. The teaching load was shared equally by all the academic ranks, although the clinician–scholars taught more than did faculty members in the other series. There was an inverse relationship between clinical load and academic rank, with the majority of the clinical work performed by junior faculty members. MBR results compared favorably with the merit review process, although MBR is not expected to replace the traditional peer review system. Conclusion The creation of these graphic profiles and summaries is a valuable feature of MBR that would not have been possible without such quantitative data. The profiles allow monitoring to ensure that workload conforms to established objectives for individuals, departments, academic ranks and series. Finally, the authors discuss future directions for their MBR system.