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.
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.