Strategic Plan - University of Colorado Denver

VII. EPILOGUE
Epilogue
We had a choice to make with this strategic plan. With all the changes over the last
decade that have resulted in the new UC Denver, we could have chosen to take an
“institutional breather” and simply maintain our current position. Or we could have
chosen to maximize the opportunities available to us. We have chosen the latter
course. We have done so because we are an institution that:
has too much potential to be comfortable with “the new status quo;”
is used to rapid change, and we believe this will become a competitive
advantage in future years;
has yet to realize the full benefits of academic consolidation;
possesses more superior facilities for education and research in the health
sciences than many institutions of our type around the world;
believes it has more to offer the city, state, nation, and world and also believes
that it has a responsibility to do so;
recognizes that the higher education marketplace is now a global one
and, that to be competitive, we must be an institution with a global mindset
and reach;
can benefit from its vibrant metropolitan location in an attractive and
growing part of the country; and
can leverage the benefits of our diverse undergraduate student body as we
seek to enhance the diversity of our graduate and professional students, faculty,
and staff.
Richard Hamman, MD, DrPH, is
dean of the planned Colorado
School of Public Health,
scheduled to open summer 2008
as a collaboration between the
University of Colorado Denver,
Colorado State University, and the
University of Northern Colorado.
Such an ambitious plan is not without risks, nor is it immune from criticism. The
risks include possible failure to accomplish all the priorities and goals. We accept
that risk, knowing that this is more of a journey than a destination. We also know
that we don’t fully control our destiny. External factors, from the resource environment
to local and world affairs, can intrude on our plans over the years. Yet, we
cannot be so risk-averse that we develop a plan that cannot be criticized. For
example, some of our stakeholders worry that our global ambitions will diminish
our attention to our statewide responsibilities. We have listened throughout the
process, been responsive to concerns, and sought and achieved a general consensus.
Yet, we have not compromised our determination to be bold in our plan.
We also realize that developing the plan and implementing the plan are two very
different activities. In the implementation phase, we will need to develop precise
benchmarks and measurable outcomes, evaluation processes, specific timelines, and
clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Our resource acquisitions and budget
allocations will need to be intentionally focused by the plan and evidence-based.
University of Colorado Denver 39