Page Comparison

Record: Michelle

Should we record?

Notetaker:
Time Keeper:
Actions:

Revisit charge

SILS ACQ & ERES orientation slides:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1B1w2xjG5xG7WLw7yVJZREOk9CB1OWfr_521txs6nEC8/edit?usp=sharing

Older phase 4 hand off (clues to what issues this group was concerned about)- https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10CcQRIC43_tgF5jQCtOiBAPDvIFNlZb_SXkEPLd8Wps/edit?usp=share_link

Work Plan
Work Plan: E-Resources

SWAT -

• strengths

• weaknesses

• opportunities

• threats

[not in SWOT order!]

Opportunity

Workplan-
Ask committee to look at work plan – add their local problems that they believe would fall under these category. What are the problems you individually are encountering and see if these are collective concerns? Break down problem into who is part of the solution or is whose role it is to do this work and would have valuable input (SILS or non-SILS rep --how can this avoid political problems where campuses do not believe employees should be working at state level, but only locally)?

If some major problems you are experiencing, if they don’t fall under these categories, propose new work plan item.

Standing Issues -
Really complex issues that will require ongoing education, large investment of human capital, etc.

• UCOP - generally statistics;

• perpetual access;

• vendor title transfers;

• Tier 1, 2, 3 together with title transfers/payment shift from local to CDL or reverse and associated record keeping;

Strength

Balance the formality of a work plan involving policy and practice, but also make room for ongoing learning/policy/process topics:
– incorporate ongoing check-ins periodically.

Policy vs. Alma functionality - how do campuses manage update reports; how do campuses mange cancellations – emphasize shared information about processes. Should we take more formal notes about issues that go into the localization of practices (documenting different ways campuses approach problems) vs. only documenting harmonization.

Can work result in useful checklists outlining issues that involve software functionality, e-res business models, etc.

Weakness
Communication with other SILS groups - problematic to know who to loop in? CDL has had this discussion about do you email the entire cohort? How do you avoid getting too many or too few involved? Additionally, each SILS group has their own parameters, sometimes based on the expertise the group is composed with, and often time constraints that projects take more than recommended 3-5 hours per week set-out by the transition task force for SILS commitment.

Do we have the right people table - political problem, expertise problem, time/human resources limitation problem, – bridge to cataloging (metadata) and discovery (display) – how do we build bridges and how do we learn about what other groups are doing?

CDL Licenses had problem statement, then asked SILS members to evaluate who at their local campus is the expert(s) that needs to be at the table.

Threats

• scarcity of human resources/time

• system complexity escalates breadth of expertise that should be involved in discussion

• overcoming the legacy of departmental/linear workflow and embracing the more dynamic/collaborative model of library work

• overcoming the fear of trying something (minimally viable product) and see how it goes, promoting the adoption of an iterative model of development

Other issues discussed:

Should we create checklist to record issues that were involved (ex -Haithtrust);

Open access vs licensed (both groups – ACQ & ERES);

Law Library & Main Library - cataloging work that required multi-group input;

Assisting CDL in understanding impact for local campus discovery, access and user experience;

Wrap Up

Review actions and decisions

5 min

Jharina will lead discussion on work plan and campus assessment;

Sarah will send call to SLACK asking for agenda items for 1/12 meeting

Parking Lot

Capture important topics for future discussion:

Total

60/60