Page Comparison

Housekeeping

Opportunity for co-chairs and members to share brief announcements and notices.

00:05

Ginny, Aislinn

• We are currently polling for a standing meeting date/time; please complete the poll at your earliest convenience.

UCLAS overview

Review the current UC Libraries Advisory Structure (UCLAS) and related systemwide groups, and discuss the areas within UCLAS where the SILS governance might (or might not) fit.

SGTF members should review the current structure and related groups in advance of the meeting.

00:20

Felicia

• The current UCLAS was put into place in 2015; at present, the structure has one leadership group, the Shared Content Leadership Group, which operates at a high-level, with fiscal responsibilities and decision-making authority.

• UCLAS Leadership Groups can charge project and shared service teams. SCLG has a fair amount of autonomy, though it reports to DOC.

• Common Knowledge Groups (CKGs) are affiliates to UCLAS; they are not part of UCL governance, but closely connected. CKGs are not decision-making groups and they are open to all. CKGs might be utilized for SILS, in terms of acting as consultative groups and providing feedback, ideas and further expertise.

• The kind of expertise available in CKGs may vary; these groups include both experts and those with an interest (though not expertise) in a given functional or subject area.

• Agreement voiced from several SGTF members: SILS needs to be integrated into the structure; it might potentially be best suited as a Leadership Group.

• Right now, in addition to Leadership Groups, there’s a Shared Print Strategy Team that reports to DOC. SPST is not representative; there are both ex-officio and term members.

• We have two library-related Provostial committees; they are charged by Provost Michael Brown. Their membership goes beyond the libraries, particularly SLASIAC's, and both include a faculty representative.

Action: Danielle will share the UC Libraries Shared Services list that’s currently managed by FFP and DWW.

Peer consortia: phase 3 interviews and looking ahead to potential phase 4 work

Return to the phase 3 peer consortia final report, review the governance governance components present in the peer structures already compiled (to be presented at the meeting) and discuss what kind of further consultations/analysis should be done in phase 4.

SGTF members should review the phase 3 report and governance components in advance of the meeting.

00:25

Cathy, Sarah H., Sarah T.

• In reviewing the phase 3 final report, and in considering the peer shared ILS governance structures in use by others, what else needs to be considered? In other words, what else might we learn from our peers?

• One element not included in the phase 3 interviews: how does your shared ILS governance integrate into your broader governance structure? How does the broader structure impact the governance of your shared ILS? Level 0 (broader structure) - these structures sit within another structure, and it’s important to understand cultural and structural influences on what we’re doing.

• Reflection from the subgroup: elements of shared governance are transferable, but some elements in our structure will be specific to UC.

• Other considerations: How is SILS phase 4 shared governance working? What is emerging in this phase? Implementation is very different from production, but in implementation, you can see cultural tendencies; how can we help empower and transform these tendencies for the post-go-live?

• SGTF needs to consider where SILS governance fits and who is involved; there are also optics to consdier.

• When we look at how SILS-like services are currently managed, many of which are CDL services - how will their management change or stay the same, once part of the SILS? It was noted that CDL services currently have both formal and informal advisory groups with the campuses.

• With the SILS and the development of this governance structure, we can establish formal advisory groups.

• Decision-making bodies need to be formal groups (whether level 1 or level 2). Level 2 may require full working knowledge of functional areas.

• Post-go-live, perhaps a more flexible governance structure at first? Might need more groups that are a bit more granular and a bit bigger at first (e.g. for a year, post-go-live), and then transition (once more standardization work is complete) to move to expertise based? The SGTF could propose a roadmap for the transitions (phase 4 to initial post-go-live governance, and then to ongoing governance).

• Level 2 could be department heads (not necessarily an AUL/ equivalent).

• It is worth noting that the UC system is smaller than most of our peers; it is easier for UC to have representative groups.

Decision: Given the work carried out in phase 3, further interviews are not needed at this moment in time. If further interviews are carried out, we should focus on peer systems that are of a similar size to UC.

Decision: The SGTF will continue this discussion at the next meeting (shared governance components, our current structure, what an initial post-go-live governance might look like and potential transitional needs, and then ongoing shared governance).

Action: Sarah T. will consult locally with UCSC’s current staff member with experience working within the CSU consortial ILS governance structure.

Total

00:50