2020-06-18 SGTF agenda and notes

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; currently, 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 also 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.

• With SILS integration into UCLAS, where does it fit? Leadership level? Is it still a project team, but reporting deeper into the structure (not at the CoUL level)?

• Agreement voiced from several SGTF members - SILS needs to be integrated into the structure, and as a Leadership Group sounds potentially suitable.

• 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 representation is broader, particularly SLASIACs.

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 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?

• Reflection from the subgroup: elements of shared governance are transferable - but elements will be specific to UC.

• 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 their 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.

• Potential avenues to explore: whether they’ve revised their shared ILS governance, since the last interview.

• How is phase 3 working - what is emerging here. Implementation is a different beast from production - but in implementation, you can see cultural tendencies; how can we help empower and transform these tendencies for the post-go-live.

• Where ILS governance fits and who manages it; there’s also an optics component.

• When we look at how SILS-like services are currently managed, and once they’re tied into the SILS - how does management of existing, currently CDL services, change with the SILS?

• CDL services - there are both formal and informal advisory groups with the campuses. In the SILS environment, likely want formal advisory - might not want to be overly granular with groups (or if we start with granular groups, have a roadmap to these groups becoming broader but also our goals being more focused).

• 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 structure? Might need to be 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?

• Level 2 could be department heads (not necessarily AUL or 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.

Decision: The SGTF will continue this discussion at the next meeting (shared governance components, what post-go-live might look like and potential transitional needs - i.e. ongoing ILS shared governance goes through a transitional phase, post-go-live, before settling into a more set/ongoing structure.

Action: Sarah Troy will consult locally, with current staff member with recent experience with a consortial ILS migration.

Total

00:50