2020-11-06 SGTF agenda and notes

Welcome and announcements

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

00:05

Ginny, Aislinn

Subgroup to investigate the integration of the SILS into the UC Libraries Advisory Structure (UCLAS)

Subgroup members will present a more detailed overview of the proposed structure, for SGTF feedback and guidance.

00:40

Felicia, Salwa, Sarah T., Danielle

.

• The subgroup has continued to focus on iteratively building out the organizational structure through identifying the core responsibilities and needs, post go-live.

• The revised structure shared with SGTF now more clearly articulates the division of responsibilities between LG and OT (LG is focused on strategy and strategic direction, and OT to oversee operations). The Functional Teams will then carry out functional, UC-wide implementation and standardization work.

• Because phase 4 has been more focused on implementation, the subgroup agreed that standing functional teams for at least the 1-2 years post go-live will be needed.

• The subgroup’s proposed structure is informed by the SGTF principles for designing shared governance, including that we should aim to make decisions with the least amount of escalation needed. In other words: decisions should be made by those “closest to the work,” where possible.

• SGTF discussed the need to clearly communicate the post-phase 4 governance (aka. UCLAS-integrated SILS governance) is distinct from the phase 4 structure. Phase 4 teams will be thanked and discharged.

• SGTF members reflected that similar naming (Functional Teams is similar to Functional Groups) might be confusing, or the structure may inherit practices and assumptions that are not applicable/helpful for ongoing operations. SGTF noted that the subgroup and SGTF might want a different naming convention for Functional Teams (task forces? services teams? etc.).

• TF discussion around the fact that phase 4 does not currently have an end date, and so some cohort members might be making assumptions about their continued involvement in SILS. SILS WG may want to circulate a communication addressing this (that there will be a transition to a new model; what that transition looks like is currently being developed; unlikely - or will not be - on go-live, but after a set period of time). The ultimate transition to ongoing SILS governance could coincide with when UC transitions to Ex Libris customer service.

• TF member recommended that the Leadership Group have the ability to charge a time-limited strategy/study team to consider a particular strategic topic.

• SGTF discussed the roles of the Operations Team and CDL Operations Center/SILS Service Manager. While the SSM has a coordination role, both (OT and SSM) will have a role in discussing systemwide trends, needs and issues.

• Still to be discussed: how UC organizes its participation/vote for Ex Libris matters and with the consortial Alma group.

• Outside of the SGTF’s scope but important for SILS-WG consideration: technical tools support communications - but it’s also a matter of how we utilize and take best advantage of these tools.

• TF members reflected that mechanisms and practices should be in place to support inter-structure communication, particularly between the LG and OT. Membership overlap was proposed. The subgroup has begun discussing inter-team communication and information sharing, and how this might be achieved (including overlapping membership, potentially the chair(s) or support staff; joint steering meetings; or a DOC liaison to both groups). Some TF members reflected that multi-part roles/responsibilities can be hard to sustain and asked the TF/subgroup to consider which stakeholders should fulfill this information-sharing role.

Action: SGTF asks the subgroup to further consider mechanisms to support inter-team communication (particularly between the LG and OT). Further work should also be done on the Functional Teams.

• Should a stakeholder from one group, sit in the other group?

• Further work to be done on Functional Teams and to begin further discussing inter-team communications and engagement.

Poll data

• Phase 4 assessment poll: response data

Brief overview of data clean-up and identification of a subgroup to analyze the response data.

00:05

Danielle

Subgroup: Aislinn, Salwa, Danielle

What’s the work product?

• Summary to WG and CoUL

• A secondary report-out should be providing as a public report out

Decision: SGTF foresees two work products: report(s) for the WG and CoUL; and a public report/briefing.

Total

00:50