| 2 | ERES follow-up discussion and take-aways from 3/30 mtg
| Questions to spark conversation:
Interest by ERES members in exerting effort to communicate and push ERES roadblocks up through SILS? Use the work plan to develop decision pages, (blog posts, other reports) to note where in the deliverables our work plan is stalled or finding barriers? Would your campus be willing to 'donate' staffing time to help CDL with data entry? Roll back ERES meeting frequency (monthly) until CDL catches up with centralized functionality? | | 50 min | @Michelle Polchow SS: it’s o.k. to say if a deliverable is stalled. It’s the reality we’re in NB: thanks for comment on comfort level - current responsibilities don’t always align with ERES projects, so often need feedback/consensus from others on campus before contributing. 2nd: locally need to see if there are weaknesses in our SILS structure, and how to address them SL: communication has always been a weak point for SILS since there are issues that overlap between groups. Some stalled issues are due to unclear responsibility of overlapping issues. How could SILS help with this? Because of local separation of responsibilities, a challenge to address issues evenly. Empowering staff within SILS is a positive, but possibly a break from local campus practices/culture. What could be marked stalled, and what could be moved forward? OT group has moved to biweekly. MP: Such differences between campuses, and very complex consortial structure. MP: OT and LG are fielding issues from lots of different groups. E-resources are very visible and are a huge investment. Sherry: a good idea to go back and look at work plan. One part that could be helpful is revisit vaguely worded projects and redefining specific deliverable. JD: a lot of the work plan issues involve NZ issues. Some are less heavily dependent on CDL that we could focus on (e.g., troubleshooting clearinghouse, e-resource troubleshooting communication). JK: Would like to take approach that Jason put forward. So much local development of workflows. Not feeling a huge rush to address NZ issues since there is still much work to do locally. Can get by for the time being. And don’t even have much capacity to do local cleanup work necessary for completing some work plan projects. MP: Smaller campuses may have less need for interoperability since functions may be more consolidated than at larger campuses. CA: OA group has been considering ways of shared work in the NZ. Possible model is developing an OA network. Maybe something there worth exploring. KK: Not in a position to speak for campus, but in regular communication with small group of SILS folks. Might have some input soon on how to reprioritize work plan. JP: specifically about the work plan - if there are things that can’t be addressed due to technical or staffing limitations, then marked things as stalled or redirecting to other groups. Feel empowered to speak for campus. Multi-collections issue could be taking off our plate and taken to OT MP: appropriate for steering team to meet next week. Have heard Discovery Group was interested in database records, so pushing up multi-collections issue is a good idea MP: Next full meeting is likely the 20th.
| "Barriers to Progress" the issue is not "that team is totally failing and why aren't they done yet" but rather "we've all been struggling for three years and we're still not there because the project is just so massive and paradigm shifting that we can't do all the work that's necessary - please help, we're drowning!" NOTES 3/30: TB: trying to get better idea of discussion. Becoming clear that some issues still need resolution. Here to help determine how to guide the discussion. JP: best to begin with framing. difficulty with some deliverables, including some in original SILS principles. Lack of guiding principles hinder tech services. Told to determine our own best practices, but that duplicates a lot of work. These are common problems across consortia. Public services noticing issues with discovery, but unsure how to describe issues with technical specificity. Not sure what the role of SILS is - what is responsibility of campuses or CDL? Do we want to harmonize, and if we want to harmonize, how can that be done? LG: focus on escalation protocols. SILS principles are just that, not specific work goals. If you’re struggling, process is to go to OT. Every campus is struggling across the board. It impacts what we can get done. LG has pushed back on DOC on new projects, since we lack staffing to achieve current goals. Not thinking how we can make this the best system, but break down into achievable pieces. Come to OT with individual problems, and not necessarily what solution you’re looking for. Going outside that process would result in feedback. CoUL has no budget or authority. Too much work with too few people. Don’t want you to feel you’re an island. We want to assist you, just need to follow the path. TB: Some paths for resolving issues outlined in SILS practices doc. one thing hoped was that harmonization would be easier. Issues encompassing multiple functional areas could be brought up in All Chairs. Some items on work plan could be marked as stalled, to help bring up where subteam is stalled and highlight for OT. CDLNZPT report should also help highlight these issues. LG: want to empower you to reprioritize items on workplan, and know where to sideline things that can’t be resolved, and focus on other areas MP: one hurdle is that migration was paradigm shift to have centralized operation, so not having centralization leaves us rudderless. Another hurdle is that we’re data driven, so not having this process harmonized causes problems. TB: Don’t bog down the team with underlying issues, since there will always be more underlying issues. LG: harmonization is the exception, not the rule. If it’s viable and we can do it, that’s great. very different model than most consortia, which are often run centrally. Need to have constructive options for resolution of problems. CA: need to take a step back, and be o.k. saying we can’t do some things. It’s hard to explain that to higher ups on campus. LG: if you get pushback from higher ups at campus, that can also go up to OT. That can potentially go to LG and DOC to remind staff of our current situation SL: this has been important for this group to hear. Two comments. Hear a lot that “CDL is not fully operational in Alma,” but that can be nebulous. Second, need to take a step back and reprioritize issues so that we’re focusing on essential issues. MP: There is interest at campuses to provide help with impeded work. JD: very helpful having Tom and Lynne. TB: feel free to send comments up to OT. Probably a need to have another town hall. TB: best to highlight how things are keeping the subteam from achieving goals. MP: to regroup next week, then have executive mtg. the following week.
| | | |