| | | | | | | |
|---|
| 1 | Special guest: Danielle Westbrook | Danielle from SGTF has invited Ops Leads to gather their impressions/feedback on how things are going working in the gov structure with a focus on those things that will continue past go-live scope (e.g., decision-making, how parts engage each other, PM’ing moving forward). Based on this discussion, we will decide how to brief SGTF on our feedback (i.e. memo style/brief feedback written, written + in-person, etc.) | 30 | Danielle | SGTF is developing ongoing post-go-live gov for SILS. They are gathering information from peer institutions, and others involved in SILS governance. SGTF would like to get our impressions of how things are going scoped to those things that would be ongoing. Do a followup in January to see how things have changed, if at all. What constitutes governance? Some UCLAS groups are governing and some are operational. Goal is to integrate SILS into UCLAS. Objective: produce a bullet point document or verbally present or join a SGTF meeting. Communications: local information management, engaging with peers. Tools are outside the scope of this investigation but Op Leads are free to make recommendations on their own about this. Decision-making: how distribution of decision-making is working? what support is needed? The organization of the project structure was very horizontal. Is that working? Did teams feel empowered? Did they have the time? PPC - interdependencies, decisions don’t live in a vacuum. Discomfort at the start, but PPC was quick to adjust. Inconsistently used decision pages and processes - scoping decisions was a challenge. Who approves? who consults? what does success look like? What defines done? who is the decider? how do we ensure consulted groups know they will be consulted and get it on their radar. Wasn’t always easy for FGs to say who the approver was, who was accountable, and what success would look like. Grapple with the decision itself and how to scope it
Decisions were made!
5 campuses went from project to operational and have lessons learned. What was missing? what worked well? FG areas are aligned with Ex Libris: how is work scoped and how are they structured and how do they consult? Continue looking the same as representative or could they be expertise-based? What’s the current gov structure telling us? there’s an appetite for making things work for the system; good cooperation concern in the beginning that not all the needed people were included in the structure. ensure we are communicating well with local implementation groups; mirrors FGs, local decision makers. Based on interviews with chairs, info. is flowing well between these groups (ICs are the local chairs) Needed to create subgroups for special areas, eg, CDL-managed data in the NZ; RLF Configuration Task Force Escalation Leaders are looking for things to do; having temporary groups for tasks is more effective.
From Adrian: Currently under pressure to make decisions to affect Go-live. Later, there will be more time to make decisions. Immediately after go-live, there was a 1-2 month period where you realize some decisions didn’t pan out and needed to be revisited (for a single campus)– need to make fast decisions. Could you longer for systemwide.
| | |
| 2 | Checkin/quick updates/anything from slack or email | | 0 | All | | | |
| 3 | (Ops Leads) Ongoing checkin | Is anything blocked or behind schedule? What deliverables are coming in the next week? Any decisions, consultations or approvals needed in the next week? Do you need anything?
| 15 | All | | | |
| 4 | SILS Service Manager (recurring) | | 0 | Caitlin | | | |
| 5 | Alma Training (recurring) | | 0 | Neil | | | |
| 6 | SILS All Chairs meeting (recurring) Note-taking: Lena Facilitating: Christine Monitoring chat: All Track attendance: Lena
| Topic for next meeting on Aug 26? Ask chairs about the idea of a problem log and corresponding slack channel for sharing issues and learning from one another during testing. Are there other ideas for how to do this? How do we include those who are testing, but not part of the cohort? See PPC-SC notes. For local imp teams, the desire is to (a) confirm there was a problem, (b) confirm the problem/question was passed on to ExL in Basecamp, and (c) record the response/resolution from ExL RFP #1 priority “essential” requirements to use for test plans or as a reference for what the functionality is supposed to be if something does not seem to be working as expected. (Reminder: NDA is still in place for vendor responses. They should not be shared outside UC.) | 0 | All | Canceled 8/26 meeting | | |
| 7 | SILS project blog (recurring) | Items for the blog? | 0 | All | | | |
| 8 | (COM) SILS Communications Calendar | Awareness of upcoming communications and anything needed | 0 | Ben, Adrian | | | |
| 9 | Work in progress (Com Leads) | Communication flows diagram Local implementation teams interviews in blog (see Local group structures from April 2020) - Ben will draft interview questions Communicating from project to local groups (where to document this?) Blogs Virtual town hall for cohort Virtual town hall for all staff (start early Nov; quarterly) Meetings with chairs on their communication plans Celebration milestones and what’s involved Communicating the value of SILS
| FYI | Ben, Adrian | | | |
| 10 | Work in progress (PM Leads) | All chairs meeting Premortem risk actions RACI Training webinars on project tools and best practices timeline (extend beyond go-live), identify critical path & intense work periods
| FYI | Christine, Lena, Neil | | | |
| 11 | Parking Lot | | | | Ben is working on the Chairs meeting recap (worked on Friday for an hour) to looking for patterns and any changes needed. Take to an SILS Chairs meeting on 9/9. Discuss in Ops Leads 8/27. Premortem actions (PM) Communication recommendations from meetings with chairs (COM) Coordinator-level chairs meeting: Define the problem statement, goal, and the desired outcome for the meeting. Ask Adrian to grant access to op leads members to the survey.
| | |
| 12 | Wrap up | | 5 | All | Any actions or decisions missed? | | |
| 13 | | Total | 50/50 | | | | |