| 4 | Timeline review (recurring) Reminder: Implementation Timeline on Confluence for staff without access to Basecamp. | Awareness of what’s happening / coming soon in the project | 0 | Lena, Christine | Upcoming Ex Libris meetings: | | |
| 5 | Shared Governance Task Force (SGTF) | All 4 documents are available here Overview and potential questions for your consideration Ongoing, UCLAS-Integrated SILS Organizational Structure UCLAS-Integrated SILS Structure: Roles and Responsibilities for teams Discussion Document: Phase 4 End Date, Transition and Ongoing Cohort Size
SGTF seeks SILS Chairs feedback on the UCLAS-integrated SILS structure and discussion document. SGTF also asks that the SILS Chairs consider the following questions in advance: To accomplish the initial, post-implementation decisions and standardization, is 5 months post-go-live appropriate for the phase 4 end date? (In other words, phase 4 will extend until the end of December 2021 -- see discussion document for strawperson proposals). We know you’re in the thick of loading and planning for implementation, but imagine yourselves about 5 months after go-live (December 2021): What discussions/decisions will still require a representative model for operations subteams? Can you foresee a roadmap, where operations subteams transition to being expertise based? E.g. 6 members with set term lengths, rotating through partners to ensure all campuses are represented over time, and consultation responsibilities --- akin to the phase 3 expertise groups.
It will be desirable to have continuity between phase 4 and the ongoing structure; do you agree that at least half of the members in the ongoing structure should be former phase 4 members? The timeline for accomplishing work in the ongoing, UCLAS-integrated structure should be considered. We do not (and likely cannot) continue to work on SILS at the same intensity. What do you think about this? Do you have any feedback specific to the ongoing SILS structure and roles?
| 50 | Ginny, Aislinn | Five months is as good as any number, but seems arbitrary; any date would seem arbitrary; it’s a long tail. The switch to fully operational will be gradual and not a hard switch as far as ongoing work is concerned. End of calendar year seems like a good time to end. Leadership groups should be representative. Keeping groups representative for a bit (especially RMFG) post go-live would be helpful. It was noted that this could put pressure on smaller campuses, however, it is important for small campuses to be involved because decisions could significantly add to their workflows if they are not able to provide input on issues. Finding those collaborations and ways to help each other is also easier with representative groups for at least a while. Ensuring that Discovery and Fulfillment have members that are responsible for dealing with faculty Who will manage materials in the new structure? Who will communicate the decisions that have been made? Can we talk to anyone at like consortia to see how their transition to fully operational is going? (e.g., what does CARLI’s long tail look like?) Monthly updates: will it take a little while post go-live to get on our feet? Thoughts on the overall structure? Looks fine but adding a pause/assessment piece where there’s a look back to see if things are working and/or need to be tweaked would be useful. Although groups within the structure will be charged with doing that, SGTF notes that this will be something they look at. Waiting too long (1-2 years) before assessing the structure would be a mistake. Keeping some members of P4 in P5 (production) provides continuity of information and work. Note: many of the folks involved in current groups will also be responsible for local work as libraries ramp up for in-person classes.
Is there anything that needs to be removed from the model? Next steps: SILS Chairs members have until 4/13 to add comments What will groups still be working on past go-live? Are you dependent on any groups that may not still be working at the same pace as yours? It may take a while to get a feel for this Shifting to expertise-based will make groups more nimble, but to start with may need to be representative still to complete the work. Regarding the last poll question, I think that half of members from the previous groups is a good guideline but shouldn't be a hard and fast rule. It could be more or less depending on needs & availability.
| SILS Chairs members have until 4/13 to add comments | |