📢​ Recording of the meeting:forthcoming, see meeting recordings(please note: Zoom-hosted recordings will be available for 120 days after the meeting 🗓​ , after which they are automatically deleted by Zoom).
Discussion items
Item
Desired Outcome
Time
Who
Notes
Decisions
Actions
1
Start recording!
Welcome!
0
All
2
Quick announcements
1
SILS Chairs is now open to the cohort and public as view only. A few changes to the agenda page:
Zoom meeting and recording links removed. Use the calendar invite for the Zoom link. Recordings can now be found in the SILS Chairs folder.
Attendees names removed to maximize space
3
SILS co-chairs update
Welcome guests, SGTF
1
Chris
We have a rich discussion topic today that may extend a little longer to the full hour. Feel free to leave at 9:50 if needed to transition to your next meeting.
Awareness of what’s happening / coming soon in the project
0
Lena, Christine
Alma workshops are continuing. These are discussions and deeper dive into workflows. Attendees should have completed Alma Essentials training beforehand.
Suggestion: Review the MVP document to see the critical “day 1” systemwide priorities (the workflows/functions that must be in place at go-live) and review your local campus MVP document, if you have one.
Upcoming Ex Libris meetings:
4/15: VDX NCIP integration with Alma at UCLA Audience is anyone interested in ILL. Whatever is learned from this process may be applicable at other campuses.
4/22: Ex Libris special meeting on Fiscal Close Period. ExL expects to have your tech freeze dates in time for, or prior to, this meeting. Questions due 4/19.
NEW! 4/29: UC-led special meeting "Live demo of OCLC Gateway and Metadata Editor"
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):Â
What discussions/decisions will still require a representative model for operations subteams?Â
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?)
SGTF engaged with like-consortia to inform decision-making structures. Were consortial goals the same for their institution as for UCs? No. Maybe this is an appropriate time to reach out again with new questions such as how those institutions assessed their outcomes.
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?
Nothing at this moment seems glaring.
Noted that processes need to be put in place to address how changes to the structure will be made. Org chart could specifically call this out.
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