NGTS report, Bruce Miller (University Librarian, UCM)

Brian Schottlaender, UL of UCSD, was supposed to be the main speaker for this presentation but was unable to attend. Miller gave the presentation instead.

Talking about report: The University of California Library Collection: Content for the 21st Century and Beyond. NextGen Melvyl is "not trivial, but is a huge strategic platform that we need to move ahead."And so is NGTS (NextGen Technical Services). "We're through talking about this. We're not interested in anybody's opinion about the reports any more. We are
implementing." (General manner from outset is that of a school principal addressing a group of recalcitrant students.) "These groups have been discharged, the reports are final. The recommended changes are being implemented."

SOPAG is charged with implementing the recommendations issued by the NGTS report. Cost savings and cost avoidance are strategic, but they don't completely solve the budget problems. Current focus is on implementation and action. Want to have some quick wins early. Continuous vetting must happen throughout this process. Always thinking in terms of systemwide benefit; want to continuously assess, revise and adjust the implementation.

Rough draft of where we are right now with implementation of NGTS recommendations: Within SOPAG, an NGTS Management Team will be created -- 5-6 members, membership will include 2-3 SOPAG mmebers, the past chair of the NGTS steering committee, a project manager, and a communications manager. Will provide overall steering for the implementation of NGTS. Then there will also be Power-of-Three groups, responsible for implementation of high-priority NGTS recommendations. For example, POT#2 will be responsible for recommendations E5 and E6, and will be made up of HOPS. There will also be "lightning bolt" teams, which are given very specific tasks.

Nick Robinson (UCB) has a question regarding systemwide governance - how can LAUC best position itself to perform an advisory role in whatever new governance structure evolves? Micki Gorell [sorry if I got the name wrong] from UCLA asks a question about NGM - states that NGM is not an adequate substitute for the OPACs that we currently have, and feels that the Council of ULs are not listening to librarian concerns on this issue. Miller says that she is wrong, and what she is stating is a manner of opinion. He says to look at the big picture, and that he wants to talk about the development process. "Pay close attention here...we are not saying that NGM is a pilot any longer. It's the real deal, let's hang onto it, let's build our other infrastructure around it." States that we have to get past the approach that we can't go ahead with something until it's perfect. General murmurs around the room agreeing with the example, mentioned by Micki, that known-item searching in NGM is very difficult. Condescension from Miller, accusing us of not having read the reports, and asking us if we remember the footnotes in the reports.

Another questioner asks how we can feel that we are being listened to, mentions complaints from faculty and students about problems with NextGen Melvyl. "When they complain, and we don't try to fix the problem, I think it's not to our credit." Miller answers that they did studies with end-users, they collected data from end-users, and that data is posted on the website. He says her complaints are anecdotal evidence, but "isn't it amazing that we have tens of thousands of satisfied users?"