1) To start out by being positive, I welcome the publication of the
CILIP Corporate Plan, and was delighted to see the Chief Executive
stimulating debate on this list.
The timing of the circulation of this Draft, and the period allowed for
comment is a concern, as I would expect all the various groups of CILIP
to consider this and then contribute a considered viewpoint from their
particular perspective. In my view discussion would have been
facilitated by paragraph numbering, so that members could refer to
"Para. 23b"  rather than "the paragraph on p8 about strengthening
governance..." etc.

2) My overall concern is that the Plan is presented without a sense of
the resources that would be need to accomplish the objectives,
prioritization of the objectives based on these resources, and the risks
that CILIP would run should some of the Priority 1 objectives not be
reached by March 2003. Indeed I note that this Plan refers to the period
from April 2002 to March 2003. Given that this is a draft, and that a
final version will probably not be published until (say) October 2002,
the rational of setting out in the Plan what will need to be
accomplished by March 2003 is not obvious to me. All the more so because
under the Infrastructure heading there is a commitment by March 2003 to
"establish an initial Corporate Plan for the period to March 2005", a
two-year time frame.

3) CILIP is working very hard (and as far as I am aware effectively) to
integrate the IIS and LA operations. However there is still work to do,
and I would have preferred to comment on a Corporate Plan for the period
April 2003 to March 2006 which could take into account the outcomes of
the ongoing integration process, not least the discussions at CILIP
Council in this current period of integration and discovery.

4) The process of developing a consensus Corporate Plan is not assisted
by a Member survey that does not seem to relate to the current draft of
the Plan. The question about providing access to videoconferencing
facilities is one example. I think that an opportunity has been lost to
gain feedback on the Plan at a Member level through using a survey
structure and methodology that is more appropriate. Clearly the survey
is designed to be anonymous, but (for example) asking some questions
about the professional background  of the respondent would have provided
a much richer data set where a range of cross-tabulated responses could
have been developed. Surely CILIP should be setting an example in how to
undertake surveys!

5) It is difficult to comment on individual elements of the Plan, mainly
because they do seem to be written in a somewhat archaic English.
Phrases such as "the Home Nations" are probably going to raise eyebrows
among CILIP members outside of the UK. Indeed there are some sentences
which give the impression that the primary focus of CILIP is on England,
let alone the UK.

6) Despite the above comments on the process for the Development of the
Plan, overall I think it is very much a step in the right direction.
CILIP needs a Corporate Plan, and whether it gets it right first time is
totally dependent on whether individual members decide to comment
constructively on the current draft.

Martin White
Managing Director
Intranet Focus Ltd
12 Allcard Close, Horsham, RH12 5AJ
Tel. +44 (0) 1403 267030
http://www.intranetfocus.com
http://www.intranetfocus.com/blog