I agree with Charles (as usual) but would like to add two riders. The
first is that there is an incrediblr amount of repetition throughout the
document, some things are in there endlessly, just repeated again and again
using slightly differrent words, even using words which aren't even
slightly different. Second thing is that for those of us out of the
Newspeak loop parts of the plan were made completely impenetrable by
jargon. I found a couple of the paragraphs comic in their doggedness - the
sort of prose which seems to suck all the air out of the room, leaving you
gasping "oh god yes, let's just move on to next business". Since we live
in an age of targets, maybe the next draft could be set a length target of
two pages (challenging but achievable within current budgetary restraints
and good practice guidelines for best value).
The anarchist in me feels that most corporate / strategic plans can be
summarised "the current lot will stay in charge and carry on doing stuff
they enjoy", and like Charles I would like more read meat (or vegan bubble,
according to taste). I used to work for a man you would sometimes react to
a paper by saying that it was ok but the problem was it was full of stuff
no sane person could argue with. I feel that way about this.
Tony McSean
Charles Oppenheim
<C.Oppenheim@LBOR To: [log in to unmask]
O.AC.UK> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: CILIP Draft Corporate Plan
LIS-CILIP
<LIS-CILIP@JISCMA
IL.AC.UK>
05/08/02 08:54
Please respond to
LIS-CILIP
It was full of motherhood and apple pie, but that's hardly surprising in a
strategic plan. I would have preferred a more pro-active (aggressive?)
stance on political and ethical issues, e.g. the recent furore on
"fingerprinting" of schoolkids in school libraries that use a particular
management software should have had CILIP establishing the facts and then
making strong statements...
I found the services questionnaire confusing and in practice impossible to
fill out with so many competing priorities. it might have been better if
it
had been drawn up on a Likert scale, with respondents ticking 1 (very low
priority) to 5 (very high priority) for each item.
Charles
Professor Charles Oppenheim
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU
01509-223065
(fax) 01509-223053
________________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan
service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working
around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com
________________________________________________________________________
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager ([log in to unmask])
www.bma.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|