I continue to derive a great deal of amusement, but certainly not pleasure,
from the way that my comments are typically characterised as abstract or
academic - no doubt because I happen to write from an academic domain.

Could I just reassure fellow list members that contrary to the impression
given in Gordon's email below:
I do practically manage a library service available to NHS staff, my staff
and I do practically deliver training on the NeLH/NLH to NHS staff and I do
also practically co-manage a Specialist NeLH/NLH Branch Library and
therefore encounter most of the issues raised in this particular thread
regularly - and sometimes in advance of them hitting the service. It may be
astute but it is not necessarily fair to seek to marginalise my comments by
conveying the impression that these keenly felt issues are an irrelevance to
me. I am not an apologist for the NLH but I only ask that the team be
"judged" by the same standards that I would hope to be judged by myself (and
certainly as an "us" not an "it" or a "them")

Equally seriously though - it is not clear to me exactly what NeLH/NLH is
being asked to apologise for. Does Microsoft apologise that Version 2.75
doesn't do X or Y or does it get on with working towards Version 3.0? Is
"it" listening? - I have no doubt from personal experience that "the team"
are - but probably to the signals from properly constituted fora and
communication channels, not to the noise from electronic discussion list
soap boxes.

And finally, as a very practical question - which is in the best interests
of the NHS punter the Big Bang approach to NLH or the incrementally
improving service? I don't claim to know. But as I apparently "abstractly"
said in my previous email what I do know is that the real issue is in fact
how we manage our users' expectations - something that we have had to
contend with for all our professional lives.

Andrew
(endeavouring to take the AB out of abstract)



----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Smith" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Confusion over NLH, SSE launch, etc.


> I seem to recall that, at the time he mentions, it was said that Andrew
> had apologised for not having anything to apologise for. It now looks as
> if he is saying that NeLH/NLH has nothing to apologise for   :-)
>
> Seriously though, it strikes me that Andrew is enunciating in abstract
> terms how things are, while critics of NeLH/NLH are saying in practical
> terms that this is not how things ought to be. Unfortunately in these
> circumstances there is hardly likely to be a meeting of minds. At this
> point the philosophers among us will start mumbling about "is" not being
> "ought".
>
> The critics have raised some valuable practical points. NeLH/NLH ought
> to listen. Whether it is listening is another matter.
>
> Gordon.
>
> >>> Andrew Booth <[log in to unmask]> 05/01/2005 12:52:51 >>>
> Somewhat nervously putting my head above the parapet this time - in
> the
> light of previous experience :-)
>
> The issue is one of expectations - is the model that is being
> presented
> that of the "finished product" or the "work in progress"? If you look
> at
> the literature around innovation you have those that are rigorously
> tested and then presented and you have those that are developed as
> they
> go along (e.g. "the action learning approach"). Which is more
> appropriate for a technological innovation? Consider, is what we have
> on
> our desks the "finished" version of Microsoft Word or Internet
> Explorer
> or is it simply the latest version in an endless quest for
> modification
> and enhancement? Any date that marks "official" transition to the NLH
> is
> actually a judgement call and necessarily subjective - there will be
> those who sincerely believe it to be too early and those who believe
> it
> too late, both in terms of actual time and relative stage of
> development,
>
> The "information professional" reference surely refers to our
> judgement
> on how we choose to explain what is available and when we choose to
> migrate from one work in progress (NeLH) to the other work in progress
> (NLH). We also choose how we communicate the vision of the future NLH
> -
> as any health professional faces decisions on communicating
> uncertainty
> to their patients. We can be overly negative and pessimistic and worry
> them to death or we can be overly optimistic and mislead them. Or as
> most of us will do - be realistic about where we have come from and
> what
> remains ahead.
>
> It seems to me that the NeLH/NLH faces a similar dilemma to the
> National
> Programme as a whole. If you go too fast then people complain about
> lack
> of consultation and feedback, if you spend too much time consulting
> then
> people complain about the delays. Both views are right in their own
> way
> of course but you can deflect an awful lot of useful energy in
> focusing
> on the debate
> itself rather than the planned innovation.
>
> So while I respect the views already expressed and (as a trainer
> myself)
> have immense sympathy for those involved in managing the change at the
> frontline I think that we can put this into context by remembering
> that
> no lesser initiative than the Cochrane Collaboration was described by
> a
> leading figure in its development as an "aeroplane still being
> assembled
> while already in flight". Should we expect an endeavour as large and
> potentially far-reaching as the NLH to be any different?
>
> Regards
>
> Andrew
>
>
> Andrew Booth
> Director of Information Resources and Senior Lecturer in Evidence
> Based
> Healthcare Information
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UK medical/ health care library community / information workers
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christine Reid
> Sent: 05 January 2005 12:21
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Confusion over NLH, SSE launch, etc.
>
> Zena
>
> Although I agree with some of what you say, I DO think  you're being a
> little bit hard and actually unrealistic.  New products don't just
> appear on the market - they are often stringently tested, by groups of
> potential users.  Haven't you ever taken part in any such market
> tests?
> I have.
>
> In this case, we were all given an opportunity to test the SSE with a
> carefully prepared questionnaire.  I presume from your comments that
> you
> DID take part in this survey and come up with some helpful remarks?
>
> I concur that there are flaws, but I'm not sure I could have done it
> better.  If you have positive, concrete suggestions to make to the
> team,
> I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear them.
>
> Regards
>
> Christine
>
>
> Christine Reid
> NHS Staff Library, Education Centre
> Seacroft Hospital
> York Road, Leeds LS14 6UH
> Phone (0113) 2063675
> Fax (0113) 2063325
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Please visit our website at www.leedsth.nhs.uk
>
> >>> "Woodley Zena (RQ8) Mid Essex Hospital" <[log in to unmask]>
> 05 January 2005 12:02:39 >>>
> After nine months of working in the NHS, I'm no longer confused. All I
> can
> do is trust that none of those responsible for this ever go work for
> 'real'
> companies.  It's a product - a new product.  Ask yourself: what don't
> you do
> when newly marketing a brand-new product? Hmm, how about constantly
> having
> to refer to the original product.... Improved in what way, asks the
> punter?
> D'oh: not really sure yet, murmurs the information professional - left
> looking anything but.  There was no typo.  They really do mean 2006.
> One
> wonders if NLH is the 'microsoft' of the NHS - we (the customers) are
> being
> left to do the vital testing, and feed back all the flaws, all in the
> 'cause' of getting the product to market fast.... You cannot expect
> people -
> who are not information scientists, but medical/nursing staff - to be
> able
> to sort out what's on which site.  Why, in heaven's name, did those
> responsible for NLH not wait to bring to market a 'new, improved'
> model?
> Why was it so critical to introduce a shell of a product?  These are
> the
> questions which won't be answered, I suspect!
> Zena Woodley
> Library Resources Manager
> Warner Library
> Broomfield Hospital
> Chelmsford CM1 7ET
>
> T: 01245-440761 x 4310
> F: 01245-442140
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Perry Rowena [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 05 January 2005 10:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [LIS-MEDICAL] Confusion over NLH, SSE launch, etc.
>
>
> I too am confused about which site we should now be promoting.
> Another
> confusing issue is that even when you go via www.library.nhs.uk when
> you
> click on a resource it is still the old Nelh intro screen that you see
> eg A-Z journals list, Cochrane and so on.
>
>
> Rowena Perry
> Library Manager
> Health Informatics Shared Services
>
> Did you know that your local health library offers
> Help and advice from skilled staff
> Journal and book collections - electronic as well as traditional
> Study space and internet access
> Training courses and current awareness services
> Search services and document delivery
>
> Check out our intranet site: http://nww.berkshire.nhs.uk/library - to
> find out more about our services and to check our catalogue.
>
> Healthcare Library
> Prospect Park Hospital
> Honey End Lane
> Reading RG30 4EJ
> Tel: 0118 960 5020
> Fax: 0118 960 5014
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: UK medical/ health care library community / information workers
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Addison John (RW6)
> PAHNT
> Sent: 05 January 2005 10:27
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Confusion over NLH, SSE launch, etc.
>
> This reply is typically informative, but I can't help feeling that
> library users will not find it helpful to have to look on the NeLH for
> some resources, and on the NLH for others. Adding to their confusion
> will be the fact that some resources appear to be available on both
> sites. From the point of view of encouraging the maximum number of
> users
> to use the full range of excellent resources it would surely be better
> to dump NeLH and make everything available on the NLH - even if this
> simply means a hyperlink on the front page to 'other resorces'.
>
>
> John Addison
> Library Manager
> Education Centre Library
> Royal Oldham Hospital
> Rochdale Rd
> Oldham
> OL1 2JH
>
>
> Dear All
>
> It is intended that NeLH will be integrated into the NLH fully by
> March
> 2006. The exact date when NeLH hits are redirected to NLH will depend
> on
> the usage of both the NeLH and NLH sites and the development that
> takes
> place of NLH.
> Hopefully this will give everyone plenty of time to get used to the
> new
> site, and give the NLH team enough time to get the site right!
>
> The NLH site will be developed over the coming year with localisation,
> personalisation, directories and the single search. The NeLH will
> certainly be kept up to date, but may not include all the
> enchancements
> the new NLH site will offer.
>
> Phase 1 of the single search tis due to be launched on January 10th.
> We
> will be carrying out a usability study over the coming weeks to help
> determine improvements - as well as the feedback from librarians -
> that
> will help determine what is required for Phase 2.
>
> Regards
> Scott Gibbens
> NCC Project Manager
> NLH Programme Manager
>
>
> ---- Original message ----
> >Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:36:38 GMT
> >From: "Fleet Geoff (BUCKINGHAMSHIRE SHARED SERVICES)"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Confusion over NLH, SSE launch, etc.
> >To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> >
> >Apologies for cross posting (although I'm not cross, just slightly
> >irritated).
> >
> >With the impending launch of the single search environment
> on
> >Jan 10th, am I the only one who is confused about what this means?
> >Does it mean that the NLH page will now
> be "official"
> >and that the NeLH page should no longer be promoted?  If
> not,
> >when will this be, and will this be announced on both
> pages?
> >How long is the grace period before NeLH will be shut down and
> >redirected to NLH?  Have I missed something, or have there been no
> >communications about any of this (again)?
> >
> >If the NLH page is to be official from Jan 10th, there are some
> glaring
>
> >omissions on both the public page
> >(http://www.library.nhs.uk/) and the test page
> >(http://search.library.nhs.uk/).  These pages are slightly different,
>
> >but both omit OMNI, Prodigy, BNF,
> Medical
> >Dictionaries Search, and links to many other sites such as MIDIRS,
> NSF
>
> >Zones, Healthcare Commission, etc.  In addition, several Specialist
> >Libraries are missing.  I heard that the ones which can't be searched
>
> >by the SSE were omitted, but that doesn't make sense to me; surely
> you
>
> >should still be able to link to them whether they can be searched or
> >not.
> >
> >Finally, my understanding was that the "electronic" in NeLH was being
>
> >phased out in favour of the term NLH (although I realise that NLH is
> a
>
> >broader concept than NeLH).  However, one of the "databases" searched
>
> >by the SSE is NeLH.
> >
> >Geoff Fleet
> >Outreach Librarian
> >
> >Bucks Shared Services, Verney House, Gatehouse Road,
> Aylesbury, HP19 8ET
> >Tel: 01296 310106
> >[log in to unmask]
> >
> >*************************************************************
> **************
> >This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not
> the intended
> >recipient please accept our apologies; please do not
> disclose, copy or
> >distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in
> reliance on its
> >contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. Please
> >inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting
> it. Thank you
> >for your co-operation.
> >*************************************************************
> **************
> >
> >
> >*************************************************************
> **************
> >This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not
> the intended
> >recipient please accept our apologies; please do not
> disclose, copy or
> >distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in
> reliance on its
> >contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful. Please
> >inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting
> it. Thank you
> >for your co-operation.
> >*************************************************************
> **************
> >
>
> ************************************************************************
> ***
> This e-mail is confidential and privileged. If you are not the
> intended
> recipient please accept our apologies; please do not disclose, copy or
> distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance
> on
> its
> contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please
> inform us that this message has gone astray before deleting it. Thank
> you for your co-operation.
> ************************************************************************
> ***
>
> Recipients should be aware that all E-mails received and sent by this
> Authority are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and
> therefore
> may be disclosed to a third party. The information contained in this
> message
> or any of its attachments may be privileged and confidential and
> intended
> for the exclusive use of the addressee. The views expressed may not be
> official policy but the personal views of the originator. If you are
> not the
> addressee any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, other
> dissemination or
> use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you received this
> message in error please return it to the originator. All messages sent
> by
> this organisation are checked for viruses using the latest anti virus
> products. This does not and can not however guarantee that a virus has
> not
> been transmitted. Please therefore ensure that you take your own
> precautions
> for the detection and eradication of viruses.
>
> This e-mail is confidential and privileged.  If you are not the
> intended recipient please accept our apologies; please do not
> disclose,
> copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in
> reliance on its contents:  to do so is strictly prohibited and may be
> unlawful.  Please inform us that this message has gone astray before
> deleting it.  Thank you for your co-operation.
>