Actually, no. As I have tried to suggest, a sensible name change simply
isn't possible: there were reasons why we ended up with CILIP in the
first place. The consultants should have been told firmly that they
should carry out the re-branding exercise *without* changing the name. A
glance at their website suggests that that is what they are best at anyway.
John Briggs
On 29/05/2013 17:36, Catherine Smith wrote:
> Point well made but surely the key thing here is the use of Consultants at all - I am sure members could have come up with name change suggestions with no costs involved which are probably neither justified or affordable.
>
> Catherine Smith
>
> Information and Technology Researcher
> NHS Innovations North. 1 Hylton Park, Wessington Way, Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, SR5 3HD.
> Tel: 0191 516 4400
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library and Information Professionals [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs
> Sent: 29 May 2013 17:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: CILIP Re-Branding
>
> He makes some interesting points. He tries to distance himself from the exercise, saying that the first he knew about the contents of the survey were when it was shown to him on Friday afternoon. Unfortunately, this may be a little disingenuous, as the e-mail publicising the survey is timestamped 15:30, so his approval (tacit or otherwise) was probably being sought.
>
> He doesn't defend the indefensible ("I agree entirely that 'The Knowledge People' is as grim as it gets") but is clinging to the message that CILIP needs to re-brand and change its name. He dances around the "Library" and "Librarian", while simultaneously claiming that a minority of CILIP members who use 'Library' or 'Librarian' in their job role.
> What he doesn't do is discuss why we ended up with "CILIP" in the first place. Everyone agrees that we need something like "Information Professionals" and "Institute" or "Institution" (although "Information"
> and "Institution" don't run well together.) Quite a few want "Library"
> and Bradley seems to agee with them. Bung in "Chartered" and CILIP defines itself! There really doesn't seem to be any practical alternative - and he doesn't address this.
>
> He does name the guilty people: Spencer du Bois - does anyone know anything about them and what (if anything) they are good at?
>
> John Briggs
>
> On 29/05/2013 16:07, Healey Nicola (WESTON AREA HEALTH NHS TRUST) wrote:
>> Dear All
>> Just in case you have not seen this - comments from Phil Bradley in
>> todays CILIPemail newsletter about re-branding
>> http://communities.cilip.org.uk/blogs/presidentphil/archive/2013/05/29
>> /rebranding-cilip.aspx
>
> *************************************************************
> This message (and attachments) may contain confidential
> information and will be protected by copyright.
>
> If you receive it in error please notify us,
> delete it and do not make use of, or copy it.
>
> Although we aim to use efficient virus checking procedures
> we accept no liability for viruses and recipients should use
> their own virus checking procedures.
> *************************************************************
>
|