Lorcan as usual gets to the core issues.  It seems to me that the issue of a
possible name change should be allowed to emerge naturally from a process
that sought to establish a long-term survival plan, not take centre stage. 

I am long out of regular touch. but Cilip seems to be in a poor way.
Financially, it lived beyond its means from the time Ross Shimmon retired
until I ended my term on Council, while failing to find a way to stem the
haemorrhaging membership figures. 

The profession Cilip aspires to represent is also in dire, perhaps terminal
trouble.  Our users may think nice things about us, but when it comes to the
crunch their decisions show that they feel they can do ok with technology
and without us if it means money to spend on other things.  The evidence is
all around us, but I would cite the closure of eminent library schools and
alsoone of the London mega-colleges where the role of head of libraries was
once a pillar of the senior management and now reports to the facilities
manager.

My (probably highly selective) memories of my time on the old, bloated Cilip
Council was endless willingness to discuss trivia and sanction vanity
projects (eg hosting IFLA) and a complete unwillingness to act effectively
when presented with high-grade budgetary legerdemain and a financial
trajectory which brought a Going Concern letter from the auditors and had me
talking to the Charity Commissioners about Trustee responsibilities.  

My final point is that an email list is a strange place to be exploring
options for the future.  I know most of the people who have contributed to
this thread, which says a lot about our shared demographic.   I am wary of
being seen as the equivalent of the dinosaurs of my youth who thought that
The Computer was a flash in the pan to be introduced over their dead body -
which it was, metaphorically.  All Cilip members are entitled to have a view
but it is not my generation that must find and live with the solution.

I hope that Cilip and its members can find a stable constituency and a
viable set of priories.

Tony

Tony McSean
+44 20 7502 1067
+44 7946 291780


-----Original Message-----
From: Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dempsey,Lorcan
Sent: 29 May 2013 20:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CILIP Re-Branding

"We uncover what really counts and get across what really matters"


CILIP is not a good name because [1] you don't know how to pronounce it [2]
it gives no clue to what it is, and [3] in its expanded form is quite long.
CILIP is not one of those organizations which is central enough for people
just to know what it is.

Re-branding is about more than a name change, it is about ensuring that the
identity of the organization communicates its values and what is valuable
about it. To do this, you do have to understand 'what really counts' and get
that across effectively. 

This is especially important when the advocacy role of the organization is
so important, and where ongoing professional development is crucial.
In the past CILIP may have thought about its identity in the context of the
constituents it serves. It is now very important to think about its identity
in the context of the broader constituency in which its constituents
operate, who do not have the same context and affiliations.


The phrase above is from the website of the consultants. I think it is a
good description of what this exercise should be about. However, for
whatever reason, it is clear that neither the consultants nor CILIP are
living up to what is expressed in the statement. The language used in the
survey and the proposed names were awful. As an instrument, it will not
'uncover what really counts' about the organization, or help to get across
what 'really matters'.

How could an organisation which claims to advocate on behalf of its members,
or a consultancy with the purported aims of this one, produce a statement of
aspiration like "For everyone to have access to the essential power of
information to help change lives and create a fairer and more prosperous
society"?

Does going out with this survey now suggests that CILIP and the consultants
already know what 'really counts' about it as an organization? It might be
useful sharing that at this stage rather than an ill-formed survey? If they
don't - and the questions in the survey suggest that they don't -  it would
be useful to do some work on this. 

I suggest that uncovering what really counts will in large part depend on
addressing two questions. [1] How central are libraries and the library
profession - its development, promotion and certification - to CILIP? [2]
What is the 'information profession' or what are 'information
professionals'?

Answering [2] may be difficult, as all professions have been
'informationalised' in recent years, and rely on managing, mining and acting
on data. By this, I don't mean to raise any profound or philosophical
questions, or to suggest that there aren't 'information professionals', but
merely to ask a pragmatic boundary question which affects CILIP's
positioning. Whose interests do they represent here, or want to represent,
and what are they? Again, there is probably prior work on this question
also. 

I suggest that questions like these are central to 'uncovering what counts',
and need to be answered before you can 'get across what really matters'.

Lorcan

http://www.twitter.com/lorcand
http://orweblog.oclc.org
http://www.oclc.org/research


-----Original Message-----
From: Library and Information Professionals
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of John Briggs
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 12:23 PM
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/r
ebranding-cilip.aspx