Caroline,    Thank you for the additional information on the thinking behind possible new strategies for Intute. Following your post below I was going to add some further thoughts on the role of quality and filtering on the Web, but your blog post, linked at the end of your mail, reveals more fundamental business issues, and these matter beyond Intute.

You describe how you began to explore alternative business models: "Two attempts to recruit a business development officer failed, and so we decided to bring in an independent consultancy to help us." This consultancy goes on to recommend the one source of funding, grant funding, that had just been removed.

You then go on to describe a consultant's report - the same consultant? - on a value for money assessment of Intute: "Our unique selling point of human selection and evaluation of Web sites was expensive, and perhaps unfashionable in an environment dominated by social media and free contribution.  The cost of human selection of websites suitable for use in academia, and the associated creation of metadata to enable search and retrieval, is no longer considered to be value for money." This may be your conclusion based on the grant funding decision, but is the value judgement justified more widely?

To explore the issue of value further you then choose to quote directly from the consultant's report. It's the only part of the report available to us, so I don't know if it is a fair reflection, but the advice could not be more unhelpful:

"Value for money is normally considered in relation to the “thing” or “good” provided. In the case of Intute, this is virtually impossible to verify since the service – beyond accuracy, integrity, completeness and timeliness – can only be qualified in subjective and perceptual terms. The term “value for money” is a difficult notion for the service provided by Intute … There can be no black-and-white answers to the value for money question in relation to its true purpose – education and learning."

This is the job of marketing. Maybe you should have hired a marketing company rather than a consultant. On this basis, there is no viable information service - newspapers, magazines, Web services, etc. - for what more do any of these have 'beyond accuracy, integrity, completeness and timeliness'? These are intrinsically valuable features, but you still have to market a product and build demand.

You ask: "Is it that the market can no longer value the services we provide in comparison to other things?" Did you ask the target market for the service?

I don't raise these points to be critical of Intute. These are difficult issues and it's not only Intute that has faced them or will have to face them going forward. These services have value, but we need to be flexible, creative and realistic in making them viable, to the point of making drastic changes if necessary to maintain the core value. And think digital. I urge all services, big and small, not just those supported by JISC but those supported in the institutions as well - this is a repositories list - to review their core value critically, make sure the costs are supportable by that value, and be prepared to make the case undeniable.

In the specific case of Intute your blog post does not reveal the alternative strategies considered, nor provide the necessary numbers - you can't build a business case on keyword searches and figures for efficiency savings - but I guess these may no longer be necessary if you are resigned to your 'perfect storm' scenario for the core information services.

Steve Hitchcock

On 3 Sep 2010, at 08:51, Caroline Williams wrote:

> I've been hastily catching up with this wide ranging discussion on Intute and have been particularly struck by some of Steve and Andy's points.  
> 
> But first the "poor man's Intute". Intute is around for another year (2010-11 AY) (although not being developed) thanks to JISC funding so that we can maintain the catalogue and investigate membership models for the Virtual Training Suite and Informs at Mimas and the ILRT.  I'm in discussions with SCONUL and the IPL2 http://www.ipl.org/, we've spoken to Delicious and others with a view to maintain access to the database albeit through other channels beyond August 2011.  If any of you would like to get involved in steering this work I would be really pleased to hear from you. 
> 
> On Steve's points about ways to trust and exploit community followed by Andy's illustration of the elements of a digital information axis - over the last 18 months I've found myself trying to find a practical service delivery response to what I think of a catch-22 between the individual attraction to the niche/special interest which amasses to deliver a community of contribution and the pursuit of gravitational pull of the network level.  
> 
> In terms of motivation to contribute & the role of the information professional - I keep returning to the communication dilemma of individual versus group benefits to participation, answered by sufficiently strong group identity to motivate individuals to care more about collective than personal interests.  I'd like to think that the role of the expert turns into one of mediator and a visible person in the network who motivates contribution by issuing calls for action/motivates the contribution.  An Intute colleague at the ILRT calls these people - "community wranglers". One of Clay Shirky's examples of crowd sourcing is iStockphoto and he talks about the bringing together of the amateur and the professional photographers to illustrate how new communication capabilities are changing social definitions that are not tied to professions. 
> 
> Which now takes me to trust - I wonder if trust issues can be managed by clear declaration of source of the content, its provenance, coupled with investment in the development of information and media literacy skills (the latter having being already mentioned by Mike).
> I've also fairly recently put some thoughts into a blog post about the financial side of things; it's on the Intute website http://www.intute.ac.uk/blog/ if you're interested.
> 
> Caroline
> 
> 
> Caroline Williams
> Deputy Director of Mimas and Executive Director of Intute
> 
> +44 (0) 161 275 0587
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Repositories discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C Oppenheim
> Sent: 02 September 2010 21:17
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Lessons of Intute
> 
> there is a third group - investment in services.  JISC is rightly wary of an indefinite commitment to services, which it hopes and expects will become self-supporting sooner or later. I stick to my view that JISC was NOT being wilfully unpleasant, but that it took a rational and sensible decision.  
> 
> Incidentally, if the rumours are true (I stress these are just rumours I have picked up over the years), Intute had ample warning from JISC about it''s unhappiness at the lack of development of a realistic business model for Intute.
> 
> Charles
> ________________________________________
> From: Repositories discussion list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Downes [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 02 September 2010 14:37
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Lessons of Intute
> 
> Oh, I've touched on a sore point! Heh.
> 
> But I think there's still a distinction here worth making, that between:
> 
> - investment in infrastructure, which is expected to be maintained, and
> 
> - investment in projects, which is not expected to be maintained
> 
> The lessons to be learned from Intute are completely different, depending on which one it was (or was perceived to be).
> 
> -- Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> -- Sent from my Palm Pre
> 
> ________________________________
> On 2 Sep 2010 10:16 a.m., Derek Law <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> LOL. You clearly haven't seen the roads round here!
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
> Professor Derek Law
> Turnbull Building
> University of Strathclyde
> 155 George Street
> Glasgow G1 1RD
> United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 141 548 4997
> The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
> ________________________________________
> From: Repositories discussion list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stephen Downes [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 02 September 2010 13:55
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Lessons of Intute
> 
> On the other hand, government does not typically set up roads and then abandon them if they don't become 'viable'.
> 
> 
> 
> -- Sent from my Palm Pre
> 
> ________________________________
> On 2 Sep 2010 9:11 a.m., Derek Law <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> As one of the ageing suits who chaired committees which set up most of these services, I agree
> with Andy and Charles. JISC has a brilliant record of starting things off, setting them up,
> then giving them the space and time to become viable. If they don't the result is
> inevitable. I know this from bitter experience. The BUBL service here at Strathclyde was
> cut off after many years of funding.
> Nothing is forever. We need to learn the lessons and move on not moan that it's unfair
> Derek Law
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
> Professor Derek Law
> Turnbull Building
> University of Strathclyde
> 155 George Street
> Glasgow G1 1RD
> United Kingdom
> Tel: +44 141 548 4997
> The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
> ________________________________________
> From: Repositories discussion list [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of C Oppenheim [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 02 September 2010 11:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Lessons of Intute
> 
> The service was not USED enough and therefore could not justify its cost to JISC. JISC should not be in the business of subsidising services which aren't being used or appreciated. One might speculate as to why Intute (I agree a really silly name) was used so little, and that's where lessons can indeed be learned.
> 
> Charles