LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for FEDLIB Archives


FEDLIB Archives

FEDLIB Archives


FEDLIB@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FEDLIB Home

FEDLIB Home

FEDLIB  February 1997

FEDLIB February 1997

Subject:

UC Discussions Report (fwd)

From:

Marcia D Talley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

FEDLIB: Federal Librarians Discussion List

Date:

Thu, 6 Feb 1997 09:10:16 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (199 lines)

From your 1996-97 OCLC Users' Council Delegates:
   Lee Hadden               Bernard Strong         Marcia Talley
   [log in to unmask]         [log in to unmask]        [log in to unmask]
   ph: 703-648-6088         ph: 202-287-9463       ph: 410-293-6905


SUMMARY OF GROUP DISCUSSIONS ON OCLC*S STRATEGIC PLAN
OCLC USERS COUNCIL MEETING
January 28, 1997



Today in our small groups, we shared our individual and institutional
perspectives as we reviewed "Beyond 2000: OCLC*s Strategic Plan."  One of
the benefits of this review has been to stretch our and OCLC*s collective
thinking.  Strategic planning at its best creates a culture of thinking (as
well as planning and acting) strategically.  Or as one wise person has said,
"We*ll always do what we*ve always done if we always think the way we*ve
always thought."


What does Users Council think about:

OCLC*s strategic directions?

New, existing, and needed partnerships required to accomplish these
directions?

How OCLC can help our libraries and the users we serve move beyond the year
2000?

Well, to no surprise, we have a lot of ideas and reactions.  My goal is to
distill three hours of discussion by 60 delegates into 15 minutes of the
best of our collective thinking.


I.  OCLC*S STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

Are OCLC*s strategic directions on target?  Should they be modified or
adjusted?

We encourage OCLC to continue to grow WorldCat with specific emphasis on
enrichment.  For example, expand the database through the inclusive of
non-English, especially non-Roman alphabet, materials.  Some are concerned
that outsourcing technical services may hurt online contribution.  Local
expertise will get lost and subsequently diversity of records may diminish
as well.

We reaffirm the direction of reducing and controlling costs for libraries as
a fundamental purpose of OCLC.  We need pricing models to be more flexible.
 Small libraries are concerned that there is often a gap between a
per-transaction cost model and a subscription model.  The gap is still too
large to be bridged by a small library budget.

Many delegates believe that increasing global expansion and perspective is
crucial for OCLC but it will require changes that we don*t fully recognize
or grasp now.  What will be the impact of such expansion on OCLC policy,
governance, prices, and services?

We encourage OCLC to focus on what it has always done best -- cooperation
and sharing.  The recent collaboration with JSTOR is an example of this
strength.

Enhancing and integrating core services is critical for seamless delivery
and access for our users.  We want and need integration and fully support
this strategic direction.  Integration that allows for customization (or as
someone said "mass customization") should be a pivotal goal for OCLC.

Since our local systems serve as the framework for all our services and
automation, we need OCLC to integrate its services with our local systems.
 Improving links to local holdings is crucial and should be one of OCLC's
highest priorities.  Libraries have clamored for access to their 4-letter
holding codes for years.

We encourage OCLC to develop the integrated solutions initiative via a
consultancy capability through the regional networks.  OCLC must use,
support, and promote standards that facilitate integration and local
customization.

Electronic archiving is another key strategic direction.  We applaud OCLC's
work in this area.  We also ask that OCLC use its clout to encourage
electronic archiving of popular press materials as well as scholarly
publications.

We are very excited about directions and opportunities in electronic
archiving.  OCLC could become the archival repository of choice.  (The OLUC
of the future?)  We recognize that electronic archiving will require a
significant commitment of time and resources by OCLC.  Given all that, we
still need reasonable pricing options for access to this service.

We reaffirm OCLC's strategic focus on education and training.  We encourage
OCLC to broaden the focus beyond senior management to include junior staff
who are often performing the cutting-edge work.  OCLC would benefit from
listening to librarians who are innovating with the Web and have learned
from and understand the lessons of "Sega."  A major role for the OCLC
Institute for special libraries would be a focus on outsourcing and managing
information resources.


II.  STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS

Second, what existing, new, and needed partnerships are required to
accomplish OCLC*s goals?

We recognize that partnerships are imperative if OCLC and our libraries are
to move forward.  We believe that OCLC has a unique role to play in these
partnerships because it is a credible, broad-based, multi-type library
advocate.

The OCLC leadership strategy depends upon a strong integrated partnering
initiative -- partnering that provides a spectrum of enabling capabilities
for libraries.  Partnerships possibilities include: Internet II; regional
networks; local system vendors; third party suppliers; research and
development projects underway in higher education; consortiums; and
statewide networks.  We encourage OCLC to broaden the spectrum of partners
to include those who work closely with public libraries and to look beyond
the "traditional" partners.

We are encouraged by the discussions OCLC has had with GPO and other
government agencies.  If OCLC can facilitate the resolution of difficult
delivery and access questions to government information, it will be of
enormous service to libraries and their users.  Depository libraries are
increasingly frustrated with the lack of adequate cataloging, access, and
linkages.  OCLC could make a significant difference by partnering with the
government information providers.

Through partnerships with database vendors, OCLC can facilitate the
"rationalizing" of costs related to licensing.  At the same time, we wish to
underscore that not only equitable pricing is at stake.  Libraries have long
been vested in the tradition of fair use.  Fair use must be protected in
such agreements and discussions.

We encourage OCLC to be selective, additive, and synergistic when choosing
its partners.

OCLC*s relationship with the networks needs improving.  One group suggested
that perhaps this is a fifth "I" (improvement).  Networks are seen by
members as the primary conduit for communication, and often an individual
library*s network affiliation is far stronger than its perceived role as an
OCLC member.  OCLC should not be viewing networks as pass-through vendors.
OCLC and networks can partner to provide members with technical expertise
and consulting for specific library projects.  This, for small libraries in
particular, would be a significant value-added service.


III. BEYOND THE YEAR 2000

Finally, how can OCLC help our libraries and the users we serve move beyond
the year 2000?

We look to OCLC to help educate and inform not just its members, but
decision-makers like provosts, library board members, and our clientele. We
hope that the OCLC Institute will give us the tools to communicate and work
with constituencies and decision-makers on our campuses, in our communities,
and in our companies.  We encourage OCLC to link its research
and development efforts with the proposed OCLC Institute.  We desire "early
warning" of library implications and applications of OCLC*s research and
development efforts.  We need timely, filtered, and distilled information on
library and technology developments that we can use and share with
decision-makers.  OCLC*s educational programs could highlight best
practices.  OCLC should consider an electronic information service similar
to EDUPAGE ([log in to unmask]) as a means of distributing information.  In
return, OCLC members and customers need to inform its clientele about what
OCLC does for them.

We look to OCLC*s education and training efforts for help in managing
institutional as well as local information and collections through
electronic alternatives.

OCLC can help us by focusing educational efforts on what "integration" means
and how it works.  A teleconference that demonstrates how integrated
services have been used at institutions such as Florida Gulf University
would be well-received.

OCLC*s excellent written documentation set a new standard for library
products.  Online help still does not substitute, when one doesn*t even know
the question, let alone where to find the answer.  We ask that OCLC continue
to provide written documentation, even though it is on OCLC's home page.

The new network options that provide all available OCLC services on one
network need to be scaleable, fast, and offer customizable options for
members.

We need management tools to monitor network use so we can make informed
resource allocation and service decisions.

We need the vision, knowledge, and leverage that OCLC can exert on
telecommunications development.  We look to OCLC to continue its focus on
research, emerging technology, and telecommunication updates to help its
members become leaders.

CONCLUSION
Id like to conclude by thanking the group leaders and recorders for helping
prepare this summary.  I hope I have been able to convey the intent of the
nuggets of wisdom and the eloquent insights that emerged from the
discussions and your strategic thinking.

Prepared by Betsy Wilson, OCLC Pacific

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager