Today is the beginning of an historic vote for SLA. Today we vote on a proposed new name, the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals. I thank all of you who have reviewed the alignment information, and I urge those who have not yet had an opportunity to do so to take a look at the alignment portal on the SLA Web site and review the information about the alignment project and the name research.
I have had an opportunity to speak with many of our members during the past two years about SLA’s alignment project. In the past two months I have visited eight chapters to speak specifically about the name. I have also received thousands of e-mails and have tried to be responsive to many of these. I have listened to both those opposed and those in favor. I am not surprised that the passions run high on both sides.
After a recent talk on the alignment, the first question went not to me but to the corporate sponsor of the event. The question was, how did they react to the alignment findings and the name? The first said he, “could not do his job without the help of the information professionals" who, in their company, are intentionally titled researchers and not librarians. The other said that when he presents his strategic plan on which tradeshows his organization should allocate funds for exhibiting, he never uses Special Libraries Association, but rather “a business information show.” He does this because his employers do not understand the word ‘special’ and they are seeking a broader audience of information providers, not specifically librarians.
One long-time member recently summed up her reason for voting yes for the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals. She said that when she first heard the name she was not sure about it, and maybe a little on the negative side, but after she considered the research she realized that this was not about her, and it was not about any one of us individually. It was about all of us in this profession and most importantly about the future.
That was a powerful observation for me. This is not about what any of us individually call ourselves. This association is big enough to advocate for all members and prospective members, all who use a range of diverse titles. In fact, that is what we have been doing for 100 years; advocating for information professionals.
We have talked about the skills that we have and how valuable we are to our institutions. But we continually struggle with the same two words, “special” and “libraries.” Some seem to think if we would just work harder at this, rather than spending money on research and time on trying to change our name, that somehow those people out there, those making decisions on our future, will suddenly understand and see the light.
Some members tell me that their management “gets it” and are very supportive of libraries and librarians. They see the value and that is great. Unfortunately, as we have seen from the number of institution closings and layoffs, that is not the reality for many of our members. My own institution, Sandia National Laboratories, decided to close its library two years ago because “everything is available on the internet and on the desktop.” Sadly, too many times this has been the reality. The person bridging the gap between information and knowledge and delivery of knowledge services in person, and to the desktop, is left out.
We have been told that this association is giving up on librarians. That is very far from the truth. In fact, we want to be successful in our advocacy of our members and describe the value that they provide to the institutions they serve, whether they are physically located in a library or are embedded within an organization, whether they are called librarians or knowledge managers. We want to place the emphasis on the people and their vast skills, and not on the location. We are an association of professionals, not an association of institutions.
Some have said they do not like the word strategic and that they are not strategic. My answer there is that we must be strategic and understand the strategic goals of our institutions and we must align our work with those goals to make the institution successful. This includes the people providing research services, as well as catalogers and IT professionals. If we fully understand the strategic direction of our organizations, we are able to contribute to their success.
Others have said they don’t like the word knowledge because we supply information that others turn into knowledge. I say why not have an aspirational goal? Why don’t WE strive to provide the added value that turns information into knowledge? Decision makers value the analysis that we provide. I believe it is essential that we use the skills we have to add value to the information we collect. Let me return to John Cotton Dana and his own words,
It seems evident enough from all that has been said, that the old type of library must modify itself in accordance with the new needs which the evolution of knowledge and the growth of print has created.
John Cotton Dana, 100 years ago, referred to knowledge and not information. For years, SLA used the tagline “putting knowledge to work,” not putting information to work. With our proposed name we are continuing on this path, striving to provide knowledge. We are taking a risk here. We are putting ourselves on the line and proclaiming that we are the key to the future and that any successful organization must have knowledge professionals on their staff.
There have been questions about the research and the process for choosing a name. I can assure you that the Board and staff have tried at every opportunity to be open in our communications. Our members and other information professionals were part of the research from the very beginning and have taken part in every phase. There have been numerous opportunities for input since the first results were communicated in June 2008 at the SLA Annual Conference, all the way through the past weeks.
You elect a Board to represent you, to make decisions that they believe are in the best interest of the association. This Board has taken that responsibility very seriously. The needs of our members and of the knowledge profession overall have been uppermost in our minds.
I was told that I should be neutral in this name discussion. I believe that would be abdicating my responsibility as a Board member. You, as members, need to know where your elected officials stand on this issue. And where we stand is united in our support of this name and the direction it sets for the future. I am encouraging you to vote yes on the proposed name, the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals. Although the name is a small part of the overall alignment project, it is a very visible part. It will allow us to move forward and become a larger, diverse organization of knowledge professionals; an organization that does not leave librarians behind in any way but opens us to new ideas and experiences and gives us a better opportunity to convey the added value that we provide in our work. Let’s take this risk. I believe it is worth it, and I believe we can live up to this name.
Seth Godin, author of the book Tribes and the 2008 SLA Annual Conference keynote speaker says, to be successful:
"We cannot support the status quo, we need to move forward"
and
"Growth and success are linked to breaking the old rules"
I say we need to break some of the old rules and move forward to our second century with the Association for Strategic Knowledge Professionals.
The Alignment Tribe President Gloria Zamora talks about building the "Align in '09" tribe.
Gloria - I agree whole-heartedly. The alignment project and our proposed name change are the right risks at the right time. Indeed, success comes from moving forward. Thanks for leading us into our next century! Regards, Juanita
Posted by: Juanita Richardson | 16 November 2009 at 04:51 PM
Thank you, Gloria. I am glad that you've let us know your opinion on this very important issue.
Posted by: Marcy Phelps | 19 November 2009 at 03:53 PM
Hello Gloria -- Just because we have paid an enormous fee to an outside firm to assign a name that demeans us, in its attempt to sound serious and lingo-literate, doesn't mean we have to accept it. Apparently the consulting firm shares the attitude of much of the public regarding librarians as sshhing, bunned timorous types that could use the boost of a trendy title. Let's not expose ourselves to ridicule.
terese m terry lippincott library. u of pa
philadelphia pa terryt@wharton.upenn.edu
Posted by: terese m terry | 19 November 2009 at 03:58 PM
I notice that this blog posting, which strongly advocates the name, nevertheless uses the term "knowledge professionals" only once, while the term "information professionals" is used four times. To me, this emphasizes the fact that "knowledge professional" is a term that does not even have meaning in our own community. If even the community doesn't recognize the term, how can it be right for the organization?
I strongly support the ideas behind the Alignment Project. I think there is a lot of potential there for members to develop a deeper understanding of their value within their organizations, and the role of the information profession in modern society. I also think working through that process has potential to develop a community consensus on an organization name. But we have not yet reached that stage of the process. Changing the name now, before we have worked through a mission statement or strategic path for the organization, is putting the cart before the horse.
Posted by: Mimi Calter | 19 November 2009 at 04:41 PM
When you need to go to court, you hire a lawyer. When are seriously ill, you consult a doctor. When SLA wanted to understand how best to communicate the value of it's members, it talked to a marketing consultant AS WELL AS its own members.
The point of Alignment (regardless of the name change) is to help individual members learn how to better communicate their value by aligning themselves with their organizations. This is a process that will take time and involved all members. It will involve tailored messages for each type of librarian and library. Whatever our individual titles, the Alignment research (which included info pros) showed that "Strategic Knowledge Professionals" rose above all other choices in resonating with members and those outside the profession who need (and I believe want) to understand it better.
You can't build and market a brand without researching the markets and naming your product (us and the work we do) accordingly. As such, the name needed to be addressed BEFORE proceeding with Alignment messages and missions. The name we use will, to some degree, dicate our strategic path, the language we use and the messages we craft.
Could the process and approach to a name change have been handled better at some points - certainly. But the momentum was there and the Board deserves credit for being bold enough to act. In other words, let's please get past what could have been done differently and focus on where we are at right now and the decision in front of us. Whatever the outcome, there is still, as Mimi C. says above, "a lot of potential for members to develop a deeper understanding of their value within their organizations." And hopefully the same potential for the organizations themselves.
Posted by: Jill Strand | 19 November 2009 at 08:07 PM
The rebranding of SLA to ASKPro strikes me as a classic overshoot in an era where being right is far more important than being clever.
Brand being a key attribute of any company or product, so alignment really needs to be done between aggregated attributes and the needs of the target customer. The question is, who is the customer in this case - the "strategic knowledge professional" or their own internal customers? I think it's the former; so accurately describing their identity will define value for them and either engage or disenfranchise that current customer base depending on how they evaluate the change.
Now, I don't consider myself a librarian - I'm a strategy consultant who runs a private firm producing competitive intelligence; as a result of this identity, I joined SLA's CI division, but did so in spite of the "library" tag, not because of it. That said, I don't think "knowledge" is either our product nor the result of our process. Indeed, if we were that results-oriented only, I'd argue for "confidence" in our decisions as the product or value - though I don't think "strategic confidence" is any more accurate an identity than "strategic knowledge" is. Likewise, as regards "strategic" and/or "knowledge" being aspirational, I don't think wishful thinking is a strategy any more than hope or prayer might be. Both words feel very "heavy" to me memetically - like it's just extra drag on the otherwise productive satisfaction of customer needs and, most importantly of course, the accurate self-identity of the core customers.
In short, I don't think I (as a voting member of SLA) can support the change despite its somewhat more accurate portrayal of my OWN identity vis-a-vis the association. I think it deserves more thought.
I also think words like "research" and "information" are more accurate and would engage a bigger audience without sounding buzzwordy. They would also lend a better identity to a collective of information research professionals that, while certainly ugly acronymically (AIRP anyone?) makes more sense to me in terms of a long-term future and strategic positioning.
Whatever we all decide, I'll remain a member... but I do hope accuracy overcomes aspiration in this decision.
Posted by: ArikJohnson | 20 November 2009 at 08:19 AM
With all do respect, I do not believe the following statement is entirely accurate: "the Alignment research (which included info pros) showed that "Strategic Knowledge Professionals" rose above all other choices". From my review of the research available in the alignment portal, the words "strategic", "knowledge", and "professional" did rise to the top (although there is some debate about "strategic").
However, I don't see any evidence that the phrase "strategic knowledge professional" was ever tested alongside "information professional", "information analyst", "research librarian", or any other such phrase. By the time any potential organization name was actually tested, the choice of the non-librarian, non-info pro, knowledge-focused association name was already made for the respondents.
I have blogged about this, as well as submitted a query to the DSOL listserv. The reply I received on the DSOL list confirmed my suspicion that, once individual words were seen as rising to the top, the potential names were, most likely, formulated as people simply went about putting those words together into various iterations.
Posted by: Anne Barker | 20 November 2009 at 01:47 PM