Last week, Special Libraries Association Toronto Chapter members Rebecca Jones and Kim Silk presented, and led a discussion about, the SLA Alignment Project research resulting - for now - in the name-change vote currently taking place (the research is described at http://www.sla.org/content/SLA/alignment/portal/index.html). It deserves attention that the research was not focused on the name concern, but broadly on the perceptions held "out there" of the information profession, its practitioners, and the roles performed by them. As the research results rolled in, they so strongly pointed to a weakness in the association's name that it was deemed necessary to act on that particular aspect sooner rather than later - but the project is far wider.
The research sheds light on a wide range of challenges we need to confront in order to enhance and sustain our perceived relevance for stakeholders, and prominent among them is the fact that the language we tend to use in describing our work doesn't resonate the way we might have thought it does among senior managers. In other words, as the saying goes, "what we have here is a failure to communicate". As we work to construct our value proposition - associating our expertise and functions with positive outcomes and advantages for the organizations we serve - we can only benefit from paying close attention to the messages and terms that "play well" in the conversation we have with our stakeholders, just as it's helpful to know what terminology doesn't support the conversation well.
The research informs long range efforts for the association on our behalf and provides tools we may all adopt individually as time goes on. It confirms observations my colleagues and I have made over many years of project work: It doesn't matter how strategic the work of information professionals is and how expertly it's performed if decision makers' perception is that we are unnecessary. It supports my experience that it's inadvisable to engage in marketing until we have a thorough understanding how we are seen and understood by those who control the budgets: What roles do they believe we fulfill? What difference do they believe our work makes for the organization? What impact do they think our efforts have on the employees who "do the business of the business"?
Some of those in attendance had been invited to focus groups held as part of the research. They related vividly just how difficult it was to hear some of what the non-librarian participants in the focus groups had to say. It may be painful to learn how our work is viewed by decision makers, but we need the insight. Only when thus equipped are we in a position to engage in "that conversation with stakeholders".
Once again, it was plain how engaged information professionals are in their profession. As noted in my last post, I believe the unprecedented level of participation in the discussions sparked by the proposed name change will in the end have positive results: These discussions are making us all think. Hard.
