I've been following the progress of the Special Libraries Association's "Alignment Project", in which SLA is taking an in-depth and strategic look at how both the association and its members are perceived, what their key value is, and how to communicate that value. What's making it difficult for members to grok is that the project is looking at two different questions:
* what is the key value SLA provides to its members, and what its role should be
and
* what is the key value that SLA members provide to their organization, and what their role should be
The proposal to change the name of SLA is driven from this project, but that's not all the project is about. There are some great insights in there for any info pro. Following are some of my key take-aways so far:
Huge discrepancies exist between what the C-suite values and what value we think we provide. Fascinating – 42% of info pros said their most valuable info role is “conducting research on users’ behalf”, vs. only 19% of users who considered that as the most valuable role. 28% of info pros said “managing a physical library”, vs. just 8% of users. Ditto for evaluating and purchasing content sources, staffing a reference desk, and document delivery -- a lot of us info pros believe that these are our most important contributions, but that's not what our funders value.
And what did users value more highly than we info pros did? Providing CI information, managing internal content, research staff working on project teams, managing a portal or intranet, integrating content into work processes -- all the really value-adding activities we do. These are all "librarian" responsibilities, properly considered, but they sure aren't what most people (including our bosses and the C-suite) think a librarian does.
Interestingly, across the board, the users identify and value the more strategic aspects of our service. We consistently value activities that are required but are not added value.
That's a lot of the value to me of the alignment project so far. It highlights the disconnect between what we think we contribute and what the C-suite values, and it shows the need for us to continue to focus more on adding value rather than on the administrative and search aspects of our profession. That's big stuff, and I'm glad that we have some tangible evidence of the messages we need to bring (and the actions we have to take) to be seen as the strategic assets we are.
Comments