CILIP's 'Big Conversation' - how you can join its Project Board

Comments

# Tim Coates said:

I would like to join this.  Do you think Bob McKee would let me?

18 December 2009 20:23

# JamesM said:

Matthew - is it just me or is the selection criteria for those who want to "volunteer" to serve on the Big Conversation's Project Board perhaps too selective?

I quote:

"...your previous project board experience"

"...Values, scope and timescales of past projects"

"A summary CV including CILIP activism"

Okay...I have some Project Management experience and have worked on a number of projects but I don't have any "CILIP activism" experience, does this mean I cant take part?

Surely the board should be as open as possible, my feeling is that the criteria that the board has laid out will discourage people from applying because they feel they don't have the necessary qualifications.

I could well be proved wrong though!

11 January 2010 10:12

# Christopher Thomas Roper said:

James isn't the only one to raise this point. See Twitter conversation last night with some of the bright young things of the profession.

11 January 2010 11:35

# Lisa Burscheidt said:

How exactly is this board supposed to be "spanning a spectrum of experience and job level" if the requirements make it crystal clear that anyone beneath senior level will not qualify?

I'm disappointed. I would love to be more active within CILIP, but it looks like I'll have to wait until I enter the circle of venerableness required to even be listened to. As a library assistant and part-time LIS student, I obviously do not fall into this category within CILIP.

How nice that there are still organisations, like IFLA, who actually believe in doing something to include all their members, not just a select few!

12 January 2010 16:10

# RogerFarbey said:

I was interested too until I saw the selection criteria which involved proving your 'activism' within CILIP. Unfortunately, on that basis it would seem that the opportunities to be a guiding force in this 'big conversation' (a failed exercise attempted by the Labour Party circa 2003) are limited, to say the least. This is not really what I would call grassroots leadership nor is it any kind of democratic conversation. Least of all because from the advertised timetable it would appear that some sort of agenda, however tenuous, had already been put in place. Sorry to sound cynical. I really would have liked to have been part of this, or a, process on the future of CILIP.

14 January 2010 16:57

# Biddy Fisher said:

6 months is not long to get everyone talking about what CILIP should look like in the future and then draw some conclusions and develop models.

But that is the timescale agreed by the Trustees last year.

The Project Board needs those who are used to directing large scale consultation and communication projects and I am sure that CILIP has members who have Project Board expertise.

Early tasks will be to appoint a professional Project Manager and then to identify the best methodology for ensuring that all stakeholders - within and outwith CILIP - are offered opportunities for constructive comment.  This could be the sort of methodology used by the Deliberative Democracy initiative or the Priority Research method used for Every Child Matters and Scottish Communities.

The 'big conversation' activities that members participate in will be the heart of this project and no-one should feel that not having the relevant experience for a project board disenfranchises them from being a guiding force in their future professional organisation.

Biddy Fisher
(CILIP Vice-President, and Chair of 'Big Conversation' Project Board)

e-mail: biddy.fisher@cilip.org.uk

14 January 2010 18:06

# Megan-Roberts said:

I would also have been interested in taking part, but the way the criteria is written makes it feel like CILIP is purposefully making sure the old guard get in, and anyone with different ideas doesn't!

Back in December when this was launched there were a few of us who Tweeted about what a shame it is that CILIP aren't trying to bring in 'new blood' and make sure they get a diverse range of people. I think it's vastly disappointing that instead of looking to encompass those of us who are the future of the organisation they seem to be making sure they have the same people involved who are always involved, and who will come to the same conclusions the CILIP hierarchy wants them to come to.

14 January 2010 18:10

# Tim Coates said:

So is that 'Yes' from Biddy Fisher?  I am (obviously) an outsider but I have a strong interest in the public library service and views about the role CILIP could and should play.  I would offer these to your review at any time.

14 January 2010 18:19

# Nicola McNee said:

Same old same old CILIP is what I thought when read about this in Dec. So much so I couldn't be motivated to even comment. Now I see people expressing exactly what I thought I feel I must chip in! Come down from the high tower and actively engage with the peasants please or this is just a massive big conversation of hot air with yourself

14 January 2010 19:20

# Tom Roper said:

Hi Biddy, I may be misreading your comment, but it sounds as if you have in mind a Project Board drawn from an even narrower base than the original call suggested.

I don't question the need for the Board to have advice from experts, but CILIP is, I hope, a democratic organisation, not a technocratic one. I have been trying to encourage new professionals to put themselves forward for the Board. Your post suggests that they would not be welcome. Or have I misunderstood?

14 January 2010 22:24

# James Mullan said:

Tom I agree with your comment it would appear that the Project Board will only be drawn from individuals who are "used to directing large scale consultation and communication projects"

Although Biddy says there will be some members who have this type of experience, it's going to be a very small percentage. I'd also argue that if 6 months isn't long enough to ensure the Project Team receives feedback from all interested members then this timeframe should be extended.

If CILIP does want all members to be involved in this conversation, then perhaps they should clarfiy exactly how they're going to communicate with us and encourage our participation outside of the project board otherwise it's going to be a complete waste of time.

15 January 2010 10:00

# RogerFarbey said:

Dear Biddy

Re-reading the 'Big Conversation' invitation, [ www.cilip.org.uk/.../big-conversation.aspx ] I am left in an even greater state of gloom. There are two points I would like to make. First, the invitation to participate is constructed in such a way that even the most ardent of CILIP fans would be put off. It almost looks like in the required statment that the 'candidate' has to know the (correct) answers before they can gain access to the star chamber in order to participate. If CILIP is really concerned about the lack of 'activism' then surely this invitation to participate must be one of the key factors in denying true activism where it counts. If anything, CILIP should have dipensed with the usual red tape and tried something different - maybe just inviting all members who were interested in participating to email or write in with their contact details and draw some names out of a hat. As it stands this is going to be a very small conversation.

Secondly, I would hope that, nothwithstanding the above, if CILIP intends to do anything radical - and I would have thought this was the case - it will have the decency to hold a series of meetings for all members inclduing some at CILIP HQ, just as happened before the amalgamation of the LA and IIS and consequent name change to invite some real, grassroots feedback.

If the big conversation is a genuine attempt at inviting and welcoming member suggestions for change (rather than a method of political expediency) then I would hope that you reflect on the above comments and perhaps change tactics.

Yours

Roger Farbey FCLIP

15 January 2010 10:07

# Ned Potter said:

Even if the requirements are set in stone (and I suspect they must be, at this stage), could the board not squeeze in someone to represent the New Professionals, even if they don't have the neccessary project board experience etc?

Or will there be a mechanism for representing the views of members whose future activities may be influenced by the Big Conversation, but don't qualify for the actual board? Being able to offer feedback on the board's decisions is not the same as taking part in those decisions.

15 January 2010 11:10

# Nicola McNee said:

As the project board is going to appoint a professional project manager surely there is even less  justification  for having such narrow  criteria for those eligible to serve on it?  I wholeheartedly support the suggestions of my new younger colleagues that they should be represented on it as I also make representation for those working in areas of the profession like school libraries who have had no opportunity to gain experience in project management.

15 January 2010 12:36

# Bridget Fisher said:

May I diplomatically point out that the function of the project board is to undertake the organisation of the 'big conversation'?

It is decidedly not the place where the conversation about the future CILIP will happen.

Biddy Fisher

15 January 2010 15:49

# Christopher Thomas Roper said:

Yes, I think we understand that. But it is the place where the agenda will be set and the way the project is run determined.

If it consists of superannuated old hacks like me, we're not going to get the debate or conversation that we need. Please Biddy, could we also have an undertaking that you'll ditch the BC name?

I think its negative associations have been very well rehearsed by now

15 January 2010 17:35

# Nicola Franklin said:

Biddy:  since the specification states the board will " to scope the programme of work; to select and support a consultant who will carry out the work; and to guide and oversee progress,"  it is clearly the board who will frame the conversation and guide the methodology - and which will therefore control what is asked of who using which channels, etc.  

If the board is full of CILIP 'activists' who have had to prove their already existing 'committment to the professional body' (not to the profession, I note, but to CILIP itself) then they are hardly impartial and objective project managers.

18 January 2010 14:08

# Chris Armstrong said:

As one of the Councillors (now an ex-Councillor) who set up the Big Conversation last year, I think we must have got it wrong. Wrong in the detail, not the objective. None of us (I think) made the connection with the Labour Party exercise, which is unfortunate, but not really important. It IS important however that Council, at their meeting this week, take heed of what has been said here, and elsewhere. It seems to me that those taking part here have understood Biddy's distinction re project board and where the conversation will take place, but some important points have still been made about the need for young professionals on the PB. The PB will, one way or another (scope/set agenda), give direction to the conversation - thus it is important that it is representative of CILIP communities. Council is well aware that activism and member participation is crucial to CILIP's success - in part it is what the BC is about - surely we/they can by adult enough to admit  an error in concept or drafting and allow a wider access and thus a better project board?

19 January 2010 08:43

# Alan Fricker said:

Is this not a bit like any "application" process?  There are desirable attributes for candidates.  How should candidates be chosen?  People are being asked to give indications of levels of experience - hopefully this can be used to select people with a range of levels?  Some sort of balance in the project board?

I can also understand why some record of professional involvement might be desirable.   This is a group to help get the conversation started - might they not need to know some of the problems and frustrations from the inside and outside?

This isn't another exercise in what Public Libraries/Librarians should do (hi Tim) but rather about what CILIP might be for - how it should support professionals working with information, how people might be feel it was an organisation worth joining and so on.

As people have indicated a conversation has already started in various forums. How exactly would a board suppress such discussions in public fora?  

It feels like people are somewhat jumping the gun.  This isn't the conversation but finding some people to do some work to allow it to better happen.  Asking to know immediately how people are going to be allowed to contribute at the same time as saying everything has been stitched up in advance seems a bit contradictory.

At the time of checking there are precisely zero threads on CILIP Communities where people are discussing what they think should be included in this exercise.  Why not start setting out a potential agenda?  Would seem a more productive approach than analysing the text of a call for interested parties to me.

19 January 2010 10:14

# Christopher Rhodes said:

I am new professionals coordinator for the Career Development Group and I have been assured that new professionals and people from all stages in their careers will have opportunities to in-put into the Big Conversation throughout the project.  

As I understand it it the project board is simply the administrative organ which will manage the project.  It will facilitate others raising their opinions getting their voices heard.  The Project Board needs to be populated with people who have experience working on large scale projects to give the Big Conversation every chance of allowing the most opinions as possible expressed.  

As Biddy says, the conversation about CILIPs future will not actually take place on the project board.

19 January 2010 10:17

# Daniel Park said:

I would have imagined that everyone posting on here with passion and drive (either for or against the current set-up) are, by their nature, activists and therefore already qualify to be on the project board should they choose to do so.

19 January 2010 11:46

# David Kenvyn said:

I suspect that many public librarians will be too concerned about what is happening to their services to be able to do much about taking part in any Big Conversation.  

It does seem to me however that the Project Board do have to address the questions around the loss of professional librarian posts in the public library service and the consequent likelihood of damage to service provision.

If members of the project board do not have the experience to address issues of this kind, it will be a major impediment to the effectiveness of any Big Conversation.

19 January 2010 11:54

# Diana Nutting said:

I was also on Council last year, when this (let's call it an initiative, big conversation, whatever, it's not important) was set up. I'm looking forward to having my say, and I won't be on the project board or on Council.

This thread is really depressing me, because there seems to be an almost deliberate attempt by some people to obfuscate what's going on.

Firstly, the project board will manage the project. Someone has to, and I'd rather it was people who know how to manage projects. All they have to do is demonstrate that. I haven't yet seen any positive suggestions of a better way of doing it. That would be helpful.

Secondly, this is a debate (which I sincerely hope) will lead to a stable future for CILIP. It is not about the future of libraries, including public libraries, Mr Coates.  After all two thirds of CILIP members work in libraries and information units that aren't public libraries.

19 January 2010 11:55

# Chris Armstrong said:

I agree with Daniel Park.

I might also have said that CILIP - as an organisation devoted to continuing professional development - should embrace the opportunity to allow one (or more) young professional to gain vaulable professional experience by sitting on the project board. How often do we see it said that formal training and on-the-job experience never provides that sort of managerial development?

I had forgotten that it is the closing date for applications - come on you lot, get in there...

19 January 2010 12:01

# Edward Dudley said:

It seems that the term Project implies a planned cooperative  exercise to bring about some professional change. The professional changes I have had a hand in (details in a plain envelope for my usual consultant's fee of 10 Mars Bars)  were, however, brought about by a one man band and by stealth, good timing and professional cunning. An outstanding and far superior change agent of this kind was the late Donald Urquhart, LA President 1972 and creator of the National Lending Library at Boston Spa. There have been others.

19 January 2010 12:07

# Phil Bradley said:

I would certainly have considered putting my name forward, but I think I would fail on several criteria so thought there was very little point. The requirements appear (at  least to me) to be exclusive, rather than inclusive. I admit to being a cynic at this point, but my thought was also 'they already know who they want to include and they're writing the spec. to define them.'

This may well not be the case of course, and I could be doing a real disservice here, but the point to bear in mind is that I got this impression based entirely on the conditions laid down.

The point has also been made that the 'Big conversation' won't be undertaken by the Project Board, they're just going to be facilitating, but if people generally don't have trust and confidence in it (and I see little to suggest that they do), I doubt that they're going to have much trust or enthusiasm in the conversation itself or its outcome.

I echo entirely what Chris has said.

19 January 2010 12:33

# Christopher Thomas Roper said:

Good point about the fora Alan, I've just left a comment.

But let's be clear. It does matter what we call it, and it does matter who leads it and how they set the agenda. Those of us who are concerned about these points do so precisely because we know that CILIP will not survive the next period if we don't think hard about where we go.

I have to say too, that it seems unfair of Diana to question the motives of people who have got involved in this discussion. I think my comments have been perfectly clear and not in any sense obfuscatory. I think calling this exercise the Big Conversation will taint it and turn members and non-members away. And I think the steering group for the project should combine technical project management skills and youthful vision. As they used to say in the USSR, combine Russian revolutionary sweep with American efficiency.

19 January 2010 13:00

# James Mullan said:

Christopher I agree with your comments. I hope I haven't been obfuscatory (more on that later)

I believe there has been some confusion about what the project board will be doing, when you read the brief it sounds like they're actually going to be the only people involved in the process. This obviously isn't the case, but CILIP need to make this clear either here on the website or another forum.

Christopher I don't know whether it was deliberate but it was quite funny that you wrote "...my comments have been...clear and not in any sense obfuscatory" I had to look this word up because I didn't know what it meant only to be told it means "to make communication confusing"

I thought that was funny, perhaps that's just me though!?!

19 January 2010 13:35

# Chris Armstrong said:

Today is the last day by which applications can be mailed to Bob McKee (bob.mckee@cilip.org.uk) - it may make no difference, but can I urge all those who even thought about sending in an application and who were put off by the rubric to send in their names NOW. At least it will be registered as interest/concern. Even if you don't get a chance to sit on the project board, it should ensure you are contacted later to take part in the debate.

19 January 2010 13:51

# David McMenemy said:

I'd hope that part of the Big Conversation would be CILIP's effectiveness as an advocacy body, as well as the minutae of it's economic future.  As such Diana's comments are unhelpful re 2/3 of the membership not being employed in public libraries.  I would hope that 2/3 still care about THE most public facing aspect of what we do.  If Tim Coates has useful data to contribute to a discussion re CILIP's advocacy then he should be listened to.

I'd also echo Tom Roper's calls for the board to be more inclusive of the younger generation.  There's little point in people in their 50s deciding what people in their 20s and 30s should have to represent them in ten years.   Indeed I'd go as far as to say its arrogant to assume they would actually know.

19 January 2010 14:07

# Nicola Healey said:

As a younger CILIP member, I have been interested in this, since the "big conversation" was launched.  When I looked at the attributes needed to join the board. I knew that I did not have the skills required.  I hope that the board (whoever and whatever sector they come from) raise awareness of what is going to be happening and make sure that a range of viewpoints and opinions are heard.  They will not have a easy job, in my opinion.

Going slightly off the point and looking to the future, one way this "conversation" could be organised is by having local champions in both groups and branches who will get people talking and discussing the future of librarianship and where Cilip needs to fit in. This could take place on discussion lists, Twitter and communities boards such as these. Even within different libraries themseleves, members could talk to colleagues about where the profession and cilip should be heading and some how this information could be passed on and collated. Indeed Update could have an article about "starting your own conversation - hints and tips"

Although I agree it is important to have the "right people" on the board, it is equally important in my opinion, to get the membership talking and giving their opinions in an open and honest way. Such as I have been able to do here.

Many thanks

Nicki

19 January 2010 17:31

# RogerFarbey said:

My only other comments from the ones I made earlier are these; the criteria to achieve a place on the project board looked so onerous it could have been advertising for a (paid) job. That's before the actual work started! That's why I didn't apply. I didn't feel qualified.

Can I also second Nicki's point above that a conversation that I sincerely hope CILIP members are / will be having embraces all the available media including online fora such as this one. This surely is what Library 2.0 is all about? Maybe CILIP could allocate members with blog space too so they could air their respective views on what they want out of CILIP and where the profession should be heading. I can only hope and expect that the new web 2.0 social networking media are being taught in library schools so this form of taking soundings would be second nature to those newer to the profession and those who to whom we are supposed to be handing over the baton.

I am certainly not trying to undermine any conversations (big or small) within our profession, merely attempting to engage in them.

Roger

19 January 2010 18:48

# John Hughes said:

A "Big Conversation" implies a high level of two way communication. Such skills ought to be taken for granted by a professional body with information at its core.

Having just read, for the first time, all these contributions I need some comfort from any spare Mars Bars Edward hasn't invested in his own comfort.

19 January 2010 21:19

# Karen Gibbins said:

I would have thought a wide range of board members from different backgrounds and levels of experience would be more advantageous to the Big Conversation goal. We need to engage with those that will be in the profession for the decades to come as well as access the experience of those who are leaders in their fields at the moment..

22 January 2010 13:52

# Dor Wilson said:

I was very interested in "The Big Conversation" but I too felt very offput by the criteria for actually voicing views and joining the Project Group.  After many years working in the library and information sector (particularly the health sector), and now managing my own library, and with great experience in Higher Education, Not for Profit NHS funded research posts, corporate experience, international experience, and also now undertaking a Doctorate in Information Science I felt it just did not qualify me to speak on such issues.   I suspect a lot of us have managed projects, managed people, managed politics, and still managed to do a good job of work.  I for one felt totally let down by the way CILIP has gone about recruiting for members of the Board - and feel it has been portrayed as an exclusive community. There has to be much more of an open approach to it's members as we are the ones who are coping in the real world of work.  

What is going on ? Our community needs to be much more positive and caring, recognising the great efforts the ordinary librarian/information specialist puts into the profession as I am afraid this is turning into a little of an elitist society.  To actually do a good day's work for a fair day's pay without having to be congratulated at every turn doesn't count any more ?

22 January 2010 15:29