There has been quite a bit of back-and-forth - and
some unpleasantness, to use a euphemism - specifically about the SLA name
change. The primary focus of the back-and-forth (in a variety of venues) has
been the name. The proposed switch is:
From: Special Libraries Association
(SLA)
To: Association of Strategic Knowledge
Professionals (ASKPro)
I know several people especially don't like the
acronym. True, the opportunities for mispronunciation are many. Say it aloud a
few times and you'll get what I mean.
I'm not going to address the acronym here. But I
will address the name, as a pathway to discussing the larger issue of the SLA Alignment Project. Keep in mind, this is my own personal
perspective - others have certainly stated a lot of this much more eloquently.
As has been pointed out before (and which frankly
caught me by surprise), John Cotton Dana, the founder of SLA, never intended for
"Special Libraries Association" to be a long-term name for the association. He
pretty specifically said it was a placeholder until something better came along.
So even the founder of the association wasn't very
satisfied with it, at the very start of the organization. Which is some
indication to me that 1) the "name thing" is an issue that is not new to the
association; and 2) capturing the essence of what the association is about in
the name was difficult then, and it's probably even more difficult
now.
All of which means, to me, there will be no perfect
name.
Which is OK. Part of the recent discussion in
relation to the new name has been around how, all this time, we've
also had to explain what SLA meant.
With the name "Association of Strategic Knowledge
Professionals", we're still going to have to do some explaining, folks. We will
ALWAYS have to do some explaining about what we do. Competitive intelligence
professionals have this same experience - in fact in late summer, a
lengthy discussion related to this topic arose on the Competitive Intelligence Ning
community. Almost every organization has to do some explaining about what
their name means - unless they're Coca-Cola or McDonalds.
When I was with Sun Microsystems' SunLibrary team - when we were still called
SunLibrary - we went through a discussion about changing our name to something
that didn't include "library" in it. At the time, I argued that "library" was a
good thing, because people at least had SOME idea of what we did - even if we
still had to explain that we were really much MORE than a library. We integrated
into teams, we helped develop information strategies, we did competitive work,
we contributed to sales deals, we did training - we did a lot of stuff not
traditionally associated with a "library".
The point is, even though we were a "library", we
STILL had to explain what we did, to lay out all the "extra" stuff we were
capable of delivering to the organization and the value we provided. When we
explained this, lightbulbs went on for people - they got it, and they did truly
value what we provided. During this naming discussion for us, what I came to
realize is that, no matter what you're called, you're going to have to explain
what you do - and it's actually to your advantage to have the opportunity
to explain what you do. You're going to have to do it, so why not take the
opportunity to create a champion for the value you provide?
So to me, the name is really not that important.
Association of Strategic Knowledge Professionals is actually much broader and
more encompassing of what we do, and creates an overarching concept that
"traditional" librarians (are there "traditional" librarians left?), competitive
intelligence professionals and other knowledge workers can embrace. I think
there is a TON of experience, knowledge and energy that we can leverage by
broadening the scope of the association to include a variety of knowledge
professionals. The benefit directly to the CI Division, to be able to draw in
"non-librarian" folks and people who understand and complement what we do, is
potentially very great.
Beyond the name, I think the Alignment Project information is the truly valuable piece coming out
of the research. This research helps us have that discussion about what we do,
when we have to explain what we do. The nice thing is, you can take what works
for you, and leave the rest.
I do believe the Alignment Project is driving the
association to think differently - to think more broadly about all the skills
and value we add as information professionals. And I think this is a good thing.
The encouraging thing about John Cotton Dana's comments so long ago about the
association name indicates a flexibility in thinking about the name and thinking
about what we do. It indicates a willingness to change. I think a willingness to
change is the first and foremost skill that effective information professionals
embrace - not just for our survival, but for our personal and professional
growth.
What do you think?
Scott Brown, Past Chair, CI Division, SLA
