ILS Vendors - worried by OCLC?
I’ve just spent my morning commute listening to Jay Jordan, OCLC President, giving his president’s update [mp3] to the October OCLC Members Council Meeting in Dublin Ohio. I know, the phrase get a life came to my mind as well. Nevertheless his hour in front of the microphone was a fascinating insight in to the thinking behind the cooperative monolith, and the commercial tensions within it.
Company or Enterprise? - Before Jay spoke a booklet had been distributed with the word Company inscribed [no doubt in nice friendly letters] on the cover. OCLC watchers will know that associating such a word with the cooperative causes all sorts of internal concerns and issues. Jay explained that the booklet had originated from a brand roll-out exercise that started in Europe, where of course OCLC activities are companies. He asked members to leave their booklets behind ’so they don’t escape the building and start any rumours’. They are going to reprint the booklets with a different word on the front - the current front runner is Enterprise - hmm not so sure of the difference, dictionary.com tells me that an enterprise is ‘a company organized for commercial purposes; business firm’
This struggling over terminology must be really difficult for Jay and his colleagues when they preside over a not for profit cooperative, enjoying income in excess of expenditure, which owns businesses on a global scale which make profits. Its not just the company word that causes problems either; in the Q&A at the end of his session Eleanor Frierson was most put out by the fact that Jay had been presenting with an indicator in the background referring to the number of Active Customers [as against members] that they have. Yet another terminology faux pas - that apparently Jay was already aware of before he stood up. As I say it must be really difficult - having to choose your words so carefully and not just say what you mean.
The thing that was most interesting in the whole session was also in the Q&A at the end. To paraphrase a questioner called Tony [I didn’t get the second name], Jay was asked - if WorldCat Local was an ILS OPAC layer replacement; was the intention to move on and replace all the ILS layers thus competing with the ILS vendors in the US?
Jay pointed out that through its European companies OCLC was already an ILS vendor [the consolidation of capabilities he had referenced earlier in his talk]. As to them wanting to import these capabilities to the Americas or export them to Asia - whilst not wanting “to declare we are in the game, because we are not in the game yet of the OPAC replacement module [Jay indicated earlier that this module - WorldCat Local - would be coming out of trial within months] but ‘for heaven sakes’ the logical extension is to continue to build capabilities … and move what is appropriate to the network. Not everything goes up to Dublin Ohio, obviously, but whatever logically goes there has to be under consideration.”
After an aside about what SirsiDynix think OCLC is up to, ”with 700 libraries linked in to one system they are kind of coming in our direction.” Jay confirmed “ I think that it is inevitable” he qualified this with the rider that until they confirm that their platform could provide local value he did not want to talk about it. He also said that if anyone gets upset about them doing it he “could plead my members made me do it” - knowing the ILS CEOs he doesn’t “think they are suffering from any misapprehension about what the future could hold.”
A very revealing exchange giving some insight in to the fact that WordCat Local could just be the first assault on tradition ILS vendor territory. I wonder what the venture capitalists behind some of them make of this logical extension of OCLC in to their markets? I also wonder what the customersmembers make of the idea of putting all their eggs in to a potentially monopolistic OCLC basket?
