BRAINSTORM SESSION AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS
PLANNING FOR BRAINSTORM SESSION

Chaired by:

Robert M. Hayes

Professor and Dean Emeritus
Graduate School of Library & Information Science
UCLA
Los Angeles, CA 90024
IFX1RMH@mvs.oac.ucla.edu

[Robert Hayes]

What we need at this point is to come to an agreement on the best way of pro-ceeding with the working groups as to the structure that we have available for guiding the discussions.

In the workbooks, there is a set of problems, issues, and concerns in a blue document. They were contributed from you prior to the meeting, so that is at least one starting point for discussion. The second starting point is that, while you were talking, I was making notes, and I would like to identify the kinds of generic topics that are coming out, with some specifics. I have identified six generic topics which, while they occur in major groups, also occur throughout the entire meeting:

1. The economic and political context

• The relationship between government and private industry

• The mix of information as power and as commodity

• The national economic structure

• The micro-economic structure (as reflected in the role of information as a capital investment or expenditure)

2. Agencies for transition

• Who does the strategic planning?

• How do we make the transition?

• What is the role of political factors in it?

• What are the existing international agencies from where we can draw support?

• What is the role of national and international professional societies?

• What are the alternative funding sources?

• What is the relative role in implementation of government and nongovernment organizations? And the entrepreneurs?

• What is the role of international collaboration

3. Means for implementation

• The education approaches -- educating students, faculty, consultant, con-ferences, fellows program, etc., or the level and means of programs

• The effect of brain drain

• Information literacy

4. Barriers

• Language

• Cultural

5. Role of libraries

• The role in meeting the poor, population at risk

• Librarians as intermediary

6. Technology and contents

• Access to technology; CD-ROM vs. print

• How to handle digital information

• How to handle the mix of digital and nondigital

LOGISTICS

Now the logistics: We'd like to divide the group into three or four sub-groups. We will not assign a topic or a set of topics to each group, but rather the entire array of issues and topics. Each group in its own dynamics will determine what the priorities are, and we will see what will be covered or not covered. How does that sound to all of you?

The deliverables at the end of the discussion will be a presentation of the re-sults of the discussions. I assume that each group will probably identify a chair who will present to the entire group, and then be followed by more general discussions of the entire group.

[Ching-chih Chen]

Bob and I have compared our thoughts, and we are in complete agreement with what he has suggested. I think that the small group discussions will last for the first two hours, and then the final hour will be the reporting of the group reports. What do you all think?

[Robert Hayes]

Let me add a little bit. It seems to me that we have an extremely valuable com-bination of talents here, representing a variety of countries and fields. Each of us will take back to our own constituencies the results of what we have achieved here. And I assume that you will formulate for whatever action you may want to take in your own context. That perhaps is the primary result which will come out. But, there are some more specific results. And I may identify them:

[Ching-chih Chen]

We need to be more focused. Again, each one's contribution in the brain storm session is to bring out those important things relevant to your own context. NIT does not have an agenda here. Our agenda is that since we are doing all these for no monetary gains, then this contribution for international development should move in the direction which is meaningful and relevant to the needs identified by this distinguished group. For that reason, if the discussions can relate to your needs, then the results will be something which you can take back and capitalize on for your own action and plans in both high-tech and nontechnology areas.

How do all these sound to everyone? This is the best we can come up with.

[Wendy White]

The GII is still very much in the planning stages. Vice President Gore began talking about it only in March of 1994. His staff and staff at the Department of Commerce are still looking at how to implement this vision, and I think they are looking for suggestions. Some of us in this room have been asked to read draft plans for the GII, and we know that very few issues regarding equity of access and inclusion of the poor are currently in those plans.

The GII will be discussed at the G7 meeting in Brussells in February. For our discussions tomorrow, I would like to pretend that we have been asked by the ministers who will attend the G7 meeting for input into the GII plan-of-action document. The concept of the GII is still very new, and we have an opportunity to influence it. If we act as though we must brief our ministers on the most im-portant elements of the GII, it might help us to focus our discussions and come up with an acceptable action plan.

[Ching-chih Chen]

Yes, Wendy, I am glad that you brought that up. That was actually one of the hidden things behind all this and that is let's get our acts together and get our input in before it is too late. Because libraries are always late and have to go back after decisions are made to do damage control, so, we are somewhat ahead of the game this time. Let's take advantage of that.

[Elizabeth Kirk]

The question I have is what is the time frame we have in mind.

[Robert Hayes]

That is a critical question. I wish that I'd have a concrete answer. All I can give at this moment is what I would want to have. I think that one year time frame is irrational. I don't think that we can accomplish anything during that one year. But, I think that a 3 to 5 years frame of reference is needed. I would in my own thinking take that as my frame of reference. I think that if we go beyond 5 years, God knows what the technology will be like, and God knows what the political situations will be like. These are not what I can deal with. Three to five years will put us beyond 1996.

[Marjorie Hlava]

In our discussion tomorrow, it seems to me that it would be possible to look at that as a strategic exercise. In what we say here there are 6 variables, and we have talked about them a lot. So, instead of pushing on those six, we might want to say that here are the six, and each group can go to discuss and come back with their model or whatever for the best GII for the year 2000, so that we can have steps for achieving in the short term to the year 2000.

[Robert Hayes]

I have only a couple of reservations on what you just said. The year 2000 is six years from now. At least one of the issues, if not all, has potential conflict. In particular, government vs. private sector is a good example. So, the answer is not going to be that this is what will be, but rather that these are the issues and pro-blems that need to be reconciled, resolved, and dealt with, or at least recognized. So, it is not simply a consensus position, but rather an identification position.

[Ching-chih Chen]

Also, Margery, I just caught the words, "the best," which you mentioned. I am not sure about the best. What is best to one group, may be very troublesome to another. So maybe the group can decide that these are the things which we realized are difficult, but we shall need to address them in a certain way. So, with this as a background, shall we leave this for all of us to think about once more tonight, and then follow up tomorrow?

[Hwa-wei Lee]

I just wonder whether three or two groups would be better.

[Ching-chih Chen]

I think that we can try tomorrow, and perhaps three groups will be an idea so that the groups will not be too small or too big.

[Don Riggs]

What are the objectives of what we want to achieve?

[Ching-chih Chen]

We may not have enough time to do everything, so what we are going to do is to start planning to come up with some baseline information for us to move on. The other is for us collectively to come up with some possible guidelines for action in relation to GII.

[Robert Hayes]

Each of us has agendas. I shall choose Woody's agenda to illustrate, that is to influence the national accounting. If the result is to infer that such a step will be a value, that a report to NCLIS or other agencies, for example, will be valuable, this result will be useful, and it is that utility that we are looking for. Is this helpful?

[Diane Tebbetts]

As we are doing this tomorrow, and as we are coming up with something that we think is important, we can then direct it to appropriate associations, organiza-tions, groups, that can help to implement the plan.

[Woody Horton]

In my own mind, the deliverable should be a set of guiding principles, where we can achieve consensus in some of the areas which we have been discussing. In some areas, we will not be able to achieve a consensus. But, even if we reach consensus in only a few areas, we will be able to come out with a document which will be actionable by a whole range of constituencies, whoever the players are -- whether they are NCLIS, or national governments -- and wherever the arenas may be.

[Robert Hayes]

The example that comes to mind, one that I think is very effective, is the Glenerin Declaration. That was a series of formal and informal meetings gathering per-sons from the U.S., Canada, and the UK. I attended two of the three, and I can tell you that the nature of the meetings, in feeling, was almost identical to that of this one -- the presentation of papers, discussion of each of those papers without an agenda. The outcome of the meeting was the Glenerin Declaration, which has been a very useful and valuable tool. It has been a document which has been referred to. It is that kind of thing which we are looking for, perhaps called the Alexandria Resolution.

[Ching-chih Chen]

Yes, while we are looking around here now, we have a very distinguished group of professionals who are able to push things in different parts of the world, in different national and international associations, in government and private sec-tors, and so forth. Each one can take these guiding principles back and try to do something.

[Don Riggs]

First of all, is NIT changing its directions? I presume that it is. Are we doing these for NIT? Is this just one type of activity? Is NIT '95 going to follow up the recommended actions?

[Ching-chih Chen]

What we are doing here this time is not aiming for NIT only. We hope that what the group is able to come up with will be something which can be followed up by many others. On the other hand, it will have a potential impact on the future of NIT as well, since NIT will be one of the many groups which I believe will bene-fit from the results generated from the collective wisdom of this distinguished group.

[A. Wali]

I think that Dr. Hayes said that everyone has his or her own agenda. Before I came here, I had to ask permission from my supervising Minister. So when I got back, I had to present a report to him. And, I will tell him that we spent three days talking about new information technology, and the global information infrastructure, and then he will ask me what the implications are to our country when we don't even have e-mail. The new technology, what is it? So this forum to me is very important and will enable me to respond to many of the questions. It is more than just brainstorming. Nigeria is being introduced to a very new and complex situation, which I am responsible for informing my government and proposing strategies for the Nigerian government. As the National Librarian, I am responsible for developing library and information services for the whole country, and every librarian has an obligation to listen to us. So, this conference is extremely useful to me and to Nigeria. This is my motive.

[Ching-chih Chen]

This is exactly the kind of results we are looking for. In other words, we are looking for NIT to be a springboard for connecting -- connecting associations, connecting countries, connecting developing and developed countries, connecting government and private sectors, and so forth -- all in an informal way. Informal connection is the most powerful.

[Herbert Achleitner]

This conference has been exceptional in terms of the range of ideas and concepts that have surfaced and the various perspectives brought to the discussions. It certainly has helped me in refining my understanding of the information policy initiatives that must be taken in developing countries.

[Marjorie Hlava]

For tomorrow, I would like to come away with something which I can act on cor-porately on behalf of ASIS and NISO. There are still important standard issues to be addressed. Woody can take that to FID, and so forth. But what it is is still undefined to me. If it is a set of resolutions, we can add to that, etc. What we don't have in terms of strategic planning is the ideal situation -- the vision. But we do have a tremendous consensus. So, what we do need may be a statement of an ideal situation, that may come out of the resolution.

[Woody Horton]

I don't want to be picky about this guiding principle business. Indeed, it would be very useful if we come up with a set of motherhood and apple pie (general) statements. But we don't want to do just that. So I use the term actionable. The "Alexandria Affirmation" may very well be the product which we can sell in the marketplace.

[Ching-chih Chen]

I think that we have a pretty good idea of where we are heading tomorrow. If something is still troubling us, we still have tonight to think about it. So I think that we should end the day here.