Response to Ric Vieira

Hi A.J.,

I am glad to see that I was not the only one who was a bit taken aback by Ric’s remarks.  I won’t go so far as to say he didn’t have the right to make them, or shouldn’t have made them.  However as a relatively young member of the group I was quite disturbed by them and it changed the whole tone of the conference for me. 

I have to say I felt like a bit of a doofus as I had started that morning’s session by noting how I didn’t see the same panic and push to “reinvent” profession that you sometimes see these days at library conferences.  I actually held up high-value complex indexing files (such as IFI CLAIMS) as proof of the complexity of our work and the guarantee of continuing relevance in the face of widespread Googlization of research.

Ric’s remarks left me feeling like perhaps I had said something naïve – but after considering what he said further, I think the tone was a bit unwarranted.  While I certainly agree that patent searchers should pride themselves on their agility and willingness to adapt to new tools and address new challenges, a doomsday attitude about it doesn’t help anybody.  I think he did us a service in reminding us to keep our eyes open to changes in the information world, but negativity is not the right way to approach whatever challenges we may face.  

Regarding his use of his time to promote his new business model:  what exactly is his new business model?  From what I could understand, it seems evident that IFI indexing as we know it will be going away.   I like the idea of Alexandria as a product and people seem to love the data (from what I hear it’s quite clean and easy to work with).  Why did Fairview buy IFI?   

It is possible that as the volume of patent information continues to expand, manually indexed files will become altogether impractical to maintain.  On the other hand Derwent and CAS seem to be doing just fine with it.  Although it is possible they may have to rely more on machine help and accept a decline in quality, the business model seems to be working out okay for now, unless there is something I don’t know.    I’m sure some subscribers have been forced to drop expensive files, but I’m also not sure that we should plan for these economic conditions to last forever.

Having been present for one of the two Vieira discourses, I listened intently and then fell back on a previously reliable technique – sit back and count to ten.

Professionals frequently - and hopefully – are impassioned about the work they do. Occasionally, the passion spills over, regardless of the real message.

Personally, I was more amused than annoyed by Mr. Vieira’s comments, because (1) only I can embarrass or bring insult upon myself by my own actions, and (2) I don’t like to throw out the baby with the wash water (i.e., there may be valuable information in the message, so let's not kill the messenger).

When all else fails, I say salvage the good stuff and simply discard the rest. Objectively, there are correct ways to challenge the presentation of misinformation; subjectively, there are perhaps other ways to deal with what one may individually interpret as inappropriate behavior that insults from without. Generally, a word to the wise is sufficient, and I personally feel no pain for the exposure.

Thank you both for sharing your thoughtful comments.

After Vieira's first talk on Monday, I was ready to dismiss the whole doomsday message/new IFI business plan - that the death of the subscription/licensing model is coming because info pros are getting "laid off" one by one - as annoying and over the top. However, he crossed a line the next day when he named names, so I felt that he had to be called out. I'm not suggesting that he should have been muzzled, only that his remarks required a response.

It's admirable and instructive that you both found something positive and valuable in this whole situation. The ten-count is good advice, too - it's a technique that I should fall back on more often.

   Dudes! He's neither a member of the club nor of the wiki, so right off the bat, a good host must overlook the poor behavior of even the most trying guest. Sorry to have missed it, especially to support my colleagues that we're neither endangered nor superfluous: we know that.  If anything, we lead the nonilluminati into a brighter future. The angst this caused is balanced by eliciting thoughtful counterarguments. Don't you think he is hoist by his own petard, anyway? Who are the key opinion leaders going to ask for advice, the vendor or the practitioner?

   As Kristin said, just what model were you thinking of? If some of your bestsellers went free and public, say so up front, don't pretend the whole field is at risk; there were plenty of other vendors there who are weathering the changes just fine, meeting the challenge with new offerings and ideas, holding on to their clientele. If the plan is a turnkey machine, no humans involved, well, golly-- I'd be first in line to have a look at that! 

   I'm reminded of a wonderful quote from the sci fi classic The Heritage of Hastur, by Marion Zimmer Bradley: "If you listen to the dogs barking, you'll go deaf, and you won't learn very much." And speaking of dogs-- don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Hi Kris - I'm really happy that you've contributed to this discussion. Thanks so much for your perspective! Sorry you couldn't join us in Cincinnati.

While the events that generated this discussion were a bit surreal, I have been impressed with the well reasoned and grounded responses. Counting to ten (or more) helps to prevent the unfortunately typical Internet 'debate' as lampooned in today's Dilbert.

It was a bit ironic that Kristin Whitman had started the session with comments about a lack of panic in our profession, but I think she is right. I believe what we saw at the conference was an outlier which was made more high profile by the setting and the names called out. I also believe that as patent information professionals are not panicking, but rather that we are evolving. I admit it can seem awfully disconcerting as the world is struggling to get through this economically trying period and the churn can create a lot of anxiety. But we've been navigating change for the past twenty years through waves of pharma / chem consolidations, the Internet, the spinning information industry (just think about how many homes Dialog has had) and the accelerating importance of patents.  The latter is why we should look forward.

Patents are more important and have a higher profile in businesses than ever before. And because of that, everyone from the scientists / engineers, business development and executive leadership is looking at us more than ever. We are not just herded off into some corner of the building and we should grab this attention and create new roles and positions for ourselves. Or should I say that we should continue doing this. While there may not be as many traditional searcher positions in large companies, there are a lot more in different positions across the businesses and more consultants. My position at Chamberlain is more of a hybrid and before I started five years ago they didn't have an information person at all. TPR seems to be growing and there are more individual consultants and companies like Perception Partners. We also have a wider range of vendors, products and tools than twenty years ago.  Sure, there will be anxious moments, but I think the future will be pretty exciting.

And finally, to Kristine Atkinson - I'm always glad to see someone drop in an Illuminati reference.

Jim - Thanks for your contribution. I'm sorry I missed a chance to meet you face-to-face after having read your postings. BTW I have two Chamberlain door openers in my garage - and Illuminati – as in Masons??