A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Session III: How to Make USEIN Functional:

Developing An Action Plan

Plenary with Authors 

- Moderator: John Collins; Author: Nancy O'Brien

Nancy O'Brien

Ms. O'Brien made five specific recommendations in her paper, as follows:

• Appoint a provisional working group to develop bylaws and operating procedures for USEIN.
• Create a listserv to connect USEIN members.
• Develop a web page devoted to USEIN, with links to relevant resources and sites.
• Develop a master directory of education information and service providers.
• Identify and solicit partners to participate in USEIN.

Ms. O'Brien then identified five basic steps for implementing the network and her recommendations:

1. Identify key members/stakeholders, to include many people on an advisory task force. The task force would address

• allocation of responsibility for various tasks, mainly to be done by NLE, but calling for collaborative efforts as well;

• funding sources; and

• the structure of the USEIN executive committee.
2. Listserv formation. This component could serve as a mechanism to answer questions, address issues, or discuss needed new products. Related issues include -

• Who hosts or moderates the listserv?

• What are acceptable uses of the listserv?

• What are the criteria for subscribing to the listserv?

These issues are also best addressed through working groups.

3. Web page formation. This component is a central and critical one. The web page should offer some selectivity, provide an awareness of the network, and promote participation in it.
4. Creating a master directory of major and minor education information and service providers. Many layers of possibilities could apply here having to do with potential partners, potential sub-directories, and the devising of criteria for creating an information network. This recommendation also needs a specific task group to flesh out all the steps involved. The master directory should be available in both paper and electronic versions.
5. Develop partners for the network. This initiative needs to expand to non-included organizations. They can be solicited through ERIC, the web site, and additional conferences. We need also to promote the benefits of partnership and to create policy guidelines for being a partner, i.e., what is required, what the responsibilities are, and how to withdraw as a partner.

Many issues must be addressed, Ms. O'Brien concluded, adding that a structure is needed first, along with issues to target. After these items are resolved, other things will fall into place. She asked for comment via her e-mail address.

Participant Questions and Comments

Ms. O'Brien responded to several participant questions following her discussion.

Q. Is your suggested master directory similar to the National Union Catalog espoused by Donald Ely?

R. Yes, they have the same intent. ERIC is actually closer to the purpose, but other resources need to be brought to bear, e.g., ALA and other sources not included in ERIC directories. We must have an evolving, ongoing, and constantly changing updated directory for USEIN.

C. We must think about our obligations to our constituency target audience and narrow that range a bit.

R. I realize that it is not just about kids; that is my own personal bias.

Q. Do you agree there is little confusion as to who are the end users of USEIN and USAIN?

R. I am uncomfortable with the similarity of the two acronyms. How do others feel?

C. The similarity may be less important than the fact that the USEIN acronym - lacking the "ED" up front - does not convey that it is an educational network. It should "say" education in some way.

R. From a marketing standpoint, we need to change the name to "ED," e.g., for cataloguing purposes - something the PTA will remember.

C. The recommendations in your paper look like "reinventing the wheel" in some aspects, e.g., a new web site. It is important instead to tie back into what already exists and evolve out into other areas. It is not a good idea to restart things; it is a waste of time and leads to redundant efforts and overload of options, with no value added. I urge you to consider ideas that evolve from what already exists.

C. To avoid the tyranny of participation, we must refine the level and degree of that participation, respecting the time commitments asked of people. To NLE: please do not ask people for what is not uniquely theirs to share, as that is a waste of time.

Q. Do you have any ideas for membership formation of the working group you are recommending?

R. I envision a group of about 8-16 people. What must be addressed is how to select people to make the policy and shape the new network. This group (conference participants) can help to identify key players and groups. I do not have specific recommendations in this regard, and, in my paper, turn everything over to NLE. You, however, can suggest key players.

C. What will be the expectations of this working group? We need to have a clearer expectation of members' roles and responsibilities.

C. The group could operate in a "post-it" fashion, with opportunities for members to provide input, give reactions, etc.

A. The recommended list-serv and web site offer a key posting place and give people a medium for providing feedback.

Breakout Group Reports

Orange Group: Session III

The Orange Group looked at NLE's mission statement (Access for All, p. 23) before examining a potential typology for a working group. The call for widespread access was a key factor. The group's recommendations follow:

• Establish a steering committee to serve in an advisory capacity to NLE. The steering committee's membership could include content and access providers, as well as end users. They could be charged with governance of the initiative and with setting up working groups, which would include NLE in an ex-officio capacity, with voting responsibility.
• Establish working groups, who could address these areas: the network's electronic configuration and linkages; the structure of participation by collaborators, partners, and international groups; and network development, to include issues of funding, advocacy, and making the case for NLE.
• Come up with a new name for the network.

Potential Network Names:
USEd NIC
USEd NIC
NEd (Information)
USEd

• Examine expectations for NLE's potential products: web sites, which should be completed quickly and represent future-focused thinking; directories; and listservs. The added value of a collaborative approach was discussed.

Red Group: Session III

The Red Group said that it revisited yesterday's discussion in a new context, having now "hooks to hang things on." It identified the following as high-priority recommendations for NLE.

• Move concepts to reality. The group agreed with much of what was in Ms. O'Brien's paper, although it did not see moving immediately to a web site.
• Establish and take responsibility for this network. NLE should indicate the direction it wants to travel and make this network its own.
• Address what is important for a national network to do, compared with what is already taking place at the state and local levels. USEIN must address the "synergistic" effect.
• Keep the provider and consumer ideas clear, but do not make separations along these lines, as "we are all both."
• Zero in on this network and consider economic feasibility to be an important aspect of determining what can be done.

Yellow Group: Session III

The Yellow Group came up with a list of 10 major points. These are concrete tasks to be taken on by the "grunt group," i.e., what has to be done, paid for, solicited, and nurtured in organizations. A brief summary precedes the listing of the 10 points.

• Listserv issues for the work group. The group sees the listserv as a means of communicating among people doing the job and those outside of that circle.
• The work - what and who? NLE should serve a facilitation/coordination role instead of a governance one. Staff and budget lines must be drawn and financial constraints provided by NLE. A work or advisory group could probably handle only five or six projects, which suggests a great need for focus and prioritization.
• Potential network names:

EDWORLD

EDSMARTS

EDLINE

EDNET

EDUNET

EDANSWER

EDINFO

EDQUEST

1. Listserv: need for more than one - for "working group" members, maybe non-permanent.
2. New projects being developed continuously.
3. "Working group" - develop organizational issues - recommend organizational policy.
4. What are membership criteria? - institutions only.
5. Core group of USEIN - different sectors have different roles.
6. What are we providing, not who are we serving.
7. Working group look at "evolving" and "enhancing" directories, web sites, etc.
8. "Bully pulpit" of NLE.
9. Focus groups/counsel to NLE.
10. Leveraging of resources - financial.

Green Group: Session III

The Green Group generated questions about a potential working group:

• Should ERIC be the foundation? What about degradation?
• Who would answer these questions? Perhaps USEIN would not.

This group used graphical representations to explain the function of a working group. Composition of the group could include the following:

• business and industry;
• education community;
• parent groups and organizations (including ERIC);
• library interests, through professional associations;
• agencies;
• standards and interoperability experts;
• policymakers; and
• DoED grantees, to name a few.

Blue Group: Session III

The Blue Group addressed items they believed to be directed to follow-up work after the meeting, namely -

• The purpose of the working group;
• An advisory committee to keep it going;
• The importance of an organizational structure and bylaws;
• Oversight of a technological plan to attract and serve a broader group of people;
• Facilitation by technology of human interaction;
• Identification and recruitment of stakeholders in the process;
• The possibility of USEIN being the virtual library component of NLE, keeping what is good and growing it for the future;
• The need for broad participation in the working group, remembering that providers and consumers are often the same, and that a variety of groups would want to be involved, so different levels of participation should be offered; and finally
• "Why not just build on ERIC since we all like it so much."

[Day 2]

[Session IV]