This is a repeat posting of the revised proposal for a NOTIS User Council
adopted at ALA Midwinter.  It is being distributed to multiple lists.  I
apologize for any duplication.  More information will be sent later today.
        --Alan Alexander-Manifold

Revised Report of the NOTIS User Council Implementation Committee
2/1/1993

MEMBERS:        Alan Alexander-Manifold, Purdue University, chair
                Barbara Cervera, University of Connecticut
                Rick Gates, University of California, Santa Barbara
                Donna Hirst, University of Iowa
                Pam Jeffcoat, Johns Hopkins University
                Carl Lee, Michigan State University

MISSION:        To create a formal structure whereby input from NOTIS users
                can be given to NOTIS Systems, Inc. on a regular basis, and to
                make provisions for improving the annual enhancement ballot
                process.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

After the LIB1 meeting at ALA Annual Conference in June, 1991, a group of
NOTIS users drafted a proposal for a NOTIS Users Council.  This draft was
reviewed at the next LIB1 SIG meeting, in October, 1991.  A revised draft
was presented at the ALA Midwinter meeting in January, 1992.  A new
committee was formed to work out some problems with the proposal, and
to begin the process of implementing it.  The committee "met" only via e-
mail, and made very slow progress.  They reported at the ALA Annual
Conference in June, 1992, and got some feedback on their discussions to
date.  At that point, the committee disintegrated.  It was revived at the next
LIB1 SIG meeting in October, 1992, and reorganized.  The committee has
again "met" via e-mail, and has come up with a completely new proposal.

The revised proposal of January, 1992 called for the creation of three
bodies:  the Users Council, consisting of a single representative from each
site; the Advisory Council, made up of representatives from each of the
major functional SIGs; and the Executive Council, elected by the members
of the Users Council.  The Users Council provided the democratic element,
the Advisory Council provided the functional expertise, and the Executive
Council provided overall guidance to the process.  The Executive Council
would be responsible for the annual enhancement ballot process.

The implementation committee discussed the proposed structure in terms of
whether it would accomplish the desired goals.  The committee feels that
the proposed structure is unwieldy and counterproductive.  The Users
Council would be too large to meet effectively:  probably its only function
would be to vote on the membership of the Executive Council.  That would
be handled by each site as it chooses in any case, so there is no need to
create a formal body for this purpose.  Administration of membership in the
Users Council would be a major chore.  The purpose of the Advisory Council
is to insure that the expertise of the SIGs in their functional areas will not
be ignored or forgotten.  It is the view of the committee that there is no
chance that this will happen.

The committee feels that it would be foolish to imagine that the Executive
Council would actually be able to make decisions that would be binding on
NOTIS Systems, Inc; company management will rightly retain control over
their own decisions.  This Council, then, would be advisory to NOTIS.
General election, however, is probably not be the best way to insure the
broad coverage of users' concerns that this group must provide.

A major goal for the Executive Council was the running of the enhancement
ballot process.  All parties to this process, including NSI, believe that it is
flawed.  But the committee is not convinced that having users run the
enhancement balloting would insure that the results would improve.  The
current process of getting requests from the SIGs seems to work well, as
does the mailing and data collection by NSI.  User input would be most
valuable in combining and organizing the requests from the SIGs into items
of similar complexity, and in interpreting the results.  Users could also help
NSI distinguish enhancements from bugs, and help to insure they take the
appropriate action for specific problems.

The recent establishment of the Team NOTIS Technical Advisory Committee
adds a new element to our discussion.  This group, made up of TECH1s
from customer sites, meets with NOTIS staff quarterly to pass on any user
concerns they hear, react to proposals from NOTIS, and give feedback on
issues that have come to the fore.  The jury is still out on the success of
this experiment, but the early indications are very promising.  NOTIS seems
sincerely interested in listening to what the members have to say, and many
decisions seem to reflect the feedback they get from this group.  Many of
the issues covered by a technical group are more foundation-oriented than
function-oriented, and thus the model may not be entirely applicable to the
concerns and issues of the library side of the house, but the close
interaction of the users with senior NOTIS staff, the ability to discuss issues
in-depth, with all sides represented, and the regularity of the meetings are
all highly desirable.  NOTIS has expressed interest in pursuing the
possibilities of using a Team NOTIS approach for gathering "library side"
input from the user community.

NEW PROPOSAL

An Advisory Group shall be created by NOTIS Systems, Inc. based on the
Team NOTIS model.  This group will be made up of four to six individuals
from NOTIS sites.  Their goal will be to advise NOTIS staff on issues related
to system functionality and support from the library perspective.  They will
also assist NSI in gathering and interpreting user input on desired
functionality and enhancements.  The group should meet with NOTIS staff
quarterly.  If possible, this group should be in place by NUGM 1993.
Members will serve two-year terms, with terms staggered so that half of the
membership changes each year.  Initial members will be assigned terms by
the selection committee, some of two years and some of three, as two
years seems the minimum to accomplish significant work.  The initial
members of the committee will decide how to handle recruiting and
selecting new members to continue the committee into the future.

The members of this Advisory Group should be as broadly representative
and knowledgeable as possible in each of the modules of the LMS, and in
the following areas:  technical and public services; large and small sites;
male and female; LIB1 and non-LIB1; consortia and non-consortia; academic,
public and special (e.g. medical, law) libraries; KeyNOTIS and NOTIS
Classic; government documents; specific bibliographic formats (e.g. music,
maps, archives); other related vendors (e.g. FAXON, EBSCO, BNA);
bibliographic utilities (e.g. OCLC, RLIN, Bibliofile); special NOTIS
applications (e.g. VITLS, LC resource files); extra-cost NOTIS products (e.g.
GTO, PACLink, InfoShare, ProPAC); different communications structures (e.g.
LANs, dialup, Internet, 7171, 3270); different operating systems (MVS and
VSE); different terminal types (ASCII, PCs, Macs); and in every other
product and variation possible.  Clearly, it is not possible to appoint only
four to six individuals, and still have a separate representative for each of
these areas.  People will be sought that can represent more than one of
these areas.

At the first meeting of the group, and then annually thereafter, the members
of the committee will consult and appoint one member to be the official
liaison to each of the Special Interest Groups, other than the regional ones.
As there are now approximately 25 such SIGs, and more are likely to be
created in the future, each member will have to act as liaison to more than
one group.  The official liaison will be responsible for gathering input from
the SIG, representing the interests of the SIG in discussions, and
questioning proposals and products from NOTIS in light of their effects on
the members of the SIG.  They will also be responsible for informing the
SIGs, through their officers, of any major issues or decisions from the
meetings of the Advisory Committee that might affect the SIG.

As the formation of such a group will be somewhat experimental, the initial
make-up of the group is extremely important.  The members must be
thoughtful and committed people that are respected and trusted by the user
community.  They must also be people who can work closely with NOTIS
without rancor or accusation.  Former SIG chairs or SIG steering committee
members might be good candidates, but any who fit the above description
could be considered.  Current SIG chairs should probably not be members,
as they already have considerable duties.

Volunteers will be sought from among the user community, and each SIG
will be encouraged to nominate one individual.  The nominations and
volunteers will be reviewed by the chairs of the following major SIGs:  LIB1,
Acquisitions, Cataloging/Authorities, Circulation, OPAC/Training, and
Serials.  A list of recommended members and a few alternates will be sent
to NOTIS, who will make the final selection.  If NOTIS wishes to make any
changes from the recommendations, they should consult with the chair of
the LIB1 SIG to discuss the reasons and the options.

Current list of known SIGs that will need liaisons:

Acquisitions
Archives
BNA/NOTIS
Cartographic
Cataloging/Authorities
Circulation
Consortia/Networks
Faxon/NOTIS
Government Documents Cataloging Services
Health Sciences
KeyNOTIS
Law
LIB1
MDAS
National Music
NOTIS Classics, Inc.
OPAC User Instruction and Training
Preservation
Public/School Library
RLG/NOTIS
Serials Control
Special Libraries