Several times over the past year or so, I have offered up criticisms of OCLC. OCLC is a staple of the library world, especially here in the U.S., but its reach is global and it is expanding all the time. The simplest or most concise way of expressing my criticisms is to say that I think OCLC is the Microsoft of the library world.Roy Tennant, a respected colleague who recently joined OCLC, and has taken issue with my criticisms a couple of times. His latest response poses several good questions and I’ve purposely taken my time in considering how to respond. What follows are statements or questions excerpted from Roy’s lengthy comment on a previous post. Please be sure to read the whole thing.1.) “We’re a not-for-profit membership organization. We’re not Google, for cryin’ out loud, or Microsoft, or Innovative Interfaces, or (name your favorite commercial company here).”OCLC is a not-for-profit membership organization, sure. But in my view, that is true in name only. OCLC behaves in ways that are similar to the businesses you name, and more than that, it has a growing monopoly over library data and services that I think makes a legitimate comparison to say, Microsoft’s monopoly and control of the OS and most of the critical desktop applications we use. Microsoft, Google, and others are for-profit, yes. But I still believe there are legitimate comparisons. Especially when I think of the control ceded to OCLC of the data we librarians create — control that inhibits, rather than fosters, libraries’ use of their own data for innovative applications that serve their own needs.2.) “But I still have a hard time figuring out what your root beef is — is it that you object to the cost of particular services? What, exactly, do you think needs to be changed? Would you prefer that libraries NOT have an organization that instead of being focused on making a buck actually plows the investments of individual libraries into research and products that leverage the benefits to all libraries?”I’m not sure why it is so hard to figure out. I’ve stated quite plainly what my “root beef(s)” are, including OCLC’s control of library (MARC) data, its growing monopoly of library data and services, what I believe are high costs of many of its services. I’ve also made it very clear that in spite of repeatedly being told that OCLC is “our” (implying all libraries) organization, that it is a membership driven organization, I for one do not feel that OCLC is “my” organization and I never have. And I resent being told that it is. Now, technically speaking, my library is an OCLC member but if I had my druthers we wouldn’t be. Why? Because I see very little value for the amount of money spent, and because I believe we can get better service for cheaper by doing things on our own.3.) “So I’m grasping at straws here to understand how we’ve hurt you so.”
Roy, with all due respect, it seems a little silly for you to think that you (OCLC) have “hurt” me in some way. The implication in that statement is that I am miffed about something, that this is personal, that OCLC has disappointed or rejected me in some way. That implication sort of demeans what I believe are legitimate and objective criticisms of the organization.4.) “How many of your postings pillory vendors owned by investment firms with no interest in libraries except for whatever return on their investment they can squeeze from them?”Well, since you ask, probably just as many as those that have openly criticized OCLC. And unlike several other prominent vendor naysayers in the library field, I have worked for one of those “vendors owned by investments firms with no interest in libraries except for whatever return on their investment they can squeeze from them.” Having had that experience, I can say that your broad strokes characterization is way too simplistic and frankly, unbalanced. That is not to say that such vendors are without flaw. There are very good reasons why I no longer work for such a vendor. I have lots of reasons to be critical of vendors but one of the important lessons I gained from working in that environment is that things aren’t so black and white as I used to think, i.e. libraries=good, vendors=bad. I found that there are many very thoughtful, innovative librarians working in vendor settings who care every bit as much, if not more, about the things that you and I care about, who want to see libraries succeed, who support and encourage professional involvement. (Ironically, in my experience, vendors support professional involvement to a degree unmatched by any library I have ever worked for). Vendors, like libraries, also have more than their fair share of incompetence, inefficiencies, and dysfunctional organizations and practices. Frankly, OCLC is every bit as much of a vendor in my view as a company like Innovative Interfaces or Ex Libris. OCLC has done, and continues to do, many very good things. But it also does many things badly, just like any other vendor (or library, for that matter).5.) “I can think of no better time to come together around common problems and build common solutions. Can you? What would your world be without OCLC? Even if you think we do nothing for you now, wait three years and ask yourself the same question.”I agree that the vision you articulate sounds wonderful and desirable. The big difference between you and me, though, is that I do not see OCLC as the only or main vehicle for achieving that vision. In fact, I strongly distrust OCLC (obviously). I think that placing all of our eggs in the OCLC basket, to make OCLC the savior of the library world, is a very flawed approach. I think there are many very exciting technological and functional developments occurring at the local level or in open communities of practice. I prefer to work in those environments and to invest in those areas, and not leave it up to OCLC.
