Executive Summary

Our surveys uncovered a wide range of issues, trends, and needs that will affect FLICC/FEDLINK’s business plan. Members revealed how they perceive FLICC/FEDLINK and what types of new services they would like to see developed. FLICC/FEDLINK stakeholders described the challenging and changing environment in which federal libraries are engulfed today. Staff gave ideas on how FLICC/FEDLINK can improve in many different areas.

All four surveys contained questions to determine how the respondents perceive FLICC/FEDLINK. Overall, respondents have a mixed perception of the organization. On the positive side, many members believe FLICC/FEDLINK is evolving to meet new market needs. However, a substantial portion from all the surveys “Don’t know” the answer to that question. Members believe that FLICC/FEDLINK could enhance its value by upgrading its billing/accounting system and procedures, and work on their behalf to establish consortium pricing on beneficial terms with vendors. They associate FLICC/FEDLINK most often with the Library of Congress, OCLC and the Federal Government. Most of the respondents provided neutral, vs. positive or negative, terms that they connect with FLICC/FEDLINK. The terms “bureaucratic” or “bureaucracy” also come to mind to a significant portion of survey-takers.

The “FEDLINK Report Card” section of the four FLICC/FEDLINK surveys highlighted some interesting member, vendor and staff perceptions about FLICC/FEDLINK’s operations. Overall, FLICC/FEDLINK received good ratings, but the number of “Don’t know” answers was high across the board. The vendors seemed to know the least amount about FLICC/FEDLINK’s services, and answered with the most “Don’t know” responses. The staff was the least satisfied with FLICC/FEDLINK’s procedures, perhaps because of their vantage point of being able to look from the inside out, and gave the lowest overall marks. The two member surveys (FLICC/FEDLINK and Interview) were the most positive, giving very high marks on the report cards almost without exception. However, these surveys also contained a significant number of “Don’t know” answers.

Members were asked if and why they purchase library and information-related products from agencies and companies other than FEDLINK. GSA is the most common government agency used by FEDLINK members. They also buy directly from vendors and/or go through their own agency’s internal purchasing structures. Some of the most commonly cited reasons are the inability to use credit cards, avoidance of FEDLINK’s fees, better pricing from vendors, and/or the non-participation of a vendor in FEDLINK. Both members and vendors provided a number of suggestions that could make FEDLINK more popular with members.

As the sole revenue source for FLICC/FEDLINK, FEDLINK forms the backbone of the organization. Our surveys asked a variety of questions to determine member and vendor satisfaction with FLICC/FEDLINK’s procurement arm, solicit feedback on how to make FEDLINK viable in the coming five years, and ideas on how to make it more popular with federal agencies.

A large number of members, vendors and staff believe the accounting system is outdated, cumbersome and slow, and that members should be able to use credit cards as a payment option. Members, vendors and staff have complained and/or heard complaints about these issues, and also mention poor customer service, inaccuracies in accounts that lead to repeated dunning notices that are difficult to stop, and dissatisfaction with what they perceive as being exorbitant fees. Many vendors and staff believe FEDLINK must increase its marketing effort to help boost awareness of FEDLINK’s products and services.

A variety of questions were used to determine members’ interest in new services and roles for FLICC/FEDLINK, elicit new service suggestions from all three user groups, and see which existing services need to be discontinued.

Members want a range of new services, including more distance learning, consortium/group purchasing, temporary staffing via FEDLINK, institutional repository development, data/information sharing, and new vendors and services added to FEDLINK.

Staff recommend that FEDLINK cease its use of scanned and hardcopy invoices and move to an electronic invoicing system that allows members to view their accounts online. Staff members also recommend FEDLINK allow members to use credit cards for purchases of all types, and that the preservation services are reexamined and/or marketed more effectively.

Staff and vendors mention CIOs and general counsels’ offices most often when suggesting new members FEDLINK can target. Many times, vendors suggested federal agencies in general, leading to the possible conclusion that FEDLINK is not serving these agencies thoroughly.

Although members generally are not aware of FLICC/FEDLINK’s role as a consultant, they are interested in a variety of potential consulting services. Digital library development and web design are the two most popular potential consulting services. Members also want FLICC/FEDLINK to take on the role of advocate, especially by promoting the role of federal libraries and helping them prevent closures and outsourcing.

FLICC/FEDLINK received very high ratings for its communications with members and vendors. Questions about obstacles and unmet information needs, however, revealed a sense of frustration related to unanswered questions, emails, and phone calls. The web site and “FEDLINK Technical Notes” newsletter received fair to high ratings. The high ratings at times contradicted with suggestions for new features and changes, particularly for the web site, where a significant number of respondents called for new navigation, a search function, and various degrees of web site redesign.

FEDLINK turned to its vendor community to find out whether they believe their product sales through FEDLINK will increase over the next five years, and to get their feedback on vendor demonstration programs and options. A significant number of Vendor Survey respondents believe their sales via FEDLINK will increase, although a notable amount said they “Don’t know.” More disturbing to FEDLINK is the fact that nearly 50 percent of the vendors only sell 10 percent of less of their government sales through FEDLINK, and only 2 percent sell 75-100 percent of their government sales through FEDLINK. The vendor demonstration program, it turns out, is not well-known by the vendors. Those who are not aware of it are interested in using this venue; those who have used it expressed concern over low turnout rates. A great deal of interest was expressed in the possibility of conducting vendor-related webinars.

The Interview Survey of stakeholders contained questions on how they like to receive information from vendors. This group of members prefers to receive information about FEDLINK products through FEDLINK-moderated venues, although a substantial number also want to work directly with vendors when purchasing materials and services through FEDLINK.

Overall, FLICC/FEDLINK received positive feedback as a place to work. However, staff did complain about a lack of promotion opportunities for some staff, divisions between FLICC/FEDLINK’s various units, and heavy reliance without backups for some key functions. Five of 15 staff respondents would like to see a technology-related position added to FLICC/FEDLINK. The skill sets mentioned most often for new FLICC/FEDLINK employees are technology and/or technical in nature.

FLICC/FEDLINK stakeholders predict a difficult era ahead for federal libraries. They mention budget cuts, decreased staffing as more people are retiring, and a general decline in the value of their organizations, as perceived by their agencies and users. With such issues surrounding the federal library community, FLICC/FEDLINK’s role as an advocate on their behalf could help promote their image, garner additional support for them, and increase the usage of federal libraries and their services.

Next: Recommendations