World Patent Information, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 235-236, 1991. Pergamon Press plc Printed in Great Britain

ONLINE Patent Information

OBSERVATIONS Managing Change or Just Changing Management?

This past year brought with it a bumper crop of management changes in and around the area of online patent informa- tion. What do they mean? Management changes sometimes strive to maintain a status quo, as when the chief executive of a highly successful organization re- tires. More often, though, they signal an attempt to change a direction (e.g. this year’s incredible number of managerial firings by losing professional baseball teams), a hope that new leadership will somehow make things better. Sometimes that works, but all too often the only visible change is in the face that sits on the throne. Let’s take a look at some of the past year’s information management changes and consider the prospects.

I think that the changes at the Chemical Abstracts Service have to take the first place in this catalog, and I’d discuss them at length and in depth here - if only I understood what they mean, at least in terms of their effect on information users. I don’t presume to understand what that effect will be, but let’s look at the basic facts.

For years the American Chemical Soci- ety’s Committee on the Chemical Ab- stracts Service has been the key gov- ernance body for CAS. The Director of CAS reported to this committee, which in turn reverted to the ACS Board of Directors. ’ The committee, responsible for a massive share of the ACS budget, has been one of the most important committees of the Society, more than once a ste dency and or Board Chairmanship. But 7

pingstone to the ACS Presi-

an ad hoc study group appointed during 1989 bv Ernest Eliel. then ACS Board Chairman, determined to the satisfaction of the ACS Board of Directors that the old committee was not ade uate to handle the business operations of % AS, to assure its ability to thrive in the competitive world of information supply. A new CAS governing board was created, including the ACS Executive Director as head. the ACS Board Chairman, and the CAS Director; two chemical industry business executives; and two information industry business executives. Meanwhile Dr Ron Wigington. the CAS Director, has been mo?ed to a new post in ACS, leaving an interim director at CAS while a new one is being sought.

What does all of this mean? It’s no secret that I have long been a critic of CAS’

business policies, which seem to me obsessed with providing CAS’ alter ego, STN International, with a stranglehold on the market for distributing CA databases. This has been done in the interest of maximizing income. Individuals respon- sible for CAS business

7! olicies conceded

that those policies mig t be detrimental to information users in the short term, but would ultimately prove beneficial to users. Thus, even though information users might be able to make better use of CA databases if thev were available for crossfiling on alternate host systems, the exclusionary policies were deemed by management essential to insure the long term viability of CAS.

I continue to believe that the witholding of certain CAS databases and database segments from hosts other than STN is inimical to the interests of all information users, not only in the short term but also in the long term. That belief is based not on’iy on the desire to carry out crossfile searches between CA and other databases, but also on the conviction that availability of databases on multiple systems is a stimulant to innovative developments: new searching techniques, new software capabilities. I believe that creative business strategies based on broadened access could increase rather than decrease CAS income. My friends in Columbus and Washington have argued these points with me and some of my colleagues over and over, for so many years that some people seem to have tired of hearing the argument.

Does the new organization offer hope of any change for the better? Will the new management pay more attention to our ideas, or will we find CAS even farther removed from users’ ‘opinions? Some kev individuals at ACS and CAS have suggested to me that things might get better for users: that certain experiments in distribution of CA files might now be possible, experiments that governance was afraid to try until now; that academic special interest groups might have less influence on the new governing board, influence that often runs counter to the interests of those in industry (i.e. patent information users). What will really hap- Den? It’s far too earlv to tell. In the ‘meantime, I would t&e anyone who agrees with me on the importance of the broadest access to CA’s information to make their feelings known, appropriately to Dr Joseph A. Dixon, the ACS Board Chairman.

Top management changes are also taking place this year at other important infor- mation organizations, too. One of the most visible ones is at DIALOG, where Roger Summit, head of the operation from its very beginning, has elected to retire. Roger has been one of the true giants of the online information industry. Will there be significant changes after his departure? DIALOG has” seemed preoccupied with business information m recent years. Will that trend continue, or will more attention be paid to scientific and technical databases? Will the top management changes at both CAS and

DIALOG have any effect on the ugly lawsuits between the two, lawsuits that (despite assurances to the contrary) have to diain off useful energies and s&antial funds that could better be used for construc- >ive purposes? I don’t have any answers to these questions, just the questions.

Derwent, too, is having a change in top management, the third since the retirement of its founder Monty Hyams. Brian Comfort, who stayed on at Derwent beyond his expected retirement date, pro- vided an im ortant element of Derwent

t: continuity; t e blood of the organization flows in his veins. Derwent is a very special organization, and from this far-off vantage point I’d be happier if Derwent’s new leader, Paul Gardner, had a Derwent background - or at least a longer time to become familiar with the organization. That’s certainly no reflection on Mr Gardner, but rather a suspicion that the snecial flavor of Derwent mav reauire more than just a professional manager. I look forward to meeting Mr Gardner. and trust that my concernsvwiIl turn out to have been unfounded. Meanwhile I’ve got lots of questions. Along with best wishes for Brian to enjoy a happy and healthy retirement.

Before turning from Derwent I should mention the surprising change earlier in the vear when mv old friend Kathie Shenton abruptly left the leadership of Derwent’s patent products development department. (The word old was selected with a certain amount of playful malice aforethought, as this is bemg written on Kathie’s birthdav.) Six months later it appears that Paul’ Dixon has things in hand. and Kathie is still involved with the department as a consultant. This change, at least, does not seem to have created any cataclysmic consequences.

Then there’s Maxwell Online. Not long ago they announced the termination of the great Soviet information venture, the one that was going to provide competition to CAS. That was certainly no surprise for me; I had expected it from day one. But now we see in the November issue of ONLINE Magazine a report that Maxwell Online is for sale! Yes,. there have been rumors of such a possibihty in the past, but ONLINE seemed pretty definite about it, despite a “No comment” response from Maxwell executives. If this is reallv true. what effect will this have on the’online industry, especially on online patent in- formation, where Maxwell’s ORBIT has been such an important player? Reminds me of the fuss several years ago when Maxwell bought ORBIT from SDC, and some Americans were concerned about control of such an important resource going abroad. My feeling at the time was delight that the resources of a Maxwell were becoming associated with the ORBIT system, which had never been able to capitalize on its outstanding databases and software, at least in part because of inadequate financial support. But that delight was tempered by concern that, if things did not turn out well in a few years, ORBIT might find itself jettisoned by Maxwell as he turned to his

235

ONLINE Patent information

next pet project. Is that happening here? No answers, just another question.

Before leaving the area of management changes, it occurs to me that I’ve spoken of two important retirements and omitted two otheis. This past year has brought the retirement of Claus Suhr of BASF and Peter Ochsenbein of the Patent Documentation Group. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to Interact sufficiently with those on the European side of patents to have met and worked with both of these gentlemen over the years. Would that the opportunities had been even greater. In the meantime, once again my best wishes for happy and healthy years of retirement.

Reading Material

This has been mostly a people column, but there are a couple of technical points I’d like to touch on as well. The first of these concerns a paper given at the third Montreux chemical/patent information meeting - the one that was held not

in Montreux but in Annecv. (Shades of the well-known Pittsburgh* Conferences in the US. which these davs are held everywhere else but in Pittsburgh.) The paper, by Edlyn Simmons and Nancy Lambert, is a brilliant exposition of what can too easily go wrong when one compiles patent statistics of any sort. About the onlv thing I don’t like about the paper is the facr that I didn’t write it mvself. If vou have anv interest whatsoever in gleaning information from any type of patent statistics, make sure that you obtain a copy of this paper!

While I’m recommending papers, let me mention something of my own. I had the pleasure this past year of organizing and chairing a svmnosium at the Sorine ACS Meetiig, looking at situation; and trends in polymer information. It’s not specific to patents, but patent information plays a large part. Almost of all of that symposium appears in the November, 1991 issue of the Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. I commend it to your attention.

One of the papers in the group came from Derwent, and discusses both the

B ast

historv of Derwent’s Plasdoc code an the current plans for enhancing that code. As a member of the Plasdoc committee I’ve participated in the development of the current plans. Further, as a member of the committee, I have in my current stack of working papers a copy of the latest draft of the revisions and plans - which draft I’ve been carrying back and forth between home and office for the past fortnight without finding the time to work on it. Let that thought signal the end of this column, then. On to the Plasdoc proposals, and may they succeed handsomely. And may each of the changes of the past year lead in its way to improvements in the world of online patent information.

Stuart M. Kaback Exxon Research & Engineering Co.

Linden, NJ 07036, U.S.A.