Case Study: The information professional considered that one solution may have been to charge standard rates universally, thus avoiding discrimination.  However, the information professional initially felt equally uneasy at charging a client the full rate for an investigation already carried out for another client and where the apparent additional effort seemed negligible.

The editors comment...

In this case we believe the information professional is torn between his duty to his employer (as a profit-making commercial organisation) and his personal belief in fairness for the client.  This is partly exacerbated by having to make the decision about setting charges himself.

Ultimately the goal of the information professional in such a case is to deliver the most appropriate service to meet the client’s needs.  CILIP’s Ethical Principle 4 recommends that we should be concerned for ‘provision of the best possible service within available resources’.  This implicitly includes the cost of supplying a service, as well as the inherent benefit of that service.

In this case, re-use of information need not be an issue of doubt when charging. The information professional may be justified in charging the full, standard, rate for all work if the information supplied on successive occasions is objectively worth the amount being charged.

Example: The information professional may be asked to supply a similar or identical service on a future occasion to a different client.  Rather than simply re-issue the very same package of information supplied on the first occasion, he ought to check the information for accuracy and currency, review new information which may have come to light since the first investigation, and re-present the information as a new package – within the context of the client’s requirements.  The new package would now accurately meet the client’s requirements; the previous information may not.  Each client receives equitable treatment by the information professional. {6}

This is, by any standards, an appropriate action for the employed information professional.  It is likely that very similar circumstances would arise in an independent information consultant’s work, where delivery of a service to meet a given client’s needs is met through customising a service already delivered to another client.

The information professional ought also to agree with each client in advance that certain information will be supplied and by working within agreed specifications. {B2}  The information professional’s conscience may then be allayed by the client’s explicit acceptance of charges according to the value of the service supplied. 

In situations like this the client is probably not aware that the information received had not necessarily just been obtained, or for him alone.  Indeed, it may be better for him not to know (and certainly the information professional should not breach the client’s right to confidentiality {8}).  Observing the information professional’s attention to formally agreeing work specifications beforehand, and by being charged an anticipated full amount, the client may feel that he has indeed received information worth the amount charged.  Moreover, we note that by presenting himself as a thoroughly competent, considerate and responsible professional, the information professional may ethically use such situations to promote others’ perception of the information profession. {C1}

Created: v0.9 27-Nov-05 : JG-T

Revised: v1.0 27-Dec-05 : JG-T. v1.01 14-Dec-06 : JG-T.