Migrated from eDJGroupInc.com. Author: Barry Murphy. Published: 2011-09-08 11:17:25  There is a lot of analysis underway on the data from our information governance survey in preparation for the Sept. 15 webinar at 1pm ET / 10am PT. While the survey data shows consensus on the fact that IG is a defined model for managing information, encompasses many components (records management, storage and archiving, compliance, security, privacy, eDiscovery, and risk management), and applies to both structured data and unstructured content, there remains much confusion about IG on the ground.  Much of the confusion stems from a lack of understanding what department is responsible for IG.  Because IG is so broad, it requires diverse IT skills, legal and regulatory knowledge, and library sciences know-how in order to execute initiatives.  These skill sets, however, cross various departments.  The survey data shows that there is not a clear consensus about which department should have ultimate responsibility for IG.

Click to enlarge

This confusion about responsibility for IG is part of what makes this an anachronistic market – everyone recognizes the need for IG, but few understand what it takes to execute on IG.  Almost a quarter of those surveyed report that the CIO has responsibility for IG and almost a third believe that the CIO should have ultimate responsibility.  This makes logical sense given that the Chief Information Officer should be accountable for all organizational information assets.  But in reality, many CIOs manage IT infrastructure versus managing information.  Certainly, the IT infrastructure is where information lives, but in many cases, “ownership” belongs with information stewards (those that create and use information or business process owners whose processes run on information assets).Of those respondents with budget allocated to information governance in the next 12 months, the executive most likely to own the initiative is the CIO.  One thing a CIO brings to the table is experience getting both operation and capital budgets for projects.  General Counsels have the ability to get money, but typically only do so when specific matters need attention; GCs are unlikely to have experience getting a capital expense approved for IG projects with the potential to lower future eDiscovery costs.IG is complex beast, requiring expertise from a diverse set of organizational employees, often with conflicting requirements.

  • Business units and process owners need to be able to easily create information and have it flow efficiently (either to others for collaboration purposes or to applications for consumption).
  • Legal needs to address the nuances of managing responses to legal holds, discovery requests and directing case strategies.
  • Compliance needs to ensure that information assets are retained in accordance with any relevant regulations.
  • Infrastructure and operations managers must store information in the most cost-effective manner possible.
  • Records managers need to classify information assets and make sure the correct retention policies are applied.

Corralling all of these subject matter experts for a strategic IG program is like herding cats.  For many organizations, a centralized records and information management team can be the glue that allows the many component skills within IG mesh together.  But, more than half of the respondents report not having a centralized records and information management team.  Without that centralization, many IG initiatives sputter or remained hidden in silos.  Join us next thursday for the webinar to learn more.

0 0 votes
Article Rating