Top IG tech trends: auto-classification & big data.

• Author: Hoke, Gordon E.J.
• Position: Cover story

Information governance (IG) is an emerging practice in several disciplines. Law, records and information management (RIM), information technology (IT), and others define it from their own perspectives. For example, some attorneys equate IG with defensible disposal, while some technologists see it as a storage or architecture issue.

April's Executive Conference on Information Governance, co-presented by ARMA International and The Sedona Conference[R] (TSC) and attended by more than 100 people from at least a half-dozen disciplines, did not seek or achieve a consensus definition, but the shared perspectives did encourage a cross-fertilization of ideas.

ARMA International defines IG as:

A strategic framework composed of standards, processes, roles, and metrics that hold organizations and individuals accountable to create, organize, secure, maintain, use, and dispose of information in ways that align and contribute to the organization's goals. This definition suggests IG is actionable--a strategy for accomplishing goals. In contrast, TSC's definition takes a descriptive approach:

An organization's coordinated, inter-disciplinary approach to satisfying information compliance requirements and managing information risks while optimizing information value. As such, Information Governance encompasses and reconciles the various legal and compliance requirements and risks addressed by different information-focused disciplines, such as RIM, privacy, information security, and e-discovery. The differences need to be acknowledged. Full benefit from IG requires an appreciation of both the descriptive qualities and the functional contributions. For example, TSC emphasizes risks twice while risk is only implicit in ARMA's definition. In contrast to TSC, ARMA emphasizes comprehensive precision. Until consensus emerges, practitioners will benefit from applying both definitions and keeping in mind the perspectives of others.

IG Stakeholders

The varied definitions notwithstanding, consensus was alive and well at the executive conference. For example, no voice contested the supposition that success in any IG initiative requires a strong executive champion. Further consensus ascribed IG success to overcoming the separation or isolation of such departmental stakeholders as IT, finance, RIM, legal, research and development, accounting, sales, human resources, procurement, and others. In many organizations, these departments function as what conference presenters termed "silos."

IG offers value: each functional area stands to benefit from harvesting synergies. Better coordination leads to less redundancy with better operations and compliance. Leaders from these areas (siloed or integrated) are stakeholders in IG. They stand to benefit from ending departmental insulation. Indeed, the task of the IG professional is to facilitate and enable cooperation. According to one session leader, the silo effect may be emotional as well as operational; another conference presenter invoked "organizational psychology" as a useful tool for IG.

IG Technology Challenges

For successful IG, participants must be able to share information. Their information systems need interoperability or, minimally, communication links. Further, technology should enhance operational efficiencies and facilitate synergies. Clearly, an executive champion, council of stakeholders, and departmental implementers are essential, but unless technology plays a robust role, only limited IG progress will accrue from policies, procedures, and practices.

An information architecture can either help or frustrate IG efforts, but no single information model is ideal. Centralized or distributed

servers may suffice, although the derivative issues vary. IG can thrive inside a tight firewall or by employing a public cloud; these are questions of style...