Posts Tagged ‘policy’

Seven even deadlier sins of Information Governance

October 7, 2012 3 comments

Devin Krugly published a very interesting blog/article, describing the “The 7 Deadly Sins of Information Governance“. I enjoyed the article, and I can’t find anything to disagree with, but I have to admit that it left me wanting… The 7 sins presented by Devin are well known and very common problems that plague most Enterprise scale projects, as he points out within the article itself. They could equally apply to HR, supply chain, claims processing or any other major IT implementation. Devin has done a great job of projecting these pitfalls to an Information Governance program.

For me, however, what is really missing from the article is a list of “sins” that are unique to Information Governance projects. So let me try and add some specific Information Governance colour to the picture… Here is my list of seven even deadlier sins:

Governance needs a government. Information governance touches the whole of the organisation. It touches every system, every employee and every process. Decisions therefore that govern information, must be taken by a well defined governance body, that accurately represents the business, compliance, legal, audit and IT, at the very least. You cannot solve the Information Governance problem by throwing technology at it. Sure, technology plays a key part as an enabler, a catalyst and as an automation framework. But technology cannot determine policy, priorities, responsibility and accountability. Nor can it decide the organisation’s appetite for risk, or changes in strategic direction. For that, you need a governing body that defines and drives the implementation of governance.

Information does not mean data. I have talked about this in an earlier blog (Data Governance is not about Data). We often see Information Governance projects that focus primarily (or even exclusively) on transactional data, or data warehousing, or records management, or archiving, etc. Information Governance should be unified and consistent. There isn’t a different regulator for data, for documents, for emails or for tweeter messages. ANY information that enters, leaves or stays in the organisation should be subject to a common set of Governance policies and guidelines. The technical implementation a may be different but the governance should be consistent.

It is a marathon not a sprint. You can never run an “Information Governance Project”. That would imply a defined set of deliverables and a completion point at some specific date. As long as your business changes (new products, new suppliers, new customers, new employees, new markets, new regulations, new infrastructure, etc.) your Information Governance needs will also change. Policies will need revising, responsibilities will need adjusting, information sources will need adding and processes re-evaluating. Constantly! If your Information Governance project is “finished”, frankly, so is your business.

Keep it lean and clean. Information governance is the only cure for Content Obesity. Organisations today are plagued by information ROT (information that is Redundant, Outdated or Trivial).  A core outcome of any Information Governance initiative should be the regular disposal of redundant information which has to be done consistently, defensibly and with the right level of controls around it. It is a key deliverable and it requires both the tools and the commitment of the governing body.

Remember: Not who or how, but why Information Governance projects often get tangled up in the details. Tools, formats, systems, volumes, stakeholders, stewards, regulators, litigators, etc., become the focus of the project and, more often the not, people forget the main driver: Businesses need good, clean and accessible information to operate. The primary role of Information Governance is to deliver accurate, timely and reliable information to the business, for making decisions, for creating products and for delivering services. Every other issue must come second in priority.

The ministry of foreign affairs. The same way that a country cannot be governed without due consideration to the relationship with its neighbours, Information Governance does not stop at the company’s firewall. Your organisation continuously trades information with suppliers, customers, partners, competitors and the wider community. Each of these exchanges has value and carries risks. Monitoring and managing the quality, the trustworthiness, the volume and the frequency of the information exchanged, is a core part of Information Governance and should be clearly articulated in the relevant policies and implemented in the relevant systems.

This is not a democracy, it’s a revolution. Implementing Information Governance is not an IT project, it is a business transformation project. Not only because of its scope and the potential benefit and risk that it represents, but also because of the level of commitment and engagement it requires from every part of the organisation. Ultimately, Information Governance has a role in enforcing information quality, regulatory and legal controls, and it is contributing to the organisation’s accountability. The purpose of on Information Governance implementation is not to ensure that everyone is happy and has an equal voice on the table. The purpose is to ensure that the organisation does the right thing and behaves responsibly. And that may require significant cultural change and a few ruffled feathers…

If you don’t already have an Information Governance initiative in your organisation, now is the time to raise the issue to the board. If you do, then you should carefully consider if the common pitfalls presented here are addressed by your program, or if you are in danger of committing one or more of these sins.


Data Governance is not about Data

December 1, 2011 3 comments

Those that have been reading my blogs for a while, know that I have great objections to the term “unstructured” and the way it has been used to describe all information that is text-based, image-based or any other format that does not tend to fit directly into the rows and columns of a relational database. None of that “unstructured” content exists without structure inside and around it, and databases have long moved on from storing just “rows and columns”.

A conversation last night with IDC Analyst @AlysWoodward, (at the excellent IDC EMEA Software Summit in London), prompted me to think about another problem that distinction has created:

Calling that content “unstructured” is a convention invented by analysts and vendors, to distinguish between the set of tools required to manage that content and the tools that service the world of databases and BI tools.  The technologies used to manage text-based content and digital media need to be different, as they have a lot of different issues to address.

It has also been a great way of alerting the business users that while they are painstakingly taking care of their precious transactional data, that only represents a about 20% of their IT estate, while all this other “stuff” keeps accumulating uncontrolled and unmanaged on servers, C: drives, email servers, etc.

These artificial distinctions however, are only relevant when you consider HOW you manage that information, the tools and the technologies. These distinctions are not relevant when you are trying to understand WHAT business information you hold and need as an organisation, WHY you are holding it and what policies need to be applied to it, or WHO is responsible for it: The scanned image of an invoice is subject to the same retention requirements as the row-level data extracted from it; the Data Protection act does not give a different privacy rules for emails and for client records kept in your CRM system; a regulatory audit scrutinising executive decisions will not care if the decisions are backed by a policy document or a BI query; you can’t have a different group of people deciding on security policies for confidential information on your ERP system and another group for the product manufacturing instructions held in a document library.

“Data Governance” (or “Information Governance”, or “Content Governance”, I’ve seen all of these terms used) is not an IT discipline, it’s a business requirement. It does not only apply to the data held in databases and data warehouses, it applies to all information you manage as an organisation, regardless of location, format, origin or medium. As a business, you need to understand what information you hold about your customers, your suppliers, your products, your employees. You need to understand where that information lives and where you would go to find it. You need to understand who is responsible for managing it, making sure it’s secure and who has the right to decide that you can get rid of it. Regardless if that information lives in a “structured” or “unstructured” medium, and regardless of the tools or technologies that are needed to implement these governance policies.

The Data Governance Council, has developed an excellent maturity model for understanding how far your organisation has moved in understanding and implementing Data Governance. It covers areas such as “Stewardship”, “Policy”, “Data Risk management”, “Value Creation”, “Information Lifecycle Management”, “Security”, “Metadata”, etc. etc.  All of these disciplines are just as relevant in taking control of the data in your databases, as they are for managing the files on your shared drives, your content repositories and the emails on your servers.

I seriously believe that by propagating this artificial divide between “data” and “content”, we are creating policy silos that not only minimise the opportunity for getting value out of our information, but we are introducing even further risks through gaps and inconsistencies. We may have to use different tools for implementing these governance controls on different mediums, but the business should be having ONE consistent governance scheme for all its information.

Open to your thoughts and suggestions, as always!

%d bloggers like this: