ARMA Canada 2012 - Govern Yourselves Accordingly - Practical Information Governance Strategies

Govern Yourselves Accordingly
Creating Practical Information Governance Strategies

Prepared for

Greg Clark, MBA
Session S21
June 3, 2012
©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.

Information Governance Explained


What most people think it is…


Complicated.


What it definitely is not…


What it really is…


Business Drivers for Information
Governance


The Enterprise Information
Challenge

Information Locked In Silos Information Overload

Inefficient Business Processes
Lost Opportunity
Wasted Time
Increased Costs
Some content courtesy OpenText Corporation


Systems of Record

Source: AIIM Info360 Keynote http://www.slideshare.net/jmancini77/info360-keynote-by-aiim-president-john-mancini

Source: McKinsey, “Six Ways to Make Web 2.0 Work”


Source: AIIM Info360 Keynote http://www.slideshare.net/jmancini77/info360-keynote-by-aiim-president-john-mancini

– Consumerization of IT
If I can do it at home,
why can’t I do it at
work?

– IS group feels the
need to respond to
business demand
– Cost pressures,
infrastructure
pressures, compliance
pressures
Adapted by AIIM International from “Schoolboy” c. 1881 by Samuel Albrecht Anker


Our partners in IT are looking for a
solution…


Just because it‟s obvious doesn‟t mean it‟s
right


This leads to disconnects between IT and
RIM…


Cheeky IT guy...


But…everyone agrees that governance is
important


We just can‟t agree what exactly that
means…


Governance Objectives
IT Governance Information Governance

– Hard assets – Intangible assets

– Operational focus, – Information has value
success measured by independent of underlying
“uptime” IT systems

– Content is an – Application, flow, retention
afterthought and disposition of
information is important,
not just creation and
storage


Operational / IT governance tends to be
black and white…leads to a “thou shalt”
approach to governance


Or…


But are RIM professionals really any better?


Not always.


So how do we create and enforce
successful information governance?


Glad you asked.


Three Approaches
– Jan Kooiman proposes an “Interactionist”
approach to governance
– Governance is a product of the interaction between
those who set the rules and those who are
governed
– Interactions allow systems to be steered by the
“actors” within the system
– Proposes three governance models:
1. Hierarchical governance
2. Co-governance
3. Self governance


Hierarchical Governance
– Traditional top-down model
– Provide “insurance” that rules are being followed
– Often not effective for Information Governance
– User pushback; information exchange is based on
value
– Rules likely won‟t hold people back from sharing
what they want / need to share
– Increases risk of users working outside approved
systems
– Impacts compliance objectives


Co-Governance
– Parties sharing information have something in
common they are working on together
– Rules tend to be „fit for purpose‟
– Created with and by the people they apply to
– Governance is “horizontal”
– People work together without formal central
governance
– Norms and standards emerge based on utility and
history
– Often enables information sharing because
people feel they have been part of creating rules


Self Governance
– Social entities govern themselves autonomously
– Often used in public internet communities eg.
Wikipedia
– Highest risk, highest reward?
– Self-selection can lead to increased adoption
– In certain scenarios some governance is better
than no governance


Can we settle on one governance model to
rule them all?


No.


Three Simple Rules…

Rule #1: Meet business needs by focusing on
information exchange




Rule #2: Meet governance needs by meeting
business needs




Rule #2: Meet governance needs by meeting
business needs

Rule 3#: Yes, compliance still matters


How?


Email Management
– Large energy company implemented email
management to mitigate risk
– Enterprise-wide project owned by / driven by
Corporate Law department
– Implemented OpenText Email Archiving for
Microsoft Exchange
– Users required to “do something” with their email
– “Tag or drag” email to Outlook folders set up by
users themselves; right-click to identify retention
on each folder during setup


– Three-step approach
– Transitory emails deleted after 90 days
– Reference emails deleted after two years
– Email records retained indefinitely, plan to use
EnCase to evaluate need to retain after 10 years
– Requirement to manage email was pre-
determined by Corporate Law, but users bought
in because they were consulted
– “This is going to help me do something I know I
need to do anyway”


Co-Governance
Standard Operating Procedures
– Oil and gas Facilities Engineering group works with
internal and external engineers to create and
update Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
– Timely access to accurate documents critical for
safe and efficient operation of facilities
– Different facilities manage documents differently
– Combination of shared drives, intranet portals and
formal document management systems
– Little / no ability to “force” all groups to work the
same way


Co-Governance
– Worked with end users to facilitate creation of
metadata driven document access model
– Created dynamic Livelink “table of contents” that
varied based on needs preferences of each group
– Users came up with own process for updating
documents
– Enforcement was self-driven
– Groups with good process rewarded for good
business outcomes
– Groups who didn‟t adopt new process had poor
outcomes, recognized need to adapt their process


Self Governance
Team Collaboration
– IT project team needed a project collaboration
solution
– Limited budget, limited time
– Worked with team leader to explain basics of
SharePoint
– Trained expert user on governance best practices
– Set the team loose


Self Governance
– Users established own rules
– Informal social control quickly established “how
things are done around here”
– Retention managed through site decommissioning
and archiving
– Working with RIM team to apply retention
– “Perfect is the enemy of the good”
– Low risk content
– Business challenge was to improve information
access


Conclusion


Conclusion
1. Governance models must adapt to the needs of
the information consumer
– This does not mean there are no rules
2. Focus on information exchange
– Traditionally done via email and network drives
3. Make it easier to the right thing than to not do
the right thing
4. Embed governance in good process
– “Subversive” RM
– If you make it compelling to use, they will use it
5. Metadata / classification inheritance is key


References
Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage Publications.
Kooiman, J. (2008). Exploring the concept of governability. Journal of
Comparative Policy Analysis, 10(2), 171-190.
Kooper, M.N., Maes, R. and Roos Lindgreen, E.E.O. (2011). On the
governance of information: Introducing a new concept of governance to
support the management of information. International Journal of Information
Management, 31, 195-200.
Mancini, J. (2012). Keynote speech. AIIM International Conference and
Exposition. San Francisco, March 20-22, 2012.


Thank You!
Greg Clark
greg.clark@c3associates.com

(403) 863-5998

www.c3associates.com
@GregClarkC3


ARMA Canada 2012 - Govern Yourselves Accordingly - Practical Information Governance Strategies

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a ARMA Canada 2012 - Govern Yourselves Accordingly - Practical Information Governance Strategies

Semelhante a ARMA Canada 2012 - Govern Yourselves Accordingly - Practical Information Governance Strategies (20)

Último

Último (20)

ARMA Canada 2012 - Govern Yourselves Accordingly - Practical Information Governance Strategies

Notas do Editor