ARMA Canada 2012 - Govern Yourselves Accordingly - Practical Information Governance Strategies
1 like591 views
The document discusses information governance strategies and models. It argues that a one-size-fits-all hierarchical governance model is not effective and different models should be applied based on business needs and types of information. Co-governance and self-governance models that involve users in creating rules are more likely to achieve compliance. The key is focusing on enabling information exchange, making the right behaviors easy, and embedding governance through good processes rather than strict rules.
ARMA Canada 2012 - Govern Yourselves Accordingly - Practical Information Governance Strategies
- 1. Govern Yourselves Accordingly Creating Practical Information Governance Strategies Prepared for Greg Clark, MBA Session S21 June 3, 2012 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 2. Information Governance Explained ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 3. What most people think it is… ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 4. Complicated. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 5. What it definitely is not… ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 6. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 7. What it really is… ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 8. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 9. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 10. Business Drivers for Information Governance ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 11. The Enterprise Information Challenge Information Locked In Silos Information Overload Inefficient Business Processes Lost Opportunity Wasted Time Increased Costs Some content courtesy OpenText Corporation ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 12. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 13. Systems of Record ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc. Source: AIIM Info360 Keynote http://www.slideshare.net/jmancini77/info360-keynote-by-aiim-president-john-mancini
- 14. Source: McKinsey, “Six Ways to Make Web 2.0 Work” ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 15. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc. Source: AIIM Info360 Keynote http://www.slideshare.net/jmancini77/info360-keynote-by-aiim-president-john-mancini
- 16. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc. Source: John Mancini, AIIM 2012 Keynote
- 17. – 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 18. Our partners in IT are looking for a solution… ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 19. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 20. Just because it‟s obvious doesn‟t mean it‟s right ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 21. This leads to disconnects between IT and RIM… ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 22. Cheeky IT guy... ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 23. But…everyone agrees that governance is important ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 24. We just can‟t agree what exactly that means… ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 25. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 26. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 27. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 28. Operational / IT governance tends to be black and white…leads to a “thou shalt” approach to governance ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 29. Or… ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 30. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 31. But are RIM professionals really any better? ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 32. Not always. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 33. So how do we create and enforce successful information governance? ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 34. Glad you asked. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 35. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 36. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 37. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 38. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 39. Can we settle on one governance model to rule them all? ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 40. No. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 41. Three Simple Rules… Rule #1: Meet business needs by focusing on information exchange ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 42. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 43. Three Simple Rules… Rule #1: Meet business needs by focusing on information exchange Rule #2: Meet governance needs by meeting business needs ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 44. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 45. Three Simple Rules… Rule #1: Meet business needs by focusing on information exchange Rule #2: Meet governance needs by meeting business needs Rule 3#: Yes, compliance still matters ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 46. How? ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 47. Glad you asked. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 48. Hierarchical Governance 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 49. Hierarchical Governance – 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” ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 50. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 51. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 52. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 53. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 54. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 55. Conclusion ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 56. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 57. 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 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 58. 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. ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
- 59. Thank You! Greg Clark [email protected] (403) 863-5998 www.c3associates.com @GregClarkC3 ©2012 C3 Associates, Inc.
Editor's Notes
- #36: Jan Kooiman is Professor Emeritus of Public Management of the Faculty of Business Administration, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, NL
- #50: Even if emails deleted by the user, Livelink stored the file in the backgroundUsers were told “you do nothing and we’ll clean up for you”Reference – Users trained to recognize emails they know are evidence of a business decision and / or will be valuable when I’m goneRecord – EnCase will look for words, phrases, references to determine if email can be deleted. Will rely on who saved the email, where they work, when it was saved (eg. Pipeline integrity documents likely to be retained for life of asset, Accounting docs likely to be deleted after 10 years unless litigation, related to an asset or other reason to retain