Last year, when leaders of ARMA International and The Sedona
Conference discovered they were each planning conferences on Information
Governance for this April, it was obvious they should combine their efforts,
not compete. The result was the first
Executive Conference on Information Governance, held April 14-15 at Amelia
Island, Florida.
Congratulations to ARMA and Sedona on a highly successful
conference! The logistics were generally
excellent, the faculty had much to offer, and the attendance of practitioners
exceeded critical mass. This occurrence is significant because it claims the
much-bandied concept of Information Governance for a community of professionals. The software-vendor sponsors played a much
appreciated, supportive role – a welcome relief from the “Our Solution Will Solve
Everything!!!” blaring of trade shows.
The ARMA-Sedona cooperation was a marriage of convenience, not
necessarily one of intimate communication. There was plenty of respect and
appreciation between the legal folk and the RIMmers. In short supply was shared values and common language.
As I noted in previous posts, lawyers, technologists, and
records managers all have their own definitions and understandings of
Information Governance. If you asked
security and compliance experts, you would probably get additional definitions
as well.
This is, if not a problem, at least a hindrance. The value and whole raison d’etre of Information Governance comes from the synergy of
stakeholders. IG arose because lawyers
needed help from Records and IT to succeed in litigation. IT needed help applying Legal Holds and
disposing data. Records needed Legal to
enforce compliance with retention and disposition policies. Without IG, historical limitations persist.
This conference was a great boost to IG success. However it seemed more like parallel play
than teamwork. Leaders from different areas educated each other well on their
particular goals and values. The next
step should be to find ways for stakeholders to contribute to each other’s achievements.
Again: the goal of IG is improvement through synergy.
To achieve real progress, ARMA and Sedona will have to
recognize and appreciate the different behavior types that predominate their
memberships. On Day 2, in particular,
attorneys ran the show. This is not
surprising, since lawyers are trained as, and are by disposition, assertive
persuaders. Records managers tend to be
more introverted and less brash. Lawyers
often thrive on ambiguity and the adrenaline-rush of impending judgment. Records Managers generally want order,
control, and predictability. Hence,
while the partnership may be equal in conference planning, Sedona dominated the
public manifestation.
Relatively fewer of RIM’s best thinkers attended, but this
is not too surprising. Lawyers have “deeper
pockets” than RIMmers. ARMA scraped to
send five people to Amelia Island, and very few records managers can come up
with about $3000 for a short conference announced after many 2014 budgets were
set. The price was in line with other
CLE credit opportunities, but much higher than what many CRMs pay for
continuing education.
Next year’s conference will be helped by the success of this
one. Planning for 2015 has already
begun. However, serious consideration
needs to address the need for balance in the program and the attendance.
IG’s most critical need is common definitions assembled into
a lexicon. Synergy requires
communication, and communication requires shared language. If ARMA and Sedona cannot hammer out mutually
accepted definitions, progress in Information Governance will be limited.
This first Executive Conference on Information Governance
was a big success, but not an unqualified one.
It provided a great platform upon which to build. It also revealed serious challenges to
accelerating progress.
I congratulate the organizers on recognizing the need for
and successfully producing an outstanding conference. Huzzah!
I fervently hope that the buildup to next year’s conference
will include the very hard work of building consensus on what IG means and how IG
constituents can cooperate most effectively.
Go team!
n
-- 30
Gordy, I think it will take more than logic and goodwill to get these distinct groups to dump their profession-centric vocabularies and definitions. Perhaps a more achievable solution -- and, in any case, a necessary start -- would be to develop a concordance. Thanks for the commentaries!
ReplyDeleteFred Grevin, Vice-President, Records Management, NYC Economic Development Corporation. fgrevin@nycedc.com
Gordy,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your commentary. I greatly appreciate your status of RIM / IG and the context of your last blog post. Very interesting to see what direction this will go. Your time and effort are very greatly appreciated. -Jason Bourg, MLIS
Thanks for sharing your thoughts for those of us who could not afford to attend.
ReplyDeleteThanks for covering the event, Gordy. I think the chasm between the RIM and Legal is illustrative of the challenge in organizations of getting cross-functional IG teams to collaborate.
ReplyDeleteTo see the problem clearly, we need only to revisit the IG Reference Model, which has 5 distinct functional impact areas: RIM, yes, Legal, yes, but also IT, Privacy & Security, and Business.
So if the conference organizers can get CIOs and senior IT staff to the table - I believe the first priority - along with representatives from Privacy & Security (e.g. International Association of Privacy Professionals), and Business, (could begin with auditors in the IIA, and CFOs and financial professionals) the conference program will be more balanced and a more holistic view of IG will emerge.
When all 5 key areas of the IG reference are represented, attendees will gain a more balanced understanding of IG concepts, challenges, and solutions. IT is especially critical since it impacts all the other areas.