The first Executive Conference on Information Governance
convened today at Amelia Island, Florida.
Produced by ARMA International and The Sedona Conference, over 100
attorneys, RIM authorities, and technologists (along with assorted specialists
in security, compliance, and other disciplines) gathered to explore the
potential of and obstacles to Information Governance. In five plenary sessions, panels of
experienced and knowledgeable thought leaders shared their perceptions and
understandings of this relatively new field.
There were significant contributions from attendees with supportive or
complementary perspectives and experiences.
While subjects ranged from Change Management to the efficacy
of new technology, the theme that emerged repeatedly, throughout the day, was
ROI – Return on Investment. At one point
while taking notes, I simply wrote an entire line of repeated “ROI”s.
It would be an overstatement to say the sessions were “All
ROI, all the time,” but the frequency of the term underscores this very serious
reality: Unless Information Governance
makes good business sense, its chances of adoption are small.
There are many good reasons for installing Information
Governance that have nothing directly to do with money. And there are easy examples of how
instituting an Information Governance program can pay for itself in three to
seven years. The message today was these
are not compelling for most organizations’ leaders.
Information Governance, for all its good logic, needs to
improve a business’ or institution’s financial situation. Without that, it is merely a good idea of low
priority. Further, the financial
improvement must be measurable and it must occur in a short time frame.
Risk reduction, by itself, is not enough. Telling an organization that its legal
position will be stronger is inadequate.
Telling an organization that its five-year average of legal fees and/or
fines will be reduced by 40 percent in the first year is compelling.
The ROI can come from anywhere: the legal arena, savings in
storage costs, operational efficiencies, or any of several other areas. However, the bottom line is that Information
Governance lacking a solid business case is DOA – Dead on Arrival.
Again, to say that this was the sole point of the day would
be misleading. Many varied and helpful
points emerged, such as the relationship between IG and current
technology. Still ROI was a recurring
theme.
In Friday’s Blog, I hoped for the emergence of common
definitions to align the efforts of varied Information Governors. Alas, this was not to be. I fear that we still have attorneys who think
that IG is a synonym for eDiscovery, techies who think IG means reduced
storage, and records people who equate IG with ARMA’s Principles. Hopefully, this will be addressed tomorrow
before adjournment
-- 30.
No comments:
Post a Comment