Recently, the Records Management ListServ hosted a spirited discussion on the above question. Here was my response:
Information Governance means coordinating all the records' stakeholders, focusing
them on their organizations' goals. The role requires team
building across disciplines and the ability to forge potent
alliances. An Information Governor must be able to speak Legalese
to the attorneys and techno-babble to IT, as well as being adept
with records. Historically, many records managers were not
skilled in this, nor were they eager to try it.
The Information Governor is an ambassador or statesperson who can
break down walls, silos, hegemonies, and fiefdoms. And, of
course, it requires a profound understanding of RIM and the
information lifecycle. The job is difficult --- not just
conceptually, but socially -- because many attorneys want to "keep
everything forever" and many technologists perceive records
managers as document librarians without technical understanding.
(And truly, what percentage of records managers are comfortable
managing records in databases, in clouds, or in the custody of
social media/mobile app hosts?) [I am preparing a presentation
with the working title, "Records Is from Venus; Legal Is from
Mars; IT Is from Jupiter.]
If an organization changes a job title from "Records Manager" to
"Information Governance Manager", perhaps leadership is saying the
organization needs more synergy between Records, Legal, IT, and
maybe Security, Compliance, Finance, and other groups.
Your thoughts?
17 November 2014
10 November 2014
New Records Technology: Structured Data Archiving
Care for an example of
how IT, Legal, and Records need to work together (commonly known as Information
Governance?) Here’s one development:
Technology at ARMA International is a fascinating
mélange. Each year, we see incremental
improvements. There are faster scanners,
increasingly subtle analytics, greater capacities, more resolution,
less-volatile media, and more.
But the one technological breakthrough I saw in San Diego
filled a glaring abyss in Records & Information capabilities. While the technology is not “must have” for
all organizations, it is a game-changer for those that do.
I’m talking about records management in Structured Data Archiving. At least two vendors offered it at ARMA.
Why is SDA needed? Well, databases contain record-quality
information that is subject to an organization’s retention schedule. Sometimes that data needs to be off-loaded
from the database, for various reasons.
1.
The database may be full to the point of
diminished performance. Overload may
“bring a system to its knees”.
2.
A system
may be retired before the retention requirements on the data are fulfilled
3.
Data being archived may be on legal hold
4.
A database containing records may be inactive,
with little prospect for reenactment
When I last looked at Structured Data Archiving, a couple
years ago, there were plenty of products on the market. However, none that I saw had a facile
capability to apply the Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles to the
archived data. Oh, there were
workarounds, but they were either unacceptably expensive or architecturally
contorted.
Now there is software that can apply disposal dates to data
as it goes into the archive – even if the original database did not offer that
capability. Legal holds applied to the
data are maintained as the data is archived, later to be lifted while the
disposal clock to go right on ticking.
A caveat: any migration requires meticulous care to protect
the records’ integrity.
Nonetheless, for organizations with many outdated systems,
SDA can pay for itself because archived storage is cheaper than data on active
systems. At the same time, it lowers the
risk of losing record data or keeping it beyond its disposal date. This is a significant step forward.
Legal can have access to pertinent records, while the
Records department enforces its retention schedule, and IT makes it
happen. That sounds like Information
Governance to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)