Folks,

To me, 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?

Gordy
Gordon E.J. Hoke, CRM, IGP
[log in to unmask]
Lake County, IL USA




List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]