On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 6:59 AM, PeterK <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm going to add to the IG definition war this week, by describing
> information governance as:
>
> *"A holistic strategy for using and managing information to meet business
> objectives. Information governance assures the quality of content and
> data, maximizes its value, and ensures that security, privacy, and
> life-cycle requirements are met".*
>
>
I think this is a bit of a stretch.... let me start off by clearly stating
I STILL think the whole "IG thing" is much more marketing hype designed to
feather the beds of certain individuals and organizations than it is a
"real thing".

I think many/most people can agree on what governance is, we've seen the
term bouncing around since the early 1990s.  It's been used primarily to
describe a set of processes, customs, policies, and/or practices affecting
the way people direct, administer or control "things" or operations.

Where it gets blurry is appending the term to information. Just like any
other governance structures, a system is designed based on the components
it seeks to control.  There is no COMMON information structure within
organizations, so to seek to establish a "strategy" to manage information
that can be globally applied is flawed.

I know it SOUNDS a lot sexier than "Records and Information Management",
but seriously? it's the same thing, only different.

"Holistic"?

Okay, I sort of get that, it's about the entire system of records and
information. BUT to have a strategy to manage the system, you first have to
identify and understand each of the individual components.

"Using and managing information to meet business objectives"?

Not all instances of managing information are to serve a business
objective.  I mean, you COULD consider a county, city or other public
entity a 'business', but that's sort of a stretch.  Same is true for an
educational institution.

"Assures the quality of content and data"?

Hardly.  You can seek to assure that it *IS* information and data, but
there is no way the components of a system will positively ensure that
every data point or all content is 100% valid. What if someone improperly
enters a number or misspells a  company or product name? The 'quality' of
that content is low, but a system won't identify that.

"Maximizes its value"?

A system won't do that- users of the data are what would maximize the value
to an organization, and they can (and do) do that regardless of the
existence of a governance structure.

As I've said before, it's like Saxe's Parable... depending on the angle at
which you approach 'the beast', and your 'view' of it, unless you can see
the whole thing before making any judgment, you can't seek to
describe/define it.

Here are five established 'definitions' of IG, and none of them seem to
agree on what it is.  Loosely, they do... but when you get deeper into it,
depending on what their goal is, they are divergent views.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_governance

http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/information-governance

http://www.ahima.org/topics/infogovernance

http://community.aiim.org/blogs/carl-weise/2012/09/06/information-governance-and-electronic-records-management

http://www.ironmountain.com/Knowledge-Center/Reference-Library/View-by-Document-Type/General-Articles/T/The-IG-Initiative-Definition-of-Information-Governance.aspx


-- 
Larry
[log in to unmask]



*----Lawrence J. MedinaDanville, CARIM Professional since 1972*

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]