Automating Information Governance

31 Pages·2014·2.7 MB·English

AIIM Market Intelligence
Delivering the priorities and opinions of AIIM’s 80,000 community
Industry
Watch

Automating Information Governance
- assuring compliance
Underwritten in part by:
aiim.org l 301.587.8202
About the Research
As the non-profit association dedicated to nurturing, growing and supporting the information management
community, AIIM is proud to provide this research at no charge. In this way, the entire community can
leverage the education, thought leadership and direction provided by our work. We would like these
research findings to be as widely distributed as possible. Feel free to use individual elements of this I
n
research in presentations and publications with the attribution – “© AIIM 2014, www.aiim.org” d
Wu
s
Rather than redistribute a copy of this report to your colleagues or clients, we would prefer that you direct t
them to www.aiim.org/research for a download of their own. Permission is not given for other aggregators to ary

t
host this report on their own website.
c
Our ability to deliver such high-quality research is partially made possible by our underwriting companies, h
without whom we would have to return to a paid subscription model. For that, we hope you will join us in
thanking our underwriters, who are:
-A
au
s
ASG Software Solutions AvePoint CCube Solutions. sto
1333 Third Avenue South Harborside Financial Center, 13 Diamond Court urm
Naples, FL USA 34102 Plaza 10 Opal Drive, Fox Milne ina
TEeml:a 8il0: 0s-a9le3s2@-55a3sg6. c(UomSA Only) 3Je Srseecyo nCdit yS, tNreeewt, J9ethrs Felyo o0r7 311 MUKilt on Keynes MK15 0DU g ctin
Web: www.asg.com Tel: [phone] Tel: [phone] omg

Email: [email protected] Fax: [phone] pIn
Web: www.avepoint.com Email: [email protected] liafo
Web: www.ccubesolutions.com ncrm
e
a
t
io
n

G
o
v
e
Concept Searching, Inc IBM Corporation OpenText r
n
8300 Greensboro Drive, Corporate headquarters: 275 Frank Tompa Dr, a
Suite 800, McLean, VA 22102 1 New Orchard Road Waterloo, ON N2L 0A1 n
Tel: [phone] Armonk, New York 10504-1722 Tel: [phone] c
Tel Europe: [phone] Tel: [phone] Email: [email protected] e
Web: www.conceptsearching.com Web: www.ibm.com/ILG Web: www.opentext.com/infogov
Process Used and Survey Demographics
While we appreciate the support of these sponsors, we also greatly value our objectivity and independence
as a non-profit industry association. The results of the survey and the market commentary made in this
report are independent of any bias from the vendor community.
The survey was taken using a web-based tool by 531 individual members of the AIIM community between
Mar 15, and Apr 08, 2014. Invitations to take the survey were sent via e-mail to a selection of the 80,000
AIIM community members.
Survey demographics can be found in Appendix 2. Graphs throughout the report exclude responses from
organizations with less than 10 employees, and suppliers of ECM products and services, taking the number
of respondents to 487.
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 1
About AIIM
AIIM has been an advocate and supporter of information professionals for 70 years. The association mission
is to ensure that information professionals understand the current and future challenges of managing
information assets in an era of social, mobile, cloud and big data. AIIM builds on a strong heritage of
research and member service. Today, AIIM is a global, non-profit organization that provides independent
I
n
research, education and certification programs to information professionals. AIIM represents the entire d
Wu
information management community: practitioners, technology suppliers, integrators and consultants.
s
t
ary
About the Author
t
c
Doug Miles is head of the AIIM Market Intelligence Division. He has over 30 years’ experience of working
h
with users and vendors across a broad spectrum of IT applications. He was an early pioneer of document

management systems for business and engineering applications, and has produced many AIIM survey
reports on issues and drivers for Capture, ECM, Records Management, SharePoint, Mobile, Cloud, Social
Business and Big Data. Doug has also worked closely with other enterprise-level IT systems such as ERP,
BI and CRM. Doug has an MSc in Communications Engineering and is a member of the IET in the UK.
-A
au
s
sto
u
© 2014 rinma
A11II0M0 -W Fainynde, CAvoenntruoel,, Saunidte O 1p1t0i0m, iSzeilv Yeor uSrp Irninfog,r mMaDt i2o0n910 g coting
Phone: [phone] m
www.aiim.org pliaInfo
ncrm
e
a
t
io
n

G
o
v
e
r
n
a
n
c
e
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 2
Table of Contents
About the Research Multiple Repositories and Cloud
About the Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Multiple Repositories and Cloud...........20
Process Used and Survey Demographics ......1 Cloud .................................21 In
About AIIM ..............................2 d
Wu
About the Author..........................2 Opinions and Spend Intentions s
t
ary
Opinions and Spend Intentions ...........21
Introduction t
Spend.................................22 c
Introduction.............................4 h
Key Findings.............................4 Conclusion and Recommendations
Coping with Information Volumes.............4
Conclusion and Recommendations........23
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Maturity of Policies and Systems
References.............................23
Maturity of Policies and Systems...........5
Paper v. Electronic ........................5 Appendix 1 - Survey Demographics
-A
IG/RM Policies ...........................6 au
RM Systems.............................6 ASuprpveenyd Bixa c1k g- rSouurnvde y. .D.e.m..o.g.r.a.p.h.ic.s. . ..............2244 ssurtom
Perception of IG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Organizational Size ......................24 inga
IG Risks and Rewards .....................7 Industry Sector..........................25 ctin
og
m
Job Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Information Governance Policies pliaInfo
Information Governance Policies...........9 Appendix 2 - Selective Comments ncrm
e
Maturity................................10 a
Appendix 2 - Selective Comments .........26 t
IG Policy Scope .........................10 io
n

Underwritten in part by: G
Audit and Conformance o
ASG Software Solutions...................27 v
Audit and Conformance.................. 11 e
AvePoint...............................27 r
Training................................ 11 n
CCube solutions.........................28 a
Audit..................................12 n
Concept Searching, Inc....................28 c
Issues from Non-Compliance...............12 e
IBM Corporation.........................29
Data Protection..........................12
OpenText ..............................29
Retention Policies........................13
About AIIM .............................30
Savings on Storage ......................14
Automated Classification
Automated Classification ................14
Automated Agents .......................15
Automated Records Declaration.............16
Content Types ..........................16
Benefits................................17
Accuracy...............................17
Experiences ............................18
Email Archives
Email Archives .........................18
Legal Hold .............................20
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 3
Introduction
What’s in a name? When it first came into vogue a few years ago, “information governance” (IG) was often
considered to be just an updated form of records management (RM), extended to take account of the US
legal discovery rules. If all electronically stored information can be requested prior to a court case, not just
content that has been specifically declared as a record, then work-in-progress, content on laptops and
I
n
mobiles, back-ups, and, in particular, email archives, are all discoverable, and need to be “governed”. d
Wu
However, in the past twelve months, the impact of data leaks and security breaches, most especially the s
t
Edward Snowdon activities, has brought the security and privacy elements of information governance ary

strongly into play. Metadata has become an issue for front-page news, and heads-of-state discuss t
c
individuals’ rights to data privacy and information deletion. Meanwhile, massive data leaks of personal
h
information have damaged corporate reputations and hardened already strong views in some jurisdictions.

We therefore need to work harder to protect live content and preserve content records, but the volume,
velocity and variety of content generation makes it nearly impossible to manually maintain and enforce the
policies we so earnestly set. Computers are more consistent than humans, but you still have to teach them -
and trust them. We seem to be at an adoption tipping-point for automating real-time compliance processes,
and for machine audit of existing content for metadata accuracy, content security, and de-duplication. Is this
-A
a silver bullet? What are the early adopter experiences? au
s
sto
In this report we take an in-depth look at information governance policies, privacy and records management u
rm
issues, policy enforcement, and how well technology can set or correct metadata, detect security risks, and ina
g
enforce deletion policies. ctin
og
m

Key Findings pIn
liafo
Coping with Information Volumes ncrm
e
n On the whole, organizations are stabilizing the volume of paper records, but electronic records are a
t
“increasing rapidly” in 68% of organizations surveyed. While 32% reported an actual decrease in their io
n
paper records, not one respondent could report a decrease in electronic records.
G
o
n Only 12% of respondents feel confident that they store only what they need to store. 42% are not v
e
confident about what is safe to delete. r
n
a
n 43% feel that automated classification is the only way to keep up with rapidly increasing information n
c
volumes. 14% are already using it, but a further 35% have immediate plans for adoption. e
n Of those already using auto-classification, only 10% have been disappointed with the results. In
particular, classifying scanned documents has performed better than or as well as expected for 83% of
users.
n Improved searchability, higher productivity and defensible compliance are given as the top three benefits
from automated classification.
IG Policies
n The three biggest risks from failure of information governance are excess litigation costs, loss of
intellectual property and damage to reputation. 24% have had a compliance issue around litigation and
discovery in the last 2 years.
n 40% of organizations have recently moved, or plan to move in the next year or so, from a traditional RM
view to a much wider IG view. 33% are still working in classic RM mode, including 18% who are still
taking a mostly paper-records view.
n The three biggest benefits from good information governance are reduction in storage costs, exploiting
and sharing knowledge resources, and faster response to events and inquiries. Users are also becoming
more aware of the need to support big data analytics.
n Getting senior level endorsement and involvement is the biggest issue in creating an IG policy. Then
enforcement once the policy has been agreed.
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 4
n Only 10% have an IG policy in place that is respected and enforced – 21% have a policy in place but it is
mostly ignored. For 55% the IG policy is a work-in-progress.
n Of those who have information governance policies, only 19% regularly audit for compliance. 40%
of organizations do not allocate any staff time for IG training, and only 4% specifically update senior
management. I
n
d
Email and Cloud Wu
n RM policies for email are still very variable. 18% keep everything, 16% delete everything, 22% have no s
t
policy or strategy. 17% move emails to their ECM/RM system or a dedicated archive with RM retention ary

functions, but only 5% use automation. t
c
n Use of cloud or SaaS systems for RM is up from 5% to 7% in the past year, with those actively planning h

up from 11% to 14%. But those saying “unlikely” or “never” is up from 46% to 51%.
Spending Plans
n On the whole, users are likely to increase spend on all aspects of IG in the next 12 months, in particular
IG training, email archive, search, RM systems and automated tools. Spend on back-file scanning of
paper records is set to increase, but outsourced RM, both paper and electronic, is net-neutral.
-A
au
s
sto
u
Maturity of Policies and Systems rinma
g
Paper v. Electronic coting
m

The good news on paper records is that the number of organizations reporting a rapid increase has dropped pIn
from 15% to 10% since our survey a year ago1, and that smaller organizations have balanced out, with liafo
the same number reporting increasing volume to those reporting decreasing volume. The bad news is that ncerm
a
bigger organizations seem to have suffered a setback with 48% reporting an increase compared to 31%
t
reporting a decrease – a gap of 17% compared to a 3% gap last year. There is no obvious explanation for io
n
this. G
o
Figure 1: Is the volume of your paper/electronic records? v
e
(N=483) rn
a
n
Decreasing c
somewhat, e
Decreasing
Decreasing Increasing 0% rapidly, 0%
rapidly, 7% rapidly, Stable, 4%
10%
Decreasing
somewhat,
25% Increasing
Increasing somewhat,
somewhat, 28%
32%
Increasing
rapidly,
68%
Stable,
27%
Paper Records Electronic Records
When it comes to electronic records, the picture is much clearer: nWobeo ddoyn ’its h raevep orting a decrease, and
around 70% of all sizes are repoWrtien hga v“rea rpoibdulsyt ,i ncreasing” volumesi.n forma(cid:31)on and
enterprise-wide records
informa(cid:31)on management
governance policies, 7% We have definite
policies, 15% plans to develop
enterprise-wide
informa(cid:31)on and
records
management
policies, 14%
We have
©2014 AIIM - The Global Ceosmtambulisnhitey do fp Ionlfiocriemsa tion Professionals 5
in some areas/
departments but
not others, 26%
We have
informa(cid:31)on and
records
management
policies but have
nothing you could
describe as mature,
38%
0% 10% 20% 30%
It is incorporated in our ECM/DM system
We have records management capability in our
ECM/DM system but no plans to use it
We plan to add/ turn-on records management
in our ECM system in the next 12-18 months
We have separate systems for ac(cid:31)ve content
management and records management
Our DM system doesn’t support records
management
We don’t have an ECM/DM system
Records We have looked
management is at things this way
for quite some
mostly about
(cid:31)me (3+ years),
paper files in our
18%
organiza(cid:31)on, 18%
Records Managers We have recently
manage records, adjusted our view
but the rest is not to align with this,
so well managed, 16%
15%
Records
Managers We have plans
manage records, to adjust
and IT take good responsibili(cid:31)es in
care of the rest, the next 12-18
9% months, 24%
Decreasing
somewhat,
Decreasing
Decreasing Increasing 0% rapidly, 0%
rapidly, 7% rapidly, Stable, 4%
10%
Decreasing
somewhat,
25% Increasing
Increasing somewhat, Decreasing
IG/RM Policies somewhat, 28% somewhat, Decreasing
Decreasing Increasing 32% 0% rapidly, 0%
Beforrea pbidelyin, g7% too specific raapbiodluyt, all-encompassing informatioSnt agbolev, e4r%nance policies, it is useIfnuclr teoa slionog k at
policies in general, and ma1t0u%rity levels of basic records management. Just 15% of respondernatpsi dfley,e l they
Decrehaasivneg robust, enterprise wide IG policies, albeit rising to 22% for the largest organizations. The6 8re%st of the
somewhaStt,a ble,
picture is somewhat patchy. 28% have departmental or geographical variations, 38% feel they are still some
25% 27% Increasing I
way from maturity, and 21% actuIanlclrye ahsainvge no policies in spolmacewe haast, yet - although two thirds of those have n
good intenPtiaopnes.r IRt ewcoourldd sseem thsoamt 1ew2h%a to, f even the larges2t 8o%rganizaEtlieoncstr hoanviec Rnoe caogrrdeesd RM policies. Wdu
32% s
t
Figure 2: How mature are your information governance and records managemenItnr cparpeoiadlsilcyin,i ge s? ary
(N=483) 68% t
c
Stable, We don’t have
h
27% We have robust, informa(cid:31)on and
enterprise-wide records
Paper Records informa(cid:31)on managemEenlet ctronic Records
governance policies, 7% We have definite
policies, 15% plans to develop
enterprise-wide
informa(cid:31)on and
records
We don’t have
We have robust, informa(cid:31)on and management -A
enterprise-wide records policies, 14% au
s
informa(cid:31)on management sto
u
governance policies, 7% We have definite rm
estinab sWloismhe eehd aa vrpeeoa liscp/i oesli cies, 15% pienlnafotnersrm ptoari (cid:31)sdeoen-vw ealinoddpe ing coating
dneopta ortthmeerns,t s2 6b%ut inmpfooaWrlrrnmieeceacicae gooh(cid:31)serra,omdd v1nssee4 a n%nt d mpliance Inform
management a
estabWlishe ehda vpeo licies npootlhiciniegs ybouut choauvled tion
in some areas/ describe as mature, G
departments but 38% o
not others, 26% v
We have e
informa(cid:31)on and r
n
RM Systems records a
management n
Supporting these policies, we see an equally wide range of system architecturepso.l icOiensl ybu 2t 3h%av eh ave what c
e
we would call the classic EDRMS system, combining content, document and renoctohrindgs ymoua cnoauglde ment. 27%
describe as mature,
have RM capability in their ECM/DM system but don’t use it – although most (22%) say they are planning
0% 10% 20% 38% 30%
to turn it on in the next 12-18 months. A similar proportion, 25%, have separate systems for active content
management and records management. Often this involves SharePoint as the DM system, with a more
robust RM syIts itse imnc uornpdoerraltyeindg in i to. u2r6 E%C Mha/DvMe n soy sRteMm capability.
FigWuree h 3av: eH roewco rwdos umladn yagoeum deenst ccaripbaeb iylitoyu inr mouerchanism for managing electronic records? (N=478)
ECM/DM system but no plans to use it
We plan to add/ turn-on records management 0% 10% 20% 30%
in our ECM system in the next 12-18 months
It is incorporated in our ECM/DM system
We have separate systems for ac(cid:31)ve content
management and records management
We have records management capability in our
OuEr CDMM/ DsyMst esymst demoe sbnu’tt nsuop pplaonrts rteoc uosrde si t
management
We plan to add/ turn-on records management
in our ECM system in the next 12-18 months
We don’t have an ECM/DM system
We have separate systems for ac(cid:31)ve content
management and records management
Our DM system doesn’t support records
management
We don’t have an ECM/DM system
Records We have looked
management is at things this way
for quite some
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of mInfoosrtmlya atiboon uPtr ofessionals 6
(cid:31)me (3+ years),
paper files in our
18%
organiza(cid:31)on, 18%
Records Managers Records We haveW leo ohkaevde recently
manage recordsm, anagement is at thingsa tdhjuiss tweady o ur view
but the rest is nomt ostly about for quitteo saolimgne with this,
so well managepda,p er files in our (cid:31)me (3+ years1),6 %
15% organiza(cid:31)on, 18% 18%
Records
Managers We have plans
Recordms Manaangaeg erersc ords, Wtoe ahdajvues tr ecently
managaen rde cITo rtdask,e good resapdojnussitbeildi(cid:31) oeusr i nvi ew
but the craerset iosf n tohte rest, thteo n aelixgtn 1 w2-i1th8 this,
so well manag9e%d, months1, 264%%
15%
Records
Managers We have plans
manage records, to adjust
and IT take good responsibili(cid:31)es in
care of the rest, the next 12-18
9% months, 24%
Decreasing
somewhat,
Decreasing
Decreasing Increasing 0% rapidly, 0%
rapidly, 7% rapidly, Stable, 4%
10%
Decreasing
somewhat,
25% Increasing
Increasing somewhat,
somewhat, 28%
32%
Increasing
rapidly,
68%
Stable,
27%
Paper Records Electronic Records
We don’t have
We have robust, informa(cid:31)on and
enterprise-wide records
informa(cid:31)on management
governance policies, 7% We have definite
policies, 15% plans to develop
enterprise-wide
informa(cid:31)on and
records
management
policies, 14%
We have
established policies
in some areas/
departments but
not others, 26%
We have
informa(cid:31)on and
records
management
policies but have
nothing you could
describe as mature,
38%
0% 10% 20% 30%
It is incorporated in our ECM/DM system
We have records management capability in our
ECM/DM system but no plans to use it
We plan to add/ turn-on records management
Perception of IG
in our ECM system in the next 12-18 months
As we noted in the introduction, information governance as a term has burst into popularity in the last few
We have separate systems for ac(cid:31)ve content
years – at least on the part of the vendors. Although this survey was self-elected against a title that included
management and records management
the word “information governance”, there is strong evidence that the term – and indeed the practice –
has struOcku ra D cMho sryds twemith d uoseesnrs’t. sFuipgpuorert 4re schoordwss that the number of organizations changing their view from
management I
management of declared records to management of all electronically stored information has jumped from n
d
18% to 34% in the last 2 years, with a further 24% planning to adjust their view in the next 12-18 months. Wu
We don’t have an ECM/DM system s
There is evidence that smaller organizations are more likely to have made the move – perhaps as they are t
less likely to have had traditional RM roles. ary

t
Unfortunately, there are still some organizations that have yet to accept the reality of electronic records, and c
continue to live in the paper world – 18% in this survey h

Figure 4: To what extent would you say the perception of information governance in your
organization has progressed from management of declared records, to management of ALL
electronically stored information for privacy, security and e-discovery? (N=425)
Records We have looked
management is at things this way -A
mostly about for quite some au
paper files in our (cid:31)me (3+ years), ssto
organiza(cid:31)on, 18% 18% urm
ina
g
ctin
og
m
Records Managers We have recently p In
manage records, adjusted our view liafo
bsou tw tehlel mreasnt aisg nedo,t to align1 6w%ith this, ncerm
15% a
t
io
n
Records

Managers We have plans G
manage records, to adjust o
and IT take good responsibili(cid:31)es in v
e
care of the rest, the next 12-18 r
9% months, 24% n
a
n
c
e
40% of organizations have recently changed, or are about to change, from a declared records view of
information management and control to an IG view across all of their stored information.
IG Risks and Rewards
So accepting that the majority of our respondents understand the wider implications of IG, we asked what
they considered to be the three biggest risks associated with IG failures. Excess litigation costs or damages
heads the list, followed by loss of valuable information and then loss of customer confidence – all of which
would be considered major business disasters.
Understandably, loss of intellectual property is of the most concern to smaller businesses, and inability to
respond to information requests is a particular concern of mid-sized organizations.
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 7
Figure 5: Which of the following do you consider to be the biggest risks to your company from a
failure of information governance? (Max THREE) (N=482)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Excess li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on costs or damages resul(cid:16)ng from
poor records keeping In
d
Loss of intellectual property or company Wu
s
confiden(cid:16)al informa(cid:16)on t
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% ary
Loss of customer confidence or bad publicity
t
from data loss c
Excess li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on costs or damages resul(cid:16)ng from
h
Inability to respond to reqpuoeosrt rse (ceo.grd.,s F kreeeedpoinmg of
Informa(cid:16)on)
Loss of intellectual property or company
confiden(cid:16)al informa(cid:16)on
Audit qualifica(cid:16)ons due to inadequate records
Loss of customer confidence or bad publicity
Regulator ac(cid:16)on from lforossm/e dxaptoas luorses of
personally iden(cid:16)fiable informa(cid:16)on
Inability to respond to requests (e.g., Freedom of
Infringement of industry-speciIfincfo crommap(cid:16)loiann)ce - aAu
regula(cid:16)ons ssto
u
AudPito qoura oliufitccao(cid:16)moen so df ucue sttoo mineadr/esquupaptleie rre dciosprdustes rinma
Reguladtuoer taoc (cid:16)goanp sf rionm co lmosms/uenxipcoas(cid:16)uornes o tfrail g ctin
personally iden(cid:16)fiable informa(cid:16)on omg
Fines resul(cid:16)ng from poor records keeping p In
Infringement of industry-specific compliance liafo
Criminal prosecu(cid:16)on for allowirnegg puelar(cid:16)soonnaslly ncrm
sensi(cid:16)ve data to be lost e
Poor outcome of customer/supplier disputes a
t
due to gaps in communica(cid:16)ons trail io
n
On the positive side, users see many benefits from good information governance, the most significant of
G
which is toF riendesu crees uslt(cid:16)onrag gfreo amn pdo ionrf rraesctorrudcst ukreee pcionsgts – and this is a tangible cost-saving benefit. Next comes
o
exploitation and sharing of knowledge, followed by faster response to events, accidents, press activities, etc. v
Criminal prosecu(cid:16)on for allowing personally 0% 20% 40% 60% e
– and in the modern era of s2e4n hsio(cid:16)uver ndeatwas t oa nbde lsoosctial media comment, this can be vitally important to prevent rn
reputational damage, and, indeed, to saving lives. a
Reduce storage and infrastructure costs n
c
e
Figure 6: Which three of the following do you consider to be the biggest benefits to your company
Exploit and sfhroarme oguoro kdn oiwnfleodrgmea rteisoonu rgcoesvernance? (max THREE) (N=478)
Faster response to events, accidents, pres0s% 20% 40% 60%
ac(cid:16)vi(cid:16)es, FOI enquiries, etc.
MReodruec pee srtsoornaagleiz eadn da nindf raacsctururactteu rsee rcvoisctes to
customers
ExploitS uapnpdo srhta froer opuort eknn(cid:16)oawl lbeidgg dea rteas/oaunracley(cid:16)scs
ini(cid:16)a(cid:16)ves
Faster response to events, accidents, press
Be“er cuasct(cid:16)ovmi(cid:16)eers/,s uFOppI leienrq rueilraie(cid:16)so, nesthc.ips
More personalized and accurate service to
Pro-ac(cid:16)vely support patents, li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on,
customers
healthcare, tax collec(cid:16)on, etc.
Support for poten(cid:16)al big data/analy(cid:16)cs
Be“er reputa(cid:16)on/improved shareholder
ini(cid:16)a(cid:16)ves
value
Be“er customer/supplier rela(cid:16)onships
Faster and cheaper financial audits
Pro-ac(cid:16)vely support patents, li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on,
healthcare, tax collec(cid:16)on, etc.
Be“er reputa(cid:16)on/improved shareholder
value
Faster and cheaper financial audits 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Ge•ng senior management endorsement
It is also worthy of note that support for big data initiatives has moved up from 6th last year to 5th place.
Having the right people at the table
Ge•ng anybody to be interested
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Enforcing it once it is completed
GAe•lloncga (cid:16)senng isour ffimcaiennatg e(cid:16)mmeen ftr oemnd tohrese dmaye njotbs
ExtHeanvdiningg t choev reirgahgte p teoo apllle s atot rtehde ctoabnlteent
TransGlae(cid:16)•ngn gt haen ypboolidciye sto in bteo isnytsetreemst erudles
NailingE dnofwornc icnlga sist iofincace(cid:16) oitn i sa ncodm tapxloetneodmy
AllocaB(cid:16)eningg s ouvffiecr iaemntb (cid:16)i(cid:16)moeu sfr ionm sc tohpee d aanyd j odbestail
ExtendinTgr ycionvge troa gcoe vteor a tlol ost moraendy c socnetneanrtios
Transla(cid:16)nIdge tnh(cid:16)ef pyionlgic itehse i nletgoa sl yrsetqeumir erumleesnts
Nailing down classifica(cid:16)on and taxonomy
Being over ambi(cid:16)ous in scope and detail
Trying to cover too many scenarios
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Iden(cid:16)fying the legal requirements
The RM/IM/Compliance department takes
responsibility
Each line of business or department
manages their own records
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
IT are mostly responsible
The RM/IM/Compliance department takes
The IG Commi“ee set and supervise
responsibility
policies for all departments
Each line of business or department
The legmala dneapgearst tmheeinrt o twakne rse tchoer dlesad
TherITe aisr en om foosrtmlya rle aslploocnas(cid:16)ibolne of
responsibili(cid:16)es
The IG Commi“ee set and supervise
policies for all departments
The legal department takes the lead
There is no formal alloca(cid:16)on of
responsibili(cid:16)es
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Excess li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on costs or damages resul(cid:16)ng from
poor records keeping
Loss of intellectual property or company
confiden(cid:16)al informa(cid:16)on
Loss of customer confidence or bad publicity
from data loss
Inability to respond to requests (e.g., Freedom of
Informa(cid:16)on)
Audit qualifica(cid:16)ons due to inadequate records
Regulator ac(cid:16)on from loss/exposure of
personally iden(cid:16)fiable informa(cid:16)on
Infringement of industry-specific compliance
regula(cid:16)ons
Poor outcome of customer/supplier disputes
due to gaps in communica(cid:16)ons trail
Fines resul(cid:16)ng from poor records keeping
Criminal prosecu(cid:16)on for allowing personally
sensi(cid:16)ve data to be lost
0% 20% 40% 60%
Reduce storage and infrastructure costs
Exploit and share our knowledge resources
Faster response to events, accidents, press
ac(cid:16)vi(cid:16)es, FOI enquiries, etc.
More personalized and accurate service to
customers
Support for poten(cid:16)al big data/analy(cid:16)cs
Information Governancieni(cid:16) aP(cid:16)voeslicies
Creating a comBper“eehre cnussitvoem ienrf/osrumpaptliieorn r geloav(cid:16)eornnsahnipcse policy can be daunting, and the key to success is to
obtain senior management endorsement. However, even with support from the top, other senior managers
Pro-ac(cid:16)vely support patents, li(cid:16)ga(cid:16)on,
need to sign-up to take part. Our users also identified enforcement of the policy once in place as a big issue,
healthcare, tax collec(cid:16)on, etc.
which we will return to later.
I
Be“er reputa(cid:16)on/improved shareholder n
d
The scope of extending coverage from recordvsa lutoe include all stored content is considered to be an issue, Wu
especially for mid-sized businesses, but identifying the legal requirements does not come high on the list, s
t
despite changing (Faansdte cr oannfdu cshinega)p elar wfisn aonnc idala atau dpitrsotection. For smaller organizations, finding time and ary

resources is obviously difficult, and this heads the list for them. t
c
h
Figure 7: What have been the three biggest issues with creating an

information governance policy? (N=387)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Ge•ng senior management endorsement
Having the right people at the table -A
au
s
Ge•ng anybody to be interested sto
u
rm
Enforcing it once it is completed ina
g
ctin
Alloca(cid:16)ng sufficient (cid:16)me from the day jobs og
m

Extending coverage to all stored content pliaInfo
Transla(cid:16)ng the policies into system rules ncrm
e
a
Nailing down classifica(cid:16)on and taxonomy t
io
n
Being over ambi(cid:16)ous in scope and detail
G
o
Trying to cover too many scenarios
v
e
Iden(cid:16)fying the legal requirements rn
a
n
c
e
Most respondents have had to fight to gain involvement and support from senior management for creating
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
an IG policy. Enforcing it once complete is a further issue for many.
The RM/IM/Compliance department takes
responsibility
Each line of business or department
manages their own records
Responsibility
IT are mostly responsible
As we have moved from the paper records era to electronic records, the involvement of IT has increased
steadily. Moving Tohne aIGg aCionm tom tih“ee eIG se et raan dw shuepreer vailsl estored content needs to be managed for security,
accessibility and lifecyclep,o tlhiceie isn fvoorl vaell mdeepnatr otmf IeTn tiss paramount, even if the ultimate responsibility still lies with
the Records Manager or increasingly the Compliance Officer. However, we can see from Figure 8 that in
28% of organizaTtihoen sle rgeacl odredpsa rmtmaennatg teamkeesn tth ree lsepaodnsibility resides within each line of business or department
– a situation which is unlikely to be conducive to a coordinated, enterprise-wide information governance
There is no formal alloca(cid:16)on of
initiative. Only 10% have a formal IG committee to oversee activities, policies and systems. In 24% of
responsibili(cid:16)es
organizations, responsibility has not been formally or specifically allocated.
©2014 AIIM - The Global Community of Information Professionals 9