Log In

News from the IGI

Take a Look Inside the IGI Annual Report 2015-16: Organizations Are Taking Action and Spending Money

Have you taken the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Survey? Help us develop our next Annual Report by sharing your insights! Take the Survey today.

In our previous look inside last year’s IGI Annual Report 2015-2016, the industry’s most comprehensive research on information governance (IG) as a concept, profession, and market, we discussed why organizations need IG steering committees. Today, we look at how many IG projects organizations are undertaking and what they are spending.

On average, organizations that are actively doing IG work have multiple projects running at the same time. As the chart below shows, the average number of projects per organization and average total cost per project generally increases with organization size, though this correlation is not perfect. Indeed, within each group (by organization size) there is a wide distribution in both the number of active projects reported (some reported only one and others more than fifty) and the average per-project spend (some reported $10,000 or less, others over $3 million USD). This variation is not surprising given how broadly our community defines IG and its activities and technologies.

There is clearly a wide range of what might constitute an IG project. However, while this variation is predictable, it should be kept in mind when considering these numbers. We also note that when designing the survey, we created an opt-out response, anticipating that both practitioners and some people working for providers might have difficulty answering these questions or may prefer not to. As such, the number of respondents to these questions was lower than the average number of respondents for other, less sensitive questions.

While we did not attempt market-sizing and this data does not predict the overall IG market size, it does show that there is an IG market, and it is growing. Organizations are tackling IG, and they are spending money to get the work done.

The IGI has begun the process of developing the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Report, building upon the success of the last two years. As part of the research for our Report, we are conducting a survey of information governance professionals. Please participate in our survey to help us create a great resource for the IG Community. The results will be published in a comprehensive Annual Report which will include a variety of infographics and other tools we will freely provide to the IG Community under a Creative Commons license. These infographics have become part of many IG practitioners’ internal presentations, and the Annual Report has become the go-to reference guide for many in the industry. In the meantime, take a look insider last year’s report. All data you provide through this survey will be reported anonymously.

 

Are Organizations Using IG Steering Committees?

Have you taken the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Survey? Help us develop our next Annual Report by sharing your insights! Take the Survey today.

In our previous look inside last year’s IGI Annual Report 2015-2016, the industry’s most comprehensive research on information governance (IG) as a concept, profession, and market, we discussed IG leadership trends. Today, we take a look at IG steering committees. Are organizations using them to build support for IG?

As a coordinating function, IG success depends on communication and cooperation among the people representing the separate information disciplines or facets at an organization. IG steering committees are essential. But do most organizations have them, today?

About a third do. While this is a good start, it is not enough, and we recommend that practitioners view this as a critical component of their IG programs and take action to develop even an informal group like this.

If your organization does not have a formal body for making IG decisions, consider forming one soon. Remember this must ultimately be tailored to fit the information environment of your organization. Also consider the state of maturity of the facets of IG. Are all necessary facets in place and are they mature enough to meaningfully participate in the committee? You may need to lay some groundwork in these areas before the committee can be useful. Finally, you will need a leader for the committee or some other way of implementing its suggestions.

The IGI has begun the process of developing the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Report, building upon the success of the last two years. As part of the research for our Report, we are conducting a survey of information governance professionals. Please participate in our survey to help us create a great resource for the IG Community. The results will be published in a comprehensive Annual Report which will include a variety of infographics and other tools we will freely provide to the IG Community under a Creative Commons license. These infographics have become part of many IG practitioners’ internal presentations, and the Annual Report has become the go-to reference guide for many in the industry. In the meantime, take a look insider last year’s report. All data you provide through this survey will be reported anonymously.

 

Who Is Leading IG at Organizations, Today?

Have you taken the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Survey? Help us develop our next Annual Report by sharing your insights! Take the Survey today.

In our previous look inside last year’s IGI Annual Report 2015-2016, the industry’s most comprehensive research on information governance (IG) as a concept, profession, and market, we discussed IG program maturity assessments. Today, we look at IG leadership trends at organizations.

In analyzing the work of IG, we would be remiss to ignore one of the most important parts of any IG program, i.e., the people who design, develop, implement, and enforce our IG programs. In our annual research, IG practitioners identified developing a corporate governance framework for IG as the top project they would undertake if they had authority and budget to do so. These results suggest that there is a real hunger within the IG community for greater clarity on IG operations and leadership. But how are organizations actually addressing IG leadership? Here is what we found.

We asked practitioners if their organizations had delegated overall accountability for IG to a specific individual. Over a third said yes. These numbers are up from last year, and we would expect them to continue to grow as the discipline matures. Of practitioners who reported that their organizations had delegated IG accountability, over a third said that person also had the words “information governance” in their title.

We believe that IG leadership at large, complex organizations calls for a Chief Information Governance Officer (CIGO) who is on par with other C-level roles like the Chief Information Officer, Chief Data Officer, or Chief Information Security Officer. As it stands, just under a third of organizations that have delegated IG authority to someone have also designated an IG leader with this level of authority.

While we advocate for the CIGO role, we certainly recognize that not every organization is ready for one, or indeed, will ever need one. This does not mean organizations cannot benefit from an IG leadership position and at different levels of IG program maturity. The IGI’s CIGO Task Force developed a maturity framework to show what IG leadership might look like at different levels of IG program maturity. The model may be thought of as both descriptive (i.e., showing what an IG leader would do day-to-day at each level) and prescriptive (i.e., showing what it would take to move an organization to the next level). A detailed description of the IG leadership role at each level and a sample job description is available in the CIGO Task Force Report published on December 7, 2015.

Depending on how mature your organization’s IG program is, it may not be ready for a C-suite position for IG. However, that does not mean IG cannot benefit from a designated leader. Look to the maturity framework below for ideas of what an IG leadership role can achieve at your organization’s current IG maturity level.

The IGI has begun the process of developing the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Report, building upon the success of the last two years. As part of the research for our Report, we are conducting a survey of information governance professionals. Please participate in our survey to help us create a great resource for the IG Community. The results will be published in a comprehensive Annual Report which will include a variety of infographics and other tools we will freely provide to the IG Community under a Creative Commons license. These infographics have become part of many IG practitioners’ internal presentations, and the Annual Report has become the go-to reference guide for many in the industry. In the meantime, take a look insider last year’s report. All data you provide through this survey will be reported anonymously.

 

Is Your Company Effectively Governing All the Types of Enterprise Communications Your Teams Are Using?

Join IGI Founder & Executive Director, Barclay T. Blair, at Actiance’s Executive Briefing Series on September 22, 2016 in St. Louis, Missouri.

 The IGI has partnered again with Actiance for a second Executive Briefing series. The series looks at the various communication channels (e.g. unified communications, instant messaging, social media, and voice) employees are now using in the workplace and discusses how, "It’s not just about email anymore!" The Executive Series explores the information governance (and specifically eDiscovery) challenges these new forms of communication present and how your organization can take steps to find and preserve enterprise communications to meet your legal, regulatory, and other obligations. See below for dates and locations to get a complimentary registration.

At the most recent briefing in the series, discussion focused on how companies are increasingly seeing requests from their employees to support new communication channels. Slack, for example has come up frequently, and text messaging is also a growing concern. Companies are also starting to be aware that more e-discovery of social communications tools is happening. However, despite increased requests to support these new forms of communication and both concern and awareness of the challenges that they present, companies are lagging behind in incorporating these new forms of enterprise into their information governance polices.

 Join us for the next briefing. Executive Briefings are intimate events where we share a wonderful meal, share what we have learned, and you share with your peers what you have learned. Space is very limited, so please register now for an Executive Briefing at a city near you.

The next event is in St. Louis, Missouri, where you will hear directly from IGI Founder & Executive Director, Barclay T. Blair.

  • September 22, 2016—St. Louis, MO
  • October 4, 2016—Indianapolis, IN
  • October 11, 2016—Harford, CT
  • October 18, 2016—Washington, DC

Registration is complimentary. Register here now.

Read about briefings in the previous series at the links below.
Automation Can Facilitate Taking Reasonable Steps to Preserve ESI Involving New Forms of Communication (April 5, 2016; Dallas, TX)
Effectively Governing New Forms of Communication Isn’t Just About Compliance (April 14, 2016; Boston, MA)
Do You Have A Shadow IT Problem? (April 19, 2016; Chicago, IL)
New Enterprise Messaging Tech, New IG Challenges (May 17, 2016; Minneapolis, MN)
Are You Taking Reasonable Steps to Preserve Your Enterprise Communications (June 2, 2016; Charlotte, NC)

 

 

Don’t Forget Your End-Users When Implementing IG. Learn How One Organization Avoided This Common Pitfall with a People-First Approach

The IG community has told us that one of the most valuable things we can do for them is simply to share stories about how IG is getting done. This is exactly what we are trying to achieve with a new series of IG Snapshots based on our extensive benchmarking work. IG Snapshots tell a quick, real-world IG story and highlight the IT and management insights illuminated by the story. In our Executive Briefing Series supported by OpenText, we take a look inside five information governance programs to learn how practitioners are handling real life IG challenges.

In our previous IG Snapshot of the series, we saw how Dianne, an IG manager at a midsized bank built support for her IG efforts among business leaders at the bank by speaking their language. In today’s IG Snapshot, we learn how Ingrid, the information management advisor at a major insurance company overcame some inertia to IG success by making sure people are considered in her IG strategy.

Though Ingrid’s company had a sizeable IG budget, it has spent years struggling to improve management of its information environment without much success. Ingrid, who was asked to diagnose and fix this lack of progress, realized that the organization was operating on some fundamentally incorrect assumptions, including that the company’s records and information management goals and the goals of their employees are the same. She helped turn around the program, in part, by challenging this assumption and putting people first.

Learn More About Ingrid’s Experience:

 

 

How Mature Are Organizations’ IG Programs?

Have you taken the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Survey? Help us develop our next Annual Report by sharing your insights! Take the Survey today.

In our previous look inside last year’s IGI Annual Report 2015-2016, the industry’s most comprehensive research on information governance (IG) as a concept, profession, and market, we discussed what is driving IG programs and projects at organizations. Today, we look at practitioner ratings of their organization’s IG program maturity, both overall and across five parameters. We also look whether they consider their organization’s IG program proactive or reactive.

Throughout the IGI Annual Report, we explore multiple dimensions of the IG work organizations are doing, including what projects they are working on, how long it takes to get started, and the factors that block or drive IG efforts. These snapshots into the work of IG provide important insights into what is happening at organizations, but we also wanted to know how advanced typical programs were overall. Specifically, how mature are IG programs, today?

We asked practitioners to rate the overall maturity of their organizations’ IG programs and then to rate maturity across five additional parameters which together are integral parts of a full IG program. We also asked them to assess whether they saw their IG programs as fundamentally reactive or proactive. We used the same general maturity scale throughout, in ascending order of maturity: non-existent, nascent, intermediate, and advanced. We also provided a description of what each level meant on each question. (See the Annual Report for details.) Here is what we found.

Overall IG Program Maturity
The vast majority of practitioners ranked the overall maturity of their IG programs and their components at either a nascent or an intermediate level. Very few practitioners ranked their programs as non-existent. This suggests that most of these organizations at the very least are doing something about IG and, overall, have either some elements in place, and are building the foundation (nascent) or have an established but still developing program and are building the framework and structure (intermediate).

This bodes well for the discipline. IG programs are moving forward. This is consistent with other findings throughout this Report showing that IG work is being done in organizations of all sizes across all industries.

Maturity of IG Policies and Procedures
With respect to the maturity of their organizations’ IG policies and procedures, practitioners are almost evenly split between nascent and intermediate with the latter reporting policies and procedures have been updated to reflect the current operating environment though they are still not comprehensive. Given these results, it is not surprising that updating policies and procedures is both one of the top projects organizations have underway today and one they would undertake if they had resources and authority to do so, as reported elsewhere in our Annual Report.

Maturity of the Facets of IG and Coordination Between Them
A major value proposition of IG is the operational role it can and should serve coordinating the various information-related functions (“facets”) across an organization, putting an end to “siloing.” For an IG program to work, however, key facets need to be in place and mature enough to function, as well as coordinate with each other. We explored both of these points under maturity assessments.

Most practitioners told us these facets are nascent, meaning that many relevant information-related functions are either missing or underdeveloped. However, most practitioners said that the maturity level of coordination was intermediate, meaning there was some planned coordination happening, but it was not comprehensive. These results suggest that, while organizations might be coordinating some information activities, many of them do not have all the facets in place or developed. Organizations need both to succeed at IG.

Maturity of Auditing, Monitoring, and Enforcing
Most ranked their programs as intermediate with respect to auditing, monitoring, and enforcing compliance (meaning some activity is happening, but it is not comprehensive), even though this is a higher rating than the average rating for overall program maturity. This is not unexpected, given that the catalyst for IG programs has traditionally been external regulatory, compliance, or legal obligations.

Maturity of the IG Technology Environment
Most rated their IG technology environment as intermediate, meaning that there is technology in place to address some IG requirements and that more advanced and comprehensive approaches are being considered and implemented. These results are not surprising when one considers how integral technology is to the execution of so many IG projects.

Are Most IG Programs Proactive or Reactive?
In our discussion of drivers of IG in our last look inside the Annual Report, we considered how organizations could sometimes find themselves reacting to incidents rather than planning for them. Ideally, as IG programs mature, they will shift from a reactive to a more proactive posture. When we asked practitioners how they view their programs, they were about evenly split with around half describing their program as reactive and half saying it was proactive. In contrast, three-quarters of providers rated their typical customer’s program as reactive, perhaps because providers are often called in after an event or incident has already occurred.

In Practice
Your organization’s overall IG program maturity is a composite of its maturity across the parameters explored here, and many others. You may be doing great on one parameter but falling short on another. For truly effective IG, all of these parts of your program (and others!) need to be functioning. The goal should be that they, like the facets themselves, are part of an integrated, functioning whole. Look to these charts to get a sense of how your organization stacks up against others and to get a clearer idea of the parts of an IG program that are essential to its success.

The IGI has begun the process of developing the 2016-2017 IGI Annual Report, building upon the success of the last two years. As part of the research for our Report, we are conducting a survey of information governance professionals. Please participate in our survey to help us create a great resource for the IG Community. The results will be published in a comprehensive Annual Report which will include a variety of infographics and other tools we will freely provide to the IG Community under a Creative Commons license. These infographics have become part of many IG practitioners’ internal presentations, and the Annual Report has become the go-to reference guide for many in the industry. In the meantime, take a look insider last year’s report. All data you provide through this survey will be reported anonymously.