Log In

Industry Expert

KM World Covers the Latest Best Practices in IG

The IGI is pleased to share the latest by KM World: a useful best practices whitepaper digging into the details of IG, sponsored in part by IGI Supporter Actiance, that includes the following perspective on the efforts of the Information Governance Initiative.

"The Information Governance Initiative, is widely credited with moving the discipline forward. It has legitimized information governance as a free-standing business exercise, distinct from enterprise content management (ECM). It is not seen as synonymous with information security but the two are most definitely related- or perhaps joined at the hip is a better way to phrase it."

This whitepaper covers the latest best practices in IG including thought-provoking points such as:

- Information Value and Risk are Everywhere
- Your Policies Need to Reflect Today’s Communications
- Employees Need to be Directly Engaged in Design of IG Training
- Your Governance Tools Must be Designed for Today’s Communications
- The Likelihood of Governance Success is Directly Proportionate to Cross-Functional Involvement

  (more…)

 

Leveling Up Your IG Program: Opportunities Beyond Best Practices

by Doug Meier - Pandora Media Inc. on September 12, 2017

Information GovernanceIn-House CounselLegal & Industry Education

Whether in “startup” mode or in “recurring initiative” mode, we expect a lot from an information governance (IG) program and its leaders.

For example, the program should follow agreed-upon best practices, like adhering to a maturity model and aligning with the concept of Privacy by Design, and should establish processes like records management and legal hold notification. Likewise, the program leaders are expected to communicate policies and procedures, identify and remove unstructured data debris—including redundant, obsolete, and trivial information (ROT)—and maintain ongoing IG efforts.

These are all admirable goals and objectives, but it’s not enough. For an information governance program to survive, it requires alignment with and embracement of objectives that go beyond best practices and standard guidance. Here are a few ways to level up your IG program.

To read the article in full, head over to Relativity's blog by clicking here.

 

Survey Says: Analytics Making In-house a Home

by Dean Gonsowski

In January, members of the World Economic Forum met at their annual Davos summit to discuss analytics, automation, and artificial intelligence (AI), topics with enough potential to have global business leaders expressing both optimism and fear:

"It's not like we actually have economic growth today. So we actually need technological breakthrough, we need AI ... Our responsibility is to have the AI augment the human ingenuity and augment the human opportunity." Satya Nadella, Microsoft CEO

“I think now about how artificial intelligence will create digital refugees and how people will be displaced from jobs, tens of millions of people across the planet, because technology is moving forward so rapidly ... So companies, individuals have to decide: are we going to be committed to improving the state of the world? We’re at a crucial point right now.” - Marc Benioff, Salesforce CEO

These technologies are shaping our world quicker than experts expected, but the critical question remains: Will this trend significantly reshape the legal profession?

The short answer—as we’ve highlighted before—is yes.

For the second year in a row, the Coalition of Technology Resources for Lawyers (CTRL) and the Information Governance Initiative(IGI) teamed up to survey internal legal departments about their current and anticipated adoption of advanced analytics.

The findings? In line with last year’s study, and perhaps not surprisingly, analytics adoption is accelerating and practitioners are more bullish than ever.

To read the rest of the 'Survey Says: Analytics Making In-house a Home' article on Relativity's blog, click here.

 

 

Information Security & Information Governance – how they work together

By Richard Kilpatrick - Information Technology & Services

Richard Kilpatrick is a highly experienced consultant in information technology, focusing on realistic data governance, security and privacy.  Richard has led programs of work to discover and classify data across multiple business units, within banks, telcos, health and media. In this Information Governance ANZ article, he outlines the difference between Information Security and Information Governance, explaining why IG frameworks are essential for the successful orchestration of specialized security systems.

Information (data) security, cybersecurity and IT security all usually refer to the protection of computer systems and information assets by suitable controls, such as policies, processes, procedures, organizational structures and software and hardware functions. The type and extent of controls depends on the scope and maturity of the business function (usually the Security Department) applying the controls, or, depends on the specialization/focus of the team, such as Perimeter/Firewall or Identity Management. Each function tends to have a different perspective of information security, compared to other functions, due to their focused specialization.

A close parallel is the health profession. You see a GP doctor when unwell, and are referred to a specialist who knows much more than your GP about a particular field of expertise. I know that my GP would not want to perform open heart surgery at all. And equally, a heart specialist would not have up-to-date and practical knowledge of all areas of the body. Tinea treatment? – see somebody else please.

In other words, people specialize in a particular aspect of their work. You can’t be an expert in everything. People prioritize – for example, in busy times, a SysOp will not be as vigilant with security when their primary role is to keep the sales /finance system up and running for all users. This is exactly how Information Security Systems operate.

To read the rest of 'Information Security & Information Governance – how they work together' head over to the original article on Information Governance ANZ.

 

3 Critical Qualities of Resilient Information Leaders

“Resilience” has become a buzzword, as all seemingly simple and intuitive psychological concepts do once they penetrate our public (and commercial) consciousness. The current buzz around resilience, whether applied to the environmentcompanies, or children, originated in the field of psychology with researchers trying to determine what makes one person seemingly bulletproof while another, who appears to have every emotional advantage, crumbles when faced with minor adversity. Resilience even has its own counter-buzz, signaling that it has conclusively reached memetic status.

Studies of resilience focus on how we respond to both “environmental” threats—problems that are chronic and less intense but no less difficult—as well as “acute” threats that cause shorter bursts of intense adversity or trauma.

Information leaders face both types of adversity. “House on fire” emergencies like lawsuits, investigations, and cybersecurity breaches represent acute, intense threats that can be all consuming but relatively short in duration. Information leaders also face chronic adversity and threat, often in the form of problems that continue to emerge and reemerge—including long-term efforts to build and enforce an information governance program; evaluating, purchasing, and implementing enterprise software; or guiding a years-long change management program, to name a few.

What Builds Resilience?

Norman Garmezy was a pioneer in the study of psychological resilience. His critical insight was that studying successful people could yield insights not likely to come from studying failure (the common approach at the time). His research led to the identification of several “protective factors” that resilient people have.

Not surprisingly, this research also found that pure luck is a big factor. Some people with an otherwise tough life find a great mentor, bond with an emotionally mature caregiver, find easy financial success, and so on. Others have no luck other than bad luck and it simply overwhelms them no matter what their other qualities.

Luck is no small factor in the lives of information leaders. Sometimes the server just blows up. Sometimes a crucial staff member falls ill or leaves. Management priorities change. Sometimes “mistakes are made,” and there is nothing that anyone could have done to anticipate or prevent them. Recognizing bad luck and not feeling responsible for it or allowing it to drive magical thinking about being “cursed” is a key “protective factor” exhibited by resilient people generally and resilient information leaders specifically.

All resilient people have common qualities. At the Information Governance Initiative, through our research and experience working with IG professionals—including those leading incredibly stressful projects like e-discovery in “bet-the-company” litigation and security breaches—we have learned that resilient information leaders also share many common qualities.

Here are three of those qualities. Join our webinar where we will reveal more details about these and the other six habits that resilient e-discovery leaders share. The 9 Habits of Resilient e-Discovery Leaders webinar is hosted by EDRM.

1. They don’t try to be heroes.

In the face of acute adversity, resilient e-discovery and information governance leaders avoid the misguided sense of heroism that is often associated with focusing on a crisis to the exclusion of everything else. American business in particular has canonized and internalized the image of the cowboy: the rugged individual with a complete absence of emotional need, a singular focus on getting the job done no matter what, and a superhuman ability to do it all himself. The lie of this myth is born out in study after study showing stress levels going up and productivity, health, and job satisfaction levels going down in workplaces that implicitly encourage, and explicitly reward, this behavior.

Neglecting personal relationships and sacrificing wellbeing by eating poorly and shirking exercise have real consequences over the long term—something that resilient information leaders recognize and incorporate into their working life, even when “the house is on fire."

Although times of crisis may demand periods of extreme intensity and long hours, they are not sustainable; nor, in most cases, is the damage of trying to sustain this posture—anxiety, insomnia, elevated cholesterol, depression—worth the reward.

2. They play to their strengths—and acknowledge their weaknesses.

Resilient people do not need to be gifted people. In fact, research from developmental psychologist Emmy Werner has shown that a more reliable predictor of resilience is the ability to put your skills to work effectively. For an information professional in the early part of your career, this means learning what your real strengths and weaknesses are, and seeking roles that play to your strengths and minimize opportunities for your weaknesses to limit you. This does not mean avoiding new challenges—in fact, a predictable quality of resilient people is that they seek out new experiences and challenges. However, it does mean understanding your strengths and seeking ways to learn about, identify, and apply them at their full potential.

For information leaders in mid-career and beyond, this also means having the wisdom to supplement your weaknesses by delegating, building a team that complements each other, and hiring deputies who have the strengths you lack but are necessary for e-discovery success. For example, if you have a deep technical understanding but are terrible at putting together a project plan, seek out those who are amazing project managers.

3. They don’t grant failure undue power.

Fulfilling our potential as people, and as information leaders, is dependent upon our ability to absorb, bounce back from, and learn from mistakes and failures. One of the most powerful predictors of resilience is how we perceive potentially traumatic events. In fact, how you view an event, like a stressful and scary e-discovery demand, actually determines whether or not it is in fact ultimately traumatic.

The research gets even more fascinating, clearly showing that exposure to events that could be very traumatic does not actually predict how well a person will function in the future. Rather, the most reliable predictor is the way that person views, or “construes,” an event. This does not mean that we must be Pollyannas or deify the “power of positive thinking,” but it does demonstrate the objective effect that our response to difficult events actually has on whether or not we are traumatized by them. The best news is that the ability to construe potentially painful events in a way that minimizes their harm can actually be taught and learned—with practice and a lot of patience.

Our ability to bear adversity in both our personal and working lives is ultimately simple math: i.e., is the depth of the adversity greater than our resilience? Everyone has a breaking point. Highly resilient people have a higher breaking point. It is important, and I believe uplifting, to realize that these qualities can in large measure be learned. One powerful learning technique is modeling people we aspire to be like, and in the information governance community we are we are fortunate to have so many great e-discovery leaders who we can learn from as true models of resilience.

 

Presidential Tweets and Self-Destructing Messages Under the Records Laws: The New Normal

Washington, D.C. of counsel Jason R. Baron published an article in Bloomberg Law titled “Presidential Tweets and Self-Destructing Messages Under the Records Laws: The New Normal.”

Jason discusses the recordkeeping challenges and legal developments that result from presidential tweets and other forms of communications used by White House personnel in the Trump administration.

Jason also notes that these legal developments raise a number of information governance issues that have direct applicability to private sector institutes.

Read "Presidential Tweets and Self-Destructing Messages Under the Records Laws: The New Normal."