Last week the Information Coalition hosted an InfoChat. During the chat a question was asked about who the most important stakeholders in Information Governance projects are. I answered that I don’t believe in InfoGov projects.
Instead of writing a whole post about why I don’t believe in InfoGov projects I thought I’d give you all a break and, instead of reading my stuff, let you see and listen to me. 🙂
Anyway … my thoughts …
Thanks for your video comments on the Information Coalition “Info Chat”. Aren’t you really splitting hairs with your comments? I mean in a beautiful Information Governance world where information risks are identified, assessed and included into corporate strategic planning – aren’t the resultant projects, “IG projects” whether they will result in business outcomes or not?
I concede that any project that enhances business performance in any area is a business project, but isn’t this perhaps too generic? To be able to gain good business analytics, apply budget to specific projects out of designated coffers or define whether the project has organisation wide value or not requires more granular identification. I believe information governance project is an acceptable descriptor.
Thanks for jumping in and commenting.
In a word, no, I don’t think I’m splitting hairs. If you look at the various definitions of IG, and mostly accept them, then IG is really a collection of disciplines, policies, frameworks, guidelines, etc under which projects get delivered and information is managed. You may have projects that deal specifically with security (think IRM) or records management, but these would be rights management and records management projects. IG would frame them, but not really define them.
I think if you look at IG in the same light as one would look at technology standards, it makes a bit more sense to not call projects IG projects.