Interesting video about data governance. This is the second video in our series, “5 Questions about Information Governance in 5 Minutes.” In this video IG experts answer the tricky question, “Who Should Own Information Governance?”
5 Questions about Information Governance in 5 Minutes: Who Should Own Information Governance?
April 17, 2013Data Stewardship in 13 Minutes a Week
February 14, 2013Andrew White, Research VP at Gartner, has a great thesis on data stewardship:
“13 minutes a week – that is how much work your data stewards should be doing.”
That is, in order for data stewardship (or data ownership) to be truly adopted by the business—marketing, HR, finance—the work we require them to do should amount to no more than 13 minutes per week.
This is a terrific goal and it is what we strive for withDataPrivilege. How do we do it?
- We make reviews devoid of noise – stewards only see data they care about
- We make reviews differential – if it hasn’t changed since last review, it doesn’t show up
- We make reviews inline with normal workflow – a timely email appears in the steward’s inbox with a big link that takes them right to the review; no separate reminders or TODOs needed
- We make reviews actionable – exceptional items are highlighted and a suggested action is given along with the ability to take the action without leaving the review screen
A significant portion of our operational plan is devoted to finding, assigning, and involving data owners. But without buy-in from the people who will be doing the work, the plan can’t be executed. Andrew cuts right to the core of why many businesses have failed at implementing information governance programs: they have effectively dumped an unreasonable and unnecessaryamount of work on their stewards’ desks and walked away.
What do you think? Could you sell 13 minutes of work per week in exchange for true information governance, accountability, and data protection?
What exactly is defensible deletion?
October 25, 2012Philip Favro of Symantec, in an article called Defensible Deletion: The Cornerstone of Intelligent Information Governance on the eDiscovery 2.0 blog, defines defensible deletion as “a comprehensive approach that companies implement to reduce the storage costs and legal risks associated with the retention of electronically stored information (ESI)”.
He goes on to say that organisations which have done this “have been successful in avoiding court sanctions while at the same time eliminating ESI that has little or no business value”
That is the point, of course, of the word “defensible” in this context. It matters most in the US, where everyone goes in fear of the sanctions bogeyman, apparently without regard to the terms of Rule 37(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which reads as follows:
(e) Failure to Provide Electronically Stored Information. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.
Most other jurisdictions can manage without this “safe harbor” because they do not have the same (alleged) reason to fear sanctions. I say “alleged” because if US companies paid more attention to Rule 37(e), they too could set about the deletion of material which is not presently the subject of a legal hold and which is not required for statutory or business purposes. It would help, too, if they read some of the sanctions Opinions which cause such dread to see how many of them were the consequence of the “routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system”.
If you are short of ROI information to justify the work involved in a defensible deletion programme, try and calculate how much money was spent last year processing and reprocessing useless data for eDiscovery purposes, rejecting it time after time, at considerable expense. There’s a big chunk of ROI there.
Thanks to http://chrisdale.wordpress.com/
Posted by david ricketts 