Making the Case for Information Governance: 10 Reasons Information Governance Makes Sense

Making the Case for
Information Governance

10
Reasons
Why
IG
Makes
Sense

Barclay
T.
Blair

Preface ........................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4

Defining
Information
Governance ........................................................................................ 4

Learn
to
Tell
the
IG
Story ..................................................................................................... 5

Be
Practical .......................................................................................................................... 6

IG
is
Change
Management ................................................................................................... 8

1.
We
Can’t
Keep
Everything
Forever...................................................................... 10

2.
We
Can’t
Throw
Everything
Away....................................................................... 12

3.
E-‐Discovery......................................................................................................... 13

4.
Your
Employees
are
Begging
for
It
–
Just
Listen................................................... 15

5.
It
Ain’t
Gonna
Get
Any
Easier.............................................................................. 16

6.
The
Connected
Thinking
of
IG
is
the
Future
of
Business
Success.......................... 18

7.
The
Courts
Will
Come
Looking
for
IG................................................................... 20

8.
Manage
Risk:
Information
Is
a
Big
One ............................................................... 21

9.
Email:
Reason
Enough ........................................................................................ 22

10.
IG
Provides
Certainty........................................................................................ 23

P a g e
|
2

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair

www.barclaytblair.com

btblair@vialumina.com
646-‐450-‐4468

Preface
The
Economist
Intelligence
Unit,
in
a
recent
study
on
information
governance,
found
that

the
single
biggest
worldwide
challenge
to
successful
adoption
of
information
governance
is

the
difficulty
of
identifying
its
benefits
and
costs.1

In
other
words,
the
difficulty
of
making

the
case
for
IG.

This
eBook,
in
a
small
way,
is
designed
to
help
readers
with
this
big
problem.
There
is
no

magic
formula,
no
perfect
argument
for
information
governance.
But,
there
are
many

reasons
why
IG
makes
sense
today,
and
will
make
sense
well
into
the
future.

This
piece
doesn’t
try
to
advance
an
airtight
argument,
nor
does
it
propose
a
detailed

financial
model.
The
former
doesn’t
exist,
and
the
latter
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
work.

This
doesn’t
mean
that
you
shouldn’t
develop
and
use
such
models
at
your
organization,
as

they
are
essential.

This
eBook
is
based
on
a
series
of
observations
that
I
have
made
as
a
consultant,
advisor,

and
author
in
this
space
over
the
course
of
the
last
decade.
I
hope
to
point
out
some
simple

reasons
we
need
information
governance.
I
hope
it
helps
you
on
your
journey
to
manage

information
better.

Barclay


646
450
4468

P a g e
|
3

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

Introduction
This
eBook
is
divided
into
two
sections.
The
first,
this
introductory
section,
lays
the

groundwork
for
the
book
and
provides
some
tips
and
ideas
that
have
helped
our
clients.

The
second
section
focuses
on
a
series
of
specific
reasons
why
IG
makes
sense.
Read
them
in

the
order
that
works
best
for
you.

Defining
Information
Governance

"If
you
think
compliance
is
expensive,
try
noncompliance.”

Deputy
US
Attorney
General
Paul
McNulty2

Information
governance
is
a
relatively
recent
term
for
a
set
of
activities
that
have
been

around
for
a
long
time.
I
like
the
term
because
it’s
simple
-‐
it
places
the
emphasis
of
the

activity
(i.e.,
governance)
on
the
thing
we
want
to
act
on
(i.e.,
information).
The
simplicity
of

this
phrase
belies
the
complexity
of
a
field
that
borrows
ideas
and
practices
from
a
variety

of
specialties
and
packages
them
together
to
address
a
difficult
problem
in
a
holistic

manner.

For
example,
information
governance
is
not
synonymous
with
corporate
governance,
but
it

incorporates
elements
of
corporate
governance
(some
have
called
information
governance

“GRC
for
information”
i.e.,
governance,
risk
management,
and
compliance
for
information).

The
same
goes
for
information
protection,
records
management,
compliance,
and
so
on.

Some
of
the
other
fields
that
are
part
of
information
governance
include:

 Information
Management
 Enterprise
Risk
Management

 IT
Governance

 Archiving

 Privacy
 Business
Continuity,
Disaster

Recover

 Knowledge
Management

 Storage
Management

 Enterprise
Content

 E-‐Discovery

 Document
Management

 Enterprise
search

So
how
exactly
should
we
define
information
governance
(IG)?

P a g e
|
4

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

The
Economist
defines
IG
as
the
“strategically
created
enterprise-‐wide
frameworks
that

define
how
information
is
controlled,
accessed
and
used,”
and
the
mechanisms
that
enforce

those
frameworks.3

AIIM
International
defines
it
as
“the
establishment
of
enterprise
wide
policies
and

procedures
and
the
execution
and
enforcement
of
these
to
control
and
manage
information

as
an
enterprise
resource.”4

These
definitions
are
pretty
similar
and
they
illustrate
two
key
points.

First,
IG
is
about
building
a
foundation
of
rules
(in
the
form
of
policies,
procedures,

practices,
etc.)
that
guide
information
management
across
an
enterprise.
Second,
IG

requires
enforcement
–
in
the
form
of
technology
and
human-‐focused
programs
-‐
to
be

successful.
IG
rules
themselves
don’t
solve
any
problems
and
in
fact
can
create
problems
if

they
are
not
properly
enforced.

At
the
highest
level,
IG
is
about
managing
information
better.
Sometimes
we
want
to

manage
it
better
because
an
outside
party
–
such
as
a
government
body
or
court
–
is
telling

us
we
have
to,
and
sometimes
we
want
to
mange
it
better
simply
because
it
helps
us
be
a

better
business.

Learn
to
Tell
the
IG
Story

“At
first
sight,
legal
compliance
would
seem
to
be
the
major
driver
for
taking
better

control
of
emails.
However
.
.
.
ROI
from
efficiency
improvement
is
a
genuine

justification.”

AIIM
Industry
Watch:
Email
Management,
The
Good,
The
Bad
and
The
Ugly5

To
be
successful
with
IG,
you
must
learn
to
tell
the
IG
story.
More
correctly,
you
must
learn

to
tell
IG
stories
as
different
audiences
need
to
hear
different
versions
of
the
IG
story.

At
a
large
financial
services
company
I
worked
with
for
many
years,
the
chief
“evangelist”

for
IG
understood
this
implicitly.
I
tagged
along
with
her
to
many
meetings
and
listened
to

her
tell
the
IG
story.
There
was
one
story
for
the
lawyers
who
were
going
to
have
to
defend

the
company’s
practices
in
court.
There
was
another
story
for
the
corporate
chiefs
who

were
going
to
have
to
pay
for
it.

And
yet
another
story
for
the
heads
of
business
units
and

departments
who
were
going
to
have
to
live
with
the
IG
program
everyday
in
the
real
world.

In
“Made
to
Stick,”
Dan
and
Chip
Heath6
argue
that
storytelling
is
a
critical
skill
for
anyone

wanting
their
ideas
heard,
remembered,
and
acted
upon.
According
to
them,
“stories
have

the
amazing
dual
power
to
simulate
and
to
inspire,”
as
they
provide
a
simple,
concrete
way

for
others
to
understand
your
ideas.

P a g e
|
5

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

The
ability
to
tell
stories
is
so
important
in
the
IG
world
because
of
its
complexity
and

breadth.
Despite
this
complexity,
I
believe
that
there
are
only
two
basic
“plots”
to
the
IG

story.

The
first
is
the
“faster,
better,
cheaper”
plot.
In
other
words,
IG
can
help
organizations

make
decisions/create
products/go
to
market/
etc.
faster.
It
can
also
make
business

processes
more
efficient
(i.e.,
better),
and
enable
the
organization
to
lower
the
costs
of

many
business
processes
(i.e.,
cheaper).

Steve
Bailey,
author
of
“Managing
the
Crowd:
Rethinking
Records
Management
for
the
Web

2.0
World”7
convincingly
argues
in
his
work
that
the
information
management
community

hasn’t
done
a
good
job
of
putting
hard
numbers
behind
the
“faster,
better,
cheaper”
story.
I

agree,
because
aside
from
some
near-‐apocryphal
statistics
those
are
frequently
used,
to
my

knowledge,
the
economic
case
has
not
been
universally
made.

However,
IG
professionals
can
make
solid
economic
arguments
that
are
specific
to
their

organizations.
I
have
helped
many
of
my
clients
do
this.

Some
have
been
financially

dramatic
(increase
profit
$300
million
over
3
years),
some
strategically
profound

(competitive
advantage
in
our
market
for
2
years),
and
some
have
been
very
practical
(cut

email
costs).

The
second
basic
plot
of
the
IG
story
is
“fear,
uncertainty,
and
doubt.”
This
story
focuses

on
risk
side
of
IG.
This
has
been
a
relatively
easy
story
to
tell
in
the
past
few
years,
with

many
massive
business
failures
and
high
profile
court
cases
tied
to
IG
shortfalls.

A
note
of

caution
about
this
plot:
don’t
overuse
it.

Many
in
the
IG
field
are
guilty
of
over-‐relying
on

the
“sky
is
falling”
argument
to
make
their
point.
I
have
seen
too
many
presentations
in
too

many
dim
conference
rooms
where
the
IG
story
starts
with
the
same
few
slides
detailing

eye-‐popping
court
judgments,
executives
going
to
jail,
and
so
on.
This
story
can
be
effective,

but
it
loses
is
power
if
it’s
overused.

Both
IG
plots
have
merit.
The
key
is
to
tailor
the
story
to
the
audience
and
tell
it
using

practical,
concrete
examples.
Business
units
that
drive
80%
of
the
company’s
profits
may

not
care
as
much
about
risk
as
the
compliance
department.
The
litigation
team
may
not
care

as
much
about
cutting
information
management
costs
as
the
CFO.

This
book
tells
the
IG
story
using
both
plots.
Take
them,
make
them
your
own,
and
tell
your

own
IG
story.

Be
Practical

Start
in
the
Right
Place

P a g e
|
6

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

“Organisations
become
overwhelmed
when
they
start
recognising
the
many
risks

inherent
in
information
mismanagement.
‘Trying
to
address
them
all
at
once
can
feel

like
trying
to
boil
the
ocean.’”

“The
Future
of
Enterprise
Information
Governance,”
Economist
Intelligence
Unit8

Some
time
ago,
I
had
a
client
with
over
10,000
poorly
indexed,
improperly
stored,
and

nearly
undocumented
backup
tapes.
The
metaphorical
weight
of
these
tapes
around
the

neck
of
the
poor
folks
trying
to
implement
an
IG
program
at
the
company
was
massive.
How

could
they
even
begin
to
think
about
“easy”
things
like
policy
development
when
they
had

the
problem
of
10,000
legacy
backup
tapes
to
deal
with?

Many
organizations
are
in
this
position.
They
have
so
much
unmanaged
information
in
their

environment
that
it
effectively
paralyzes
them.
It
doesn’t
have
to
be
this
way.
In
fact,

organizations
should
focus
first
on
building
the
foundation
for
their
program
(policies,

procedures,
etc),
implementing
those
foundations
(tools,
training,
etc.)
and
only
then

cleaning
up
their
environment.
This
isn’t
the
only
way
to
approach
IG,
but
it
is
a
useful

framework
for
organizations
that
are
stuck.

This
approach
(detailed
in
Figure
1)
encourages
organizations
to
build
the
“new
world”
of

their
IG
program,
and
them
bring
old
content
into
that
world
over
time.
This
is
a
conceptual

model;
in
the
real
world
these
things
often
happen
simultaneously,
in
a
different
order,
and

faster
or
more
slowly
than
we
like.

Foundation

(policies)

Implementation

(tools,
training)

Remediation

(clean
up
the
past)

Continuous
Improvement

(audit
and
adjust)

Figure 1: A Practical Approach to Building an IG Program

Start
Small

P a g e
|
7

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

“Real
transformation
takes
time.
Complex
efforts
to
change
strategies
or
restructure

businesses
risk
losing
momentum
if
there
are
no
sort-term
goals
to
meet
or

celebrate.”

John
P.
Kotter,
Leading
Change9

I
had
another
client
with
75,000
employees
across
the
globe
involved
in
vastly
different

commercial
activities.
The
client
had
bought
into
the
dogma
that
IG
“must
be
done
on
an

enterprise
level.”
However,
the
complexity
of
implementing
a
single
email
management

policy
across
the
enterprise
(much
less
the
technology
and
management
programs
required

to
support
it)
was
so
great
that
in
effect,
nothing
was
happening.

This
is
a
common
mistake.
Although
the
goal
of
IG
should
be
consistent,
defensible
practices

across
an
entire
enterprise,
that
doesn’t
mean
that
the
entire
enterprise
needs
to
get
there

at
once.
In
fact,
the
more
effective
approach
is
often
to
start
small,
and
focus
on
a

manageable
group
in
which
to
try,
test,
and
validate
the
IG
approach.
Yes,
it
is
critical
that

the
principles
of
the
IG
program
can
be
effectively
implemented
across
the
enterprise,
but

starting
small
will
only
make
the
program
better.

So,
write
the
policies,
select
the
technology,
design
the
training
with
the
enterprise
in
mind,

but
try
it
first
on
a
manageable
group.
What
you
learn
from
this
approach
will
make
your

eventual
enterprise
program
better
and
increase
the
likelihood
of
IG
success
by
giving
you

powerful,
practical
IG
stories
to
tell,
and
thus
building
credibility
and
capital
with
decision

makers
and
stakeholders.

IG
is
Change
Management

“Top-down
support
is
critical
to
the
success
of
any
information
governance
strategy.”

“The
Future
of
Enterprise
Information
Governance,”
Economist
Intelligence
Unit10

IG
and
change
management
are
inseparable.
For
many
years
organizations
have
effectively

allowed
knowledge
workers
to
create,
use,
retain,
and
destroy
digital
information
with

almost
no
(enforced)
rules
or
(effective)
controls.
IG
seeks
to
change
that.
It
is
not
an
easy

change.

Just
think
about
how
you
personally
view
your
email
at
work.
Even
the
most
enlightened
IG

practitioners
probably
feel
a
stab
of
angst
at
the
idea
of
someone
-‐
or
some
policy
-‐
dictating

how
they
manage
“their”
email.
Multiply
this
feeling
across
hundred
or
thousands
of
less
IG-‐
enlightened
employees
and
the
change
management
challenge
becomes
clear.

The
social
and
cultural
aspects
of
IG
change
are
often
ignored
-‐
at
an
organization’s
peril.

When
implementing
IG,
you
consider
the
following:

P a g e
|
8

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

1) IG
change
will
not
happen
from
the
bottom
up.

2) IG
change
will
not
happen
unless
we
honestly
calculate
the
cost
of
the
change

and
plan
for
it.

3) IG
change
will
not
happen
unless
we
learn
to
tell
the
IG
stories.

4) IG
change
will
not
happen
unless
we
can
create
and
point
to
its
benefits
in
the

short-‐term.

5) IG
change
will
not
happen
without
the
support
of
all
the
stakeholders,
including

legal,
IT,
records
management,
and
business
leaders.

P a g e
|
9

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

1. We Can’t Keep Everything Forever
“Information
workers,
who
comprise
about
63%
of
the
U.S.
work
force,
are
each

bombarded
with
1.6
gigabytes
of
information
on
average
every
day
through
emails,

reports,
blogs,
text
messages,
calls
and
more.
.
.”

“Don’t
You
Dare
Email
This
Story,”
Wall
Street
Journal11

IN
BRIEF.
IG
makes
sense
because
it
enables
organizations
to
get
rid
of
unnecessary

information
in
a
defensible
manner.
Organizations
need
a
sensible
way
to
dispose
of

information
in
order
to
reduce
the
cost
and
complexity
of
IT
environment.
Having

unnecessary
information
around
only
makes
it
more
difficult
and
expensive
to

harness
information
that
has
value.

Most
statistics
on
the
volume
of
digital
information
organizations
create
contain
numbers

so
large
that
they
are
hard
to
comprehend
(for
example,
“the
digital
universe”
is
281

exabytes
in
size12).
Organizations
experience
30,
50,
or
even
100
per
cent
annual
growth
in

the
volume
of
information
they
store.
The
trend
doesn’t
seem
to
be
slowing
down.
Although

the
cost
of
storage
hardware
continues
to
drop,
storage
hardware
costs
are
just
the

beginning.
According
to
International
Data
Corporation,
the
total
cost
of
storage
ownership

“far
outweighs
the
initial
purchase
price”
of
the
hardware,
and
includes
factors
such
as

migration,
outage,
performance,
information
governance,
environmental,
data
protection,

maintenance,
and
staff
costs.13

Organizations
often
claim
that
they
are
just
keeping
a
piece
of
information
“for
now.”

Without
a
firm
plan
in
place,
this
really
means
“keeping
it
forever.”
After
all,
unless
you
plan

on
keeping
a
piece
of
information
forever,
you
will
need
to
make
a
destruction
decision

about
it
at
some
point.
Will
that
destruction
decision
be
easier
or
more
difficult
in
the

future?
After
all,
in
three,
five,
or
ten
years
will:

 You
have
the
software
that
created
the
information?

 You
have
the
hardware
to
read
the
media
that
the
information
is
stored
on?

 The
employee
that
created
it
still
be
working
at
the
company?

 The
department
that
the
employee
worked
in
still
exist?

 Anyone
remember
anything
about
the
project
that
document
was
created
for?

 Litigation
be
filed
that
requires
the
preservation
of
that
information?

IG,
with
its
legal
and
compliance
foundations,
provides
a
defensible
approach
to
disposing

of
unnecessary
information.
The
combination
of
good
policies
around
retention
of

P a g e
|
10

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

information
during
normal
business
operations
and
preservation
of
information
during

litigation
or
regulatory
investigation
protects
your
organization.
The
law
doesn’t
require
us

to
keep
everything
forever,
but
only
IG
provides
a
defensible
framework
to
help
us
get
rid
of

the
information
we
don’t
want
and
aren’t
required
to
keep.

P a g e
|
11

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

2. We Can’t Throw Everything Away
“Ensuring
the
right
information
is
available
to
users
when
needed
is
regarded
as
the

highest
business
priority
for
large
companies
in
2009
.
.
.
and
the
vast
majority
of

decision-makers
believe
that
an
effective
information
strategy
has
a
very
significant

impact
on
this
top
business
goal.”

“Managing
Information:
Research
Study
on
Customer
Priorities
and
Challenges,”

RONIN
Corporation14

IN
BRIEF.
IG
makes
sense
because
organizations
can’t
keep
everything
forever,
nor

can
they
throw
everything
away.
We
need
information
–
the
right
information,
in
the

right
place,
at
the
right
time.
Only
IG
provides
the
framework
to
make
good
decisions

about
what
information
to
keep.

If
we
could
throw
away
every
piece
of
information
created
and
received
in
our
institutions

whenever
we
wanted
to,
there
would
be
little
need
for
IG.
The
reality,
of
course,
is
much

different.

Information
is
how
we
do
business
and,
to
a
greater
degree
each
year,
business

success
is
influenced
by
how
well
we
manage
that
information.

Although
most
information

is
created
by
individuals,
“enterprises
are
responsible
for
the
security,
privacy,
reliability,

and
compliance
of
85%”
of
it.
15
This
is
the
role
of
IG.

Some
information
we
keep
because
of
its
business
value.
Some
we
keep
because
of
legal

requirements.
By
some
calculations,
there
are
thousands
of
laws
and
regulations
in
the
US

alone
that
speak
to
the
way
organizations
must
manage
their
information.

The
role
of
IG
is

to
parse
those
laws
and
regulations
into
practical
policies
and
retention
schedules
that

guide
the
organization
on
its
proper
management.
Without
an
IG
program,
organizations

are
at
risk
of
breaking
the
law.

Certain
external
events,
such
as
litigation
or
a
regulatory
investigations,
also
create
special

legal
requirements
for
the
management
of
information.
In
these
situations,
even

information
that
could
normally
be
thrown
away
has
to
be
preserved
and
properly

managed.
Failure
to
do
so
opens
an
organization
and
its
employees
up
to
serious
criminal

and
civil
penalties,
such
as
those
spelled
out
in
Section
802
of
Sarbanes
Oxley:

“Whoever
knowingly
.
.
.

destroy[s]

.
.
.
any
record,
document,
or
tangible
object
with

the
intent
to
impede,
obstruct,
or
influence
the
investigation
or
proper

administration
of
any
matter
.
.
.
shall
be
fined
under
this
title,
imprisoned
not
more

than
20
years,
or
both.16

We
can’t
throw
everything
away.
We
need
some
way
to
determine
which
information
has

value
-‐
either
because
of
business
goals
or
legal
requirements.
IG
helps
us
with
this.

P a g e
|
12

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

3. E-Discovery
“It
costs
about
20
cents
to
buy
1GB
of
storage,
however,
it
costs
around
$3500
to

review
1
GB
of
storage.”

AIIM
International
Email
Management
ROI
Calculator17

“87%
of
lawyers
who
responded
to
the
survey
said
electronic
discovery
is
too
costly…

A
fundamental
problem
stems
from
companies’
not
considering
the
retention
of

information.”

Digital
Data
Drive
Up
Legal
Costs,
Wall
Street
Journal18

IN
BRIEF.
IG
makes
sense
because
it
reduces
the
cost
and
pain
of
discovery.

Proactively
managing
information
reduces
the
volume
of
information
exposed
to
e-
discovery
and
simplifies
the
task
of
finding
and
producing
responsive
information.

In
the
past
five
years,
electronic
discovery
has
evolved
from
a
specialized
legal
issue
into
a

disruptive
force
in
the
business,
IT,
legal,
and
information
management
realms.

This

transformation
was
kicked
off
in
the
US
by
the
2006
amendments
to
the
Federal
Rules
of

Civil
Procedure,
and
fueled
by
years
of
inattention
to
information
management
at
many

organizations,
which
had
allowed
vast
stockpiles
of
unnecessary
email,
documents,
and

databases
to
accumulate.

Today,
organizations
can
expect
to
spend
millions
of
dollars
finding,
processing,
and

producing
responsive
digital
information
in
the
course
of
a
major
lawsuit.
One
out
of
five

large
organizations
spends
more
than
$10
million
each
year
on
litigation
(excluding

settlements
and
judgments).
19By
2011,
it
is
expected
that
organizations
will
spend
nearly

$5
billion
annually
on
e-‐discovery
tools.
20

The
expense
of
e-‐discovery
comes
from
many
sources,
but
one
of
the
most
significant
is
the

cost
of
finding,
processing,
and
reviewing
information
that
has
been
unnecessarily
retained.

The
law
on
this
point
is
quite
simple:
if
you
possess
information
at
the
time
you
know
or

suspect
it
will
be
responsive
to
a
legal
matter,
you
must
preserve
it
–
even
if
you
could
have

normally
disposed
of
it
in
accordance
with
your
records
management
program.21

The
proactive
nature
of
IG
means
that
unnecessary
information
is
disposed
of
as
soon
as
it

is
no
longer
needed
and
all
legal
requirements
for
its
retention
or
preservation
have
been

satisfied.
IG
enables
us
to
get
rid
of
unnecessary
information
in
a
defensible
manner.
As

such,
it
can
reduce
the
amount
of
information
that
needs
to
be
reviewed
in
the
course
of
a

legal
matter.

P a g e
|
13

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

When
working
with
clients,
it
is
not
uncommon
to
find
that
75
to
95
percent
of
the

information
created
by
the
organization
in
the
email
system,
for
example,
has
no
long-‐term

business
value
or
legal
retention
requirement
and
can
be
disposed
of
in
the
ordinary
course

of
business.
These
percentages
vary
by
system
and
industry,
but
the
amount
of
“record”

content
is
usually
much
lower
than
“non-‐record.”
Further,
a
good
IG
program
reduces
the

amount
of
duplicate
information
stored
by
an
enterprise.
Duplication
is
expensive
and

wasteful.
In
our
e-‐discovery
practice,
it
is
not
uncommon
to
find
that
30
percent
or
more
of

the
data
we
collect
from
clients
is
duplicate
information.

The
value
of
IG
then,
is
that
it
can
help
organizations
defensibly
reduce
the
amount
of

information
stored
by
orders
of
magnitude
–
a
benefit
that
is
felt
not
only
in
reduced

management
costs,
but
also
reduced
e-‐discovery
costs
and
risks.

P a g e
|
14

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

4. Your Employees are Begging for It – Just Listen
“When
you
start
to
actively
address
your
organization's
information
overload

challenges
and
give
people
the
guidance
and
tools
they
need
to
work
more
effectively,

amazing
things
happen.
They
start
to
make
better
decisions.
They
finish
projects

faster.
They
generate
new
ideas.
And
they
drive
business
growth.”

Basex
Information
Overload
Exposure
Assessment22

IN
BRIEF.
IG
makes
sense
because
it
help
knowledge
workers
separate
“signal”
from

“noise”
in
their
information
flows.
By
helping
organizations
focus
on
the
most

valuable
information,
IG
improves
information
delivery
and
improves
productivity.

Study
after
study
shows
that
most
knowledge
workers
feel
overwhelmed
by
the
amount
of

information
they
have
to
deal
with.
One
study
found
that
“sheer
overload”
is
the
biggest

problem
with
email
as
a
business
tool.
23
Another
says
that
most
professionals
spent
way

too
much
time
looking
for
information
and
feel
they
could
not
handle
any
“increases
in

information
flow.”24
Yet
another
study
claims
that
companies
in
the
US
lose
$900
billion

each
year
worth
of
employee
productivity
due
to
information
overload.25

Our
experience
with
implementing
IG
programs
has
taught
me
that,
after
a
period
of
initial

resistance,
most
knowledge
workers
appreciate
the
clarity
that
IG
policies
and
technology

provide.
Rather
than
struggling
to
invent
their
own
“filing
system”
and
worrying
about
the

trouble
that
they
may
face
if
they
get
it
wrong,
the
majority
of
employees
quickly

understand
the
value
of
IG
and
make
it
part
of
their
daily
routine.
At
one
organization
the

time
that
employees
spent
managing
information
dropped
by
50%
within
three
months
of

program
implementation.

The
deluge
of
poorly
managed,
redundant,
irrelevant,
and
unclassified
information
that

most
knowledge
workers
face
today
is
huge
and
growing.
IG
can
improve
productivity
and

reduce
the
impact
of
information
overload
by
helping
organizations:

 Classify
information
better
so
it
can
more
easily
be
found

 Get
rid
of
unnecessary
information
so
employees
don’t
have
to
weed
through
it

 Better
target
and
personalize
information
for
individuals
and
communities

 Provide
better
access
to
information
while
still
meeting
confidentiality
and

information
protection
requirements

 Assign
resources
and
technology
to
information
commensurate
with
its
value

P a g e
|
15

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

5. It Ain’t Gonna Get Any Easier
“By
far
the
biggest
mistake
people
make
when
trying
to
change
organizations
is
to

plunge
ahead
without
establishing
a
high
enough
sense
of
urgency
in
fellow

managers
and
employees.
This
error
is
fatal
because
transformations
always
fail
to

achieve
their
objectives
when
complacency
levels
are
high.”

John
P.
Kotter,
“Leading
Change,”
Harvard
Business
School
Press,
1996,
p.
4.

IN
BRIEF:
IG
makes
sense
because
it
is
a
proven
way
for
organizations
to
respond
to

new
laws
and
technologies
that
create
new
requirements
and
challenges.

The

problem
of
IG
will
not
get
easier
over
time,
so
organizations
should
get
started
now.

Every
day
the
pile
of
unmanaged
information
in
your
organization
grows.
Every
day
the

habits
of
your
knowledge
workers
get
more
ingrained.
Every
day
new
technologies
enter

your
enterprise
and
create
new
sources
of
unmanaged
risk.
Every
day
technology
gets
more

complex.
Every
day
courts
and
regulators
grow
more
sophisticated
and
demanding
when
it

comes
to
information
management.
Time
will
not
make
the
information
management

problem
any
easier.

More
regulation
of
information
management
is
expected.

“It’s
now
‘inevitable
that
more
regulation
will
come,
forcing
companies
to
be
more

ethical,
more
compliant
and
overall
better
corporate
citizens.’"

Former
SEC
Chairman
Harvey
Pitt26

Beginning
as
early
as
the
1970s
(with
privacy
law
directed
at
the
federal
government)
and

intensifying
in
the
early
years
of
the
new
millennium
(with
Sarbanes-‐Oxley
and
the
revised

Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure),
governments,
regulators,
and
standards
bodies
have

demonstrated
an
increasing
appetite
for
the
regulation
of
IT
and
information.
Increasing

federal
and
state
regulation
has
driven
demand
for
IG
products
and
services.
27

The
current
administration
in
the
US,
as
well
as
regulators
in
nations
across
the
globe,
have

demonstrated
an
increasing
appetite
for
regulation;
an
appetite
that
seems
only
to
be

increasing
in
the
wake
of
the
recent
global
economic
crisis
that
is
widely
seen
as
having
a

root
cause
in
inadequate
government
oversight
and
regulation.
This
is
likely
to
drive
legal

and
regulatory
changes
that
will
create
new
IG
requirements
for
organizations.

Information
is
getting
more
complex.

P a g e
|
16

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

“Using
a
growing
set
of
free
and
simple
tools
and
applications,
it
is
easy
to
create

customized,
personal
web-based
environments
—
a
personal
web
—
that
explicitly

supports
one’s
social,
professional,
learning
and
other
activities
via
highly

personalized
windows
to
the
networked
world.”

The
New
Horizon
Report28

The
growing
business
use
of
Web
2.0
technologies
such
as
blogs,
wikis,
and
social

networking
tools,
along
with
other
developments
such
as
Internet
“cloud”
based

applications,
are
making
information
management
more
challenging.
The
emergence
of

such
technologies
is
a
challenge
to
the
“very
strong
and
entrenched
‘command
and
control’

ethos
that
is
prevalent
in
the
records
management
world.29

The
reality
today
is
that
each
knowledge
worker
–
like
it
or
not
–
is
his
or
her
own
records

manager.
Responsibility
for
the
creation
and
management
of
information
has
become
highly

distributed
and
a
new
generation
of
Internet-‐based
tools
and
applications
only
encourage

this
trend.

In
addition,
technologies
like
“Google
Wave”30
create
new
difficulties.
Products
that
blend

together
formerly
discrete
communication,
collaboration
and
content
creation
tools

challenge
the
long-‐standing
focus
on
“the
document”
and
usher
in
a
world
where
we
no

longer
manage
discrete
piece
of
information.

The
“wave”
of
information
created
by
these

tools
is
an
ever-‐changing
Hydra
that
pulls
information
from
a
variety
of
sources
and
blends

them
together
into
an
environment
that
cannot
be
“retained”
or
managed
using
traditional

approaches.

As
technology
–
and
the
new
forms
of
information
created
by
that
technology
–
grows
more

complex,
IG
provides
the
foundation
from
which
we
can
build
processes
and
techniques
to

properly
manage
that
information.
IG
isn’t
getting
any
easier
-‐
the
time
to
act
is
now.

P a g e
|
17

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

6. The Connected Thinking of IG is the Future of
Business Success
“While
detailed
knowledge
of
a
single
area
once
guaranteed
success,
today
the
top

rewards
go
to
those
who
can
operate
with
equal
aplomb
in
starkly
different
realms.”

Daniel
Pink,
“A
Whole
New
Mind”31

IN
BRIEF.
IG
makes
sense
because
it
reflects
the
future
of
organizational
culture
–

diverse
groups
working
together
to
solve
complex
problems.
IG
can
help
to
foster
this

culture
and
lead
organizational
change.

In
the
bestselling
book,
“A
Whole
New
Mind,”
Daniel
H.
Pink32
argues
that
the
future
belongs

to
those
who
can
see
across
boundaries
to
envision
the
“connections
between
diverse,
and

seemingly
separate,
disciplines.”
He
posits
that
this
ability
is
becoming
essential
to
the

success
of
individuals
and
organizations.

This
theory
is
directly
applicable
to
information
governance.
Information
governance,
with

its
legal,
technology,
records
management,
and
business
elements,
is
by
nature
multi-‐
disciplinary.
Success
in
IG
is
synonymous
with
the
ability
to
peer
beyond
the
confines
of
one

discipline
to
understand
how
each
discipline
connects
with
the
others
to
solve
the
problem.

Steve
Bailey
suggests
that
“[r]ecords
management
has
.
.
.
long
been
defined
by
the

narrowness
of
its
focus”33
But,
records
management
shouldn’t
be
singled
out.
Just
as
records

management
has
clung
to
the
idea
that
it
should
only
worry
about
one
narrow
class
of

information
(i.e.,
records
–
often
in
paper
form),
IT
has
largely
refused
to
take
management

responsibility
for
the
information
flowing
through
its
systems.
Business
leaders
and

attorneys
have
their
own
form
of
blinders
that
are
a
barrier
to
the
connected
thinking
and

problem
solving
that
IG
requires.

As
a
consultant,
I
have
many
times
sat
in
windowless
rooms
drinking
terrible
coffee
and

mediating
between
these
groups.
Although
this
is
rewarding
work,
the
pattern
is
always
the

same:
nobody
understands
that
they
are
all
trying
to
solve
the
same
problem.
Each
group
is

more
than
willing
to
share
their
discipline’s
view
of
the
problem
(often
using
their
“outside

voices”),
but
nobody
believes
that
they
“own”
the
IG
problem
as
a
whole.

And,
in
most
cases
they
are
right.
Corporate
governance
structures
mostly
have
not
evolved

to
address
the
complex
issues
of
IG.
The
result?
When
the
committees
and
task
forces
and

working
groups
have
all
come
and
gone,
nobody
is
on
the
line
–
in
their
career
and
their

paycheck
-‐
for
the
success
of
the
IG
effort.

P a g e
|
18

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

The
flipside
of
this
is
equally
true.
When
everyone
owns
a
task,
nobody
in
particular
owns

the
task.
Thus,
nobody
can
be
held
accountable.
Corporate
structures
aren’t
very
good
at

holding
groups
responsible
-‐
at
least
at
the
task
level.

In
mediating
such
sessions,
I
have
been
most
successful
when
each
group
has
learned
–

often
through
a
traumatic
experience
-‐
to
empathize
with
the
others
(incidentally,
another

“right
brain”
quality
that
Pink
points
out
as
essential).

Any
guesses
as
to
what
the
catalyst

for
this
empathy
is
the
majority
of
the
time?
Lawsuits.
Investigations.
Major
business
events

that
require
legal,
IT,
records
management,
and
business
to
work
together
–
often
under

enormous
pressure
–
to
solve
a
problem.

P a g e
|
19

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

7. The Courts Will Come Looking for IG
“It
is
clear
that
[the]
lack
of
a
retention
policy
and
irresponsible
data
retention

practices
are
responsible
for
the
loss
of
significant
data
.
.
.
Information
management

policies
are
not
a
dark
or
novel
art.
Numerous
authoritative
organizations
have
long

promulgated
policy
guidelines
for
document
retention
and
destruction.”

Philip
M.
Adams
&
Associates,
LLC
v.
Dell,
Inc.,
200934

IN
BRIEF.
IG
makes
sense
because
courts
and
regulators
will
closely
examine
your
IG

program.
Falling
short
can
lead
to
fines,
sanctions,
loss
of
cases,
and
other
outcomes

that
have
negative
business
and
financial
consequences.

There
used
to
be
an
open
secret
about
IG.
Nobody
talked
about
it,
but
everyone
believed
it.

The
secret?
If
all
you
did
about
IG
was
write
a
bunch
of
words
on
a
piece
of
paper,
call
it
a

policy,
and
put
it
in
a
binder
on
a
shelf
somewhere,
you
were
good.
You
had
taken
care
of

your
problem.

That
era
is
over.

Today,
courts,
regulators,
and
other
outside
parties
have
grown
in
sophistication
and

expertise
when
it
comes
to
IG.
Dead
policies
on
dead
trees
don’t
work.
Today,
your
IG

program
needs
to
be
comprehensive,
funded,
enforced,
and
real.

Recent
cases
demonstrate

this.
For
example,
in
the
case
quoted
above,
the
court
not
only
looked
for
the
existence
of
an

IG
program,
but
evaluated
the
legitimacy
of
various
aspects
of
the
program
in
detail.
It

questioned
the
lack
of
IG
policies,
stating
that
the
litigant
“did
not
have
a
.
.
.
information

management
policy”
and
questioned
why
it
offered
“no
statement
from
management-‐level

persons
explaining
its
practices,
or
existence
of
policies.”35

Further,
the
court
made
an
interesting
statement
about
evaluating
IG
programs
that
should

put
all
organizations
on
notice
that
they
can
expect
outside
parties
–
including
courts
and

regulators
–
to
evaluate
the
quality
and
reasonableness
of
their
IG
programs:

“A
court-and
more
importantly,
a
litigant
–
is
not
required
to
simply
accept

whatever
information
management
practices
a
party
may
have.
A
practice
may
be

unreasonable,
given
responsibilities
to
third
parties.
While
a
party
may
design
its

information
management
practices
to
suit
its
business
purposes,
one
of
those

business
purposes
must
be
accountability
to
third
parties.

An
IG
program
is
not
merely
an
internal,
private
affair.
Rather,
an
IG
program
is
a
statement

to
the
world
about
how
seriously
you
take
your
information
management
obligations.

Expect
it
to
be
closely
examined.

P a g e
|
20

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

8. Manage Risk: Information Is a Big One
“Risk
doesn’t
mean
danger—it
just
means
not
knowing
what
the
future
holds.
That

insight
resides
at
the
core
of
risk
management
for
companies,
whether
in
managing

the
potential
downside
of
an
investment
or
putting
a
value
on
the
option
of
waiting

when
making
irreversible
decisions.”

McKinsey
Quarterly,
“Peter
L.
Bernstein
on
Risk”36

IN
BRIEF.
Organizations
need
to
do
a
better
job
of
identifying
and
managing
risk.
The

risk
of
information
management
failures
is
a
critical
risk
that
IG
helps
to
mitigate.

Organizations
cannot
get
an
accurate
picture
of
their
enterprise
risk
without
including
IG
in

that
calculation.
The
cost
of
information
management
failures
has
grown
in
recent
years,

and
is
only
growing
as
regulation
and
scrutiny
in
this
area
intensifies.
The
widespread

failure
of
financial
institutions
to
adequately
quantify
and
mange
risk
is
seen
by
many
to
be

a
major
contributor
to
the
current
economic
downturn.

In
fact,
the
Shareholder
Bill
of
Rights
Act
of
2009,
a
new
law
currently
being
considered
by

the
US
Congress
states
that,
“both
executive
management
and
boards
of
directors
have

failed
in
their
most
basic
duties,
including
to
.
.
.
appropriately
analyze
and
oversee

enterprise
risk.”

The
way
that
information
is
managed
can
be
the
difference
between
winning
and
losing
in

litigation.
It
can
dramatically
affect
the
outcome
of
regulatory
investigations.
It
contributes

significantly
to
the
success
of
mergers
and
acquisitions.

IG
needs
to
be
part
of
every

organization’s
strategy
to
measure
and
mitigate
enterprise
risk.

P a g e
|
21

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

9. Email: Reason Enough

“Workers
distracted
by
phone
calls,
e-mails
and
text
messages
suffer
a
greater
loss
of

IQ
than
a
person
smoking
marijuana,
a
British
study
shows.”

Emails
‘hurt
IQ
more
than
pot,’
CNN.com37

IN
BRIEF.
IG
makes
sense
because
it
helps
organizations
take
control
of
email.
Solving

email
should
be
a
top
priority
for
every
organization.

According
to
the
study
quoted
above,
using
email
can
be
hazardous
to
your
intelligence.

Sometimes
I
think
that
the
same
IQ
deficit
sets
in
when
companies
try
to
manage
email.

Everything
they
have
learned
about
information
management
seems
to
be
forgotten,
and

they
end
up
with
policies
that
indiscriminately
keep
every
email
message,
or
throw
away

every
message,
regardless
of
what
the
message
contains.
Or,
they
impose
volume
limitations

without
the
support
of
a
policy
that
tells
employees
that
some
messages
have
legal

implications
and
cannot
be
blown
away
simply
because
they
violate
an
arbitrary
storage

limitation.
Or,
they
just
do
nothing.

Email
is
how
we
do
business
today.
Our
email
systems
are
full
of
“a
significant
number
of

important
emails
involving
the
organization
in
obligations,
agreements,
contracts,

regulations
and
discussion.”38
At
the
same
time,
email
mismanagement
causes
so
many

problems
that
it’s
amazing
we
use
it
at
all.

IG
helps
us
take
control
of
the
email
management
problem.
IG
policies
provide
rules
on
how

email
is
managed.
Retention
schedules
guide
the
retention
and
disposition
of
email.

Information
technology
helps
us
implement
and
enforce
the
policies.
IG
training
ensures

that
everyone
understand
their
responsibilities.

Apply
IG
to
your
email
system
–
it’s
reason
enough
to
invest
in
an
IG
program.
When
doing

so,
keep
the
following
in
mind:

1) Develop
defensible
policies
that
align
with
your
approach
to
information

management
in
other
systems

2) Consider
turning
off
the
ability
for
users
to
export
email
to
local
files

3) Ensure
that
your
Legal
Hold
process
covers
email

4) Look
at
email
archiving
to
reduce
volume,
duplication,
and
improve
centralized

management
capabilities

P a g e
|
22

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

10. IG Provides Certainty
Less
than
10
per
cent
of
respondents
claimed
that
they
were
“very
confident”
that

“emails
relating
to
document
commitments
and
obligations
.
.
.
are
recorded,

complete,
and
retrievable.”

AIIM
Industry
Watch:
Email
Management,
The
Good,
The
Bad
and
The
Ugly39

IN
BRIEF:
IG
provides
organizations
with
certainty
that
they
are
properly
managing

their
information
assets,
and
confidence
that
they
won’t
be
surprised
when
litigation

or
investigation
hits.
Also,
IG
provides
certainty
that
money
and
resources
are
being

spent
wisely,
which
is
important
in
an
era
of
increasing
shareholder
activism.

In
“Life
Without
Lawyers,”
Philip
K.
Howard
argues
that
the
structure
and
application
of
the

law
in
the
US
makes
it
more
difficult
for
businesses
and
institutions
such
as
schools
and

hospitals
to
succeed.
“Straining
daily
choices
through
a
legal
sieve
basically
kills
the
human

instinct
needed
to
get
things
done,”
he
writes.40

Managing
information
is
complex,
especially
for
global
companies
impacted
by
laws
and

regulations
in
multiple
jurisdictions.

The
fear
of
throwing
away
the
wrong
piece
of

information
can
be
paralyzing
–
I
have
seen
it
first
hand
at
many
companies.

When
I
started
working
with
one
of
my
clients,
they
proudly
showed
me
a
binder
full
or

well-‐written
IG
policies
and
procedures.
As
I
read
through
them,
I
wondered
why
they

needed
me.
Then,
when
I
asked
how
the
policies
were
being
enforced,
the
reason
became

clear.
They
were
in
a
fairly
litigious
industry,
and
due
to
multiple,
broadly
drawn
and

overlapping
Legal
Holds
notices,
the
IG
policies
had
in
effect
been
suspended.
No

information
was
being
disposed
of,
and
it
had
been
this
way
for
over
two
years.

Information
systems
were
under
serious
strain.
Expenses
were
growing.
And
yet,
the

organization
still
lived
in
fear
that
they
would
be
hit
with
a
spoliation
(i.e.,
destruction
of

evidence)
claim.

The
organization
was
being
slowly
strangled.

We
helped
the
client
build
a
better
understanding
of
their
information
environment,
narrow

the
scope
of
unnecessarily
broad
Legal
Holds,
and
build
a
comprehensive,
contemporary
IG

program.
They
began
to
move
forward
with
confidence
–
even
the
outside
litigators
blessed

the
program.

IG
provides
certainty
that
information
is
being
managed
in
a
way
that
complies
with
the
law

and
meets
business
requirements.

No
program
is
foolproof.
Nothing
can
totally
inoculate

you
from
future
problems.
But,
a
well-‐designed
and
implemented
IG
program
can
provide
a

level
of
that
enables
an
organization
to
focus
on
success.

P a g e
|
23

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

Endnotes

1
Elizabeth
Bennett,
“The
Future
of
Enterprise
Information
Governance,”
Economist
Intelligence
Unit,

October
2008.

2Deputy
US
Attorney
General
Paul
McNulty,
as
quoted
by
Alex
B.
Howard,
“Financial
Crimes
Resulting

in
Increased
Compliance
Enforcement,”
SearchCompliance.com,
June
8,
2009.
Online
at,

http://searchcompliance.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid195_gci1358669,00.html?track=
NL-‐1166&ad=707674&asrc=EM_NLS_7535574&uid=8552802

3
Elizabeth
Bennett,
“The
Future
of
Enterprise
Information
Governance,”
Economist
Intelligence
Unit,

October
2008.

4
AIIM
International,
“AIIM
View
On
Information
Governance,”
AIIM
Market
Intelligence,
2008.

5
AIIM
International,
“AIIM
Industry
Watch:
Email
Management,
The
Good,
The
Bad
and
The
Ugly,”

AIIM
International,
May
2009.

6
Chip
Heath
and
Dan
Heath,
“Made
to
Stick:
Why
Some
Ideas
Survive
and
Others
Die,”
Random

House,
2008.

7
Steve
Bailey,
“Managing
the
Crowd:
Rethinking
Records
Management
for
the
Web
2.0
World,”
Facet

Publishing,
2008.

8
Elizabeth
Bennett,
“The
Future
of
Enterprise
Information
Governance,”
Economist
Intelligence
Unit,

October
2008.

9
John
P.
Kotter,
“Leading
Change,”
Harvard
Business
School
Press,
1996,
p.
11.

10
Elizabeth
Bennett,
“The
Future
of
Enterprise
Information
Governance,”
Economist
Intelligence

Unit,
October
2008.

11
Andrea
Coombes,
“Don’t
you
Dare
Email
This
Story,”
Wall
Street
Journal,
May
17,
2009.
Online
at,

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124252211780027326.html

12
International
Data
Corporation,
“The
Diverse
and
Exploding
Digital
Universe:
An
Updated
Forecast

of
Worldwide
Information
Growth
Through
2011,”
March
2008.
Online
at,

http://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-‐reports/diverse-‐exploding-‐digital-‐universe.pdf

13
Nick
Sundby,
“Storage
Economics:
Assessing
the
Real
Cost
of
Storage,”
International
Data

Corporation,
December
2008.

14
“Managing
Information:
Research
Study
on
Customer
Priorities
and
Challenges,”
RONIN

Corporation,
March
2009.

15
International
Data
Corporation,
“The
Diverse
and
Exploding
Digital
Universe:
An
Updated
Forecast

of
Worldwide
Information
Growth
Through
2011,”
March
2008.
Online
at,

http://www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-‐reports/diverse-‐exploding-‐digital-‐universe.pdf

16
US
Federal
Public
Law
107-‐204,
Section
802.

17
AIIM
International,
Email
Management
ROI
Calculator.
Online
at,

http://www.aiim.org/Membership/article.aspx?IDbb=34769

18

“Digital
Data
Drive
up
Legal
Costs,”
Wall
Street
Journal,
September
6,
2008.

19
“Fifth
Annual
Litigation
Trends
Survey
Findings:
Direction
and
Dynamics.”
Fullbright
and
Jaworski

L.L.P.,
2008.
Online
at,
http://www.fulbright.com/mediaroom/files/2008/Fulbright-‐
FifthLitTrends.pdf

20
Forrester
Research,
Inc.,
“Believe
It
—
eDiscovery
Technology
Spending
to
Top
$4.8
Billion
By

2011,”
December,
2006.

21
The
duty
to
preserve
evidence
arise
when
the
litigant
“knows
or
should
know
it
is
relevant
to

imminent
or
ongoing
litigation.”
Jordan
F.
Miller
Corp.
v.
Mid-‐Continent
Aircraft
Service,
Inc,
No.
97-‐
5089
1998
WL
68879

P a g e
|
24

©
2010,
2011
Barclay
T.
Blair


646-‐450-‐4468

Making the Case for Information Governance: 10 Reasons Information Governance Makes Sense

Making the Case for Information Governance: 10 Reasons Information Governance Makes Sense

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Making the Case for Information Governance: 10 Reasons Information Governance Makes Sense

Similar to Making the Case for Information Governance: 10 Reasons Information Governance Makes Sense (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Making the Case for Information Governance: 10 Reasons Information Governance Makes Sense