Information Technology and Information Governance seem like they should be closely aligned, but in practice they often work against each other's goals. Is this inevitable, and if not, how can it be addressed?

1. Information Technology &
Information Governance:
Friends or frenemies?

2. About knowquestion
 Information and Knowledge Management
specialist consulting firm
 “Joining the dots” between technology,
governance, and people
 Based in Canberra and Melbourne
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

3. frenemy, n.
1. Someone who pretends to be a
friend but is actually an enemy
2. A rival with which one maintains
friendly relations
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

4. Case study 1: Tech focus ≠ good
IG
1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0
1 1
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

5. Case study 1: Tech focus ≠ good
IG
 Recordkeeping-compliant system based
on SharePoint 2010
 Mandate to implement new,
comparatively untested system by the
CIO
 12 months design and piloting by the IM
team – lots of bugs discovered and
squashed
 Rollout plan produced to progressively
migrate business areas with a minimum
of disruption over 18 months
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

6. Case study 1: Tech focus ≠ good
IG
 IT never understood the IG complexities
 “Can’t we just migrate everything in one
go?”
 IM manager quit, team was disbanded
and relocated under various IT teams
 IT took control, saw upgrade to
SharePoint 2013 seen as “the answer”
 3 years later, the project is still in limbo
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

7. Case study 2: Don’t bury IG
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

8. Case study 2: Don’t bury IG
 Consultant setting up an Information
Governance structure at request of
business
 Set up overarching process with senior
exec attending steering committee
 Information stewards appointed
 Knowledge café identified key areas
requiring improved governance
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

9. Case study 2: Don’t bury IG
 Responsibility to deliver strategic IM
capability was placed with CIO
 CTO was assigned responsibility
 Treated IM as part of IT architecture
 Redirected IM funds into data architect /
data modelling role
 Lack of money and resources to progress
IM
 3 key IM champions have moved to other
orgs/areas in frustration at being stalledTwitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

10. Case study 3: IT is not “special”
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

11. Case study 3: IT is not “special”
 Local council was having trouble
completing their initiatives and projects
 During a workshop, 600 separate
initiatives were tabled (4 x A0 pieces of
paper, 6pt font)
 A new governance process was devised
and agreed by all major stakeholders
(including IT) to jointly agree on the top
~10 priorities
 Agile approach – everyone collaborates
on completing priorities & minimise
conflicts Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

12. Case study 3: IT is not “special”
 Review of process 3 months later found
that IT had withdrawn nearly all of their
work from the priority queue
 Justification was that “IT know best what
they should be doing”
 Ignored fact that IT choosing to do tasks
that were not a business priority was a
key reason for bottlenecks in the first
place!
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

13. This is not IT’s fault!
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

14. Well, it kind of is.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

15. Mystique and “specialness” of IT
 The productivity revolution from affordable
local computer servers, PCs, and the
internet in the 90s gave IT a ‘touch of
magic’
 For 20 years IT has been able to obtain a
significant budget simply by promising the
technically successful deployment of
technology
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

16. The IG problem
 We know that:
◦ lack of audit, integrity, and data quality
controls leave organisations at legal risk,
cause scandals and reputational damage
◦ poor information and data architecture can
have a serious and ongoing impact on
productivity
◦ technology upgrades decrease productivity by
forcing users to relearn the UI
◦ migration of information and data across
technology platforms are costly and error-
prone
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

17. “Expecting A while
rewarding B”
IT is rewarded for doing tech,
not on managing the impacts of
having done it.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

18. Centralised IT planning
 It’s easy for strategic and project plans to
become a mechanism for IT to:
◦ hold the ultimate veto power
◦ prioritise pet projects
◦ adopt a technically simpler approach
◦ demonstrate “progress” without actual
business benefits
◦ avoid blame for outcomes
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

19. What employees do
 Rather than challenge this mystical,
controlling mentality, employees are going
around IT
 “Shadow IT” spend can be 50% or more
of the corporate IT budget
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

20. What employees do
 Since shadow IT is technically
unauthorised, IG won’t find out about it
officially
 And if it does, IG must either tacitly ignore
the IT directives to follow corporate
process, or protect the interests of the
business
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

21. If IT is a mystical
“black box” it can’t be
strategically used.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

22. Are IT and IG destined
to always be
frenemies?
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

23. A. System changes should
be initiated in response to
business problems.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

24. B. A process of prioritisation
should determine which
problems are to be solved
first.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

25. Senior exec support for the process
 Too often, inconsistent messages from
executives and managers sink
Information Governance initiatives
 IG works when there is ongoing buy in
and follow through from the highest
levels down
 Not a dictatorship but a collaboration
 IG personnel should genuinely listen and
respond to needs, not impose a mandate
 Better buy in from staff = better outcomesTwitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

26. C. Business problems need
to be treated holistically.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

27. Genuine IT engagement
 Good CIOs are recognising the need to
be genuinely strategic about information
and not just technology
 Essential to have consultation and
engagement with all areas of business
 Problem: The business often lacks the
ability to technically describe what’s
needed
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

28. D. Information Governance is
best placed to integrate all
views about information
handling.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

29. Bridging the gap
 Information Governance teams need to
provide both processes and staff
expertise to describe and negotiate the
technical implementation of business
needs by IT
 Adopting this approach is normally a step
outside the comfort zone of both IT and
IG
 Making this relationship work is all about
…
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au

30. Respect.
Twitter: @smbounds
http://knowquestion.com.au