Records Mgmt & Archiving

The new NZ standard will become effective on July 1st 2014.
This standard has also drawn on principles established in the more recent ISO 30300 series of Management systems for records standards.

see:
http://archives.govt.nz/advice/guidance-and-standards/records-management-standard-new-zealand-public-sector

Konrad Walser von der Berner Fachhochschule (Institut für eGovernance) liefert eine wohltuende Betrachtung von GEVER in Inside-IT:
What the hell is GEVER?

http://www.inside-it.ch/articles/36386

GEVER hat die Tendenz immer alles zu erschlagen, und Lead-System zu werden, wie die eierlegende Wollmilchsau -
nicht nur ein Ordnungssystem zu liefern, sondern den Workflow zu optimieren, die Ablageorganisation umfassend zu regeln, die Archivierung zu stabilisieren etc.

Am Schluss bliebt oft ein Trümmerhaufen.
Der Standard hat auch seine positiven Seiten, zB eine gemeinsame Sprache zu entwickeln um diese Themen, aber die Planung und Implementierung von GEVER-Projekten sollte immer realistisch bleiben und einen def. Umfang innerhalb einer Organisation nicht überschreiten.

The team around Jason Baron (ex-head of litigation at NARA) and Barclay Blair has started a lot of initiatives to foster IG on several levels.
It's the very IG thinktank currently.
see: http://www.iginitiative.com

an interesting article has been published in a US journal about
FINDING THE SIGNAL IN THE NOISE: INFORMATION
GOVERNANCE, ANALYTICS, AND THE FUTURE OF LEGAL
PRACTICE
(Bordon / Baron)

Some need to be evangelists ...

Fulltext:
http://jolt.richmond.edu/v20i2/article7.pdf

We know that Information governance is a young and immature concept which unites several disciplines which are still fragmented;
each has it's own community and strategies.

see: http://www.infogovcon.com/blog/entry/the-fragmented-communities-of-information-governance

It is a real goal to bring these communities more together, in order to improve the alignment of the disciplines within a given IG project of an organization incl. the mutual understanding of these disciplines amongst their stakeholders; however it does merely make sense to replace all these IM related disciplines for the sake of a holistic super discsipline.
I guess that this is not an option by anybody in the IG community.
IG will remain an umbrella term; it serves to optimize the orchestration of IM in a given program and corp. culture.

The spring meeting of our chapter takes place in Basel hosted by Roche.

26 May 2014, from 13.30

pls see program: http://europe.arma.org/swiss-chapter/swiss-events

The spring meeting is for members only; if you would like to join ARMA pls contact us: swiss-arma@proxymit.net
or join: http://arma.org/join

my colleague has published interesting thoughts about the future of Information Mgmt.

http://4most.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/2020-predictions/

BYOD is a temporary aberration etc.

the IT organization becomes irrelevant ...again since years .
what we heard from Nicolas Carr in 2003 "IT doesn't matter"
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Carr

http://www.nicholascarr.com/?page_id=99

Another one should be the myth that information is a corp. asset.

Look at information governance budgets; everywhere, content driven initiatives and programs are being eliminated; pushed back to the business; who cares?
again: Barclay Blair (2012), so true ...
http://jhagmann.twoday.net/stories/109331499/

The team around B. Wildhaber is currently working on the new edition:

It will contain an extension on Information Governance and other topics.

see: http://wildhaber.com/index.php/materialien/6-news/127-pla3rm2014

It is planned to appear in Q1 / 2015

The term "disruption" or "disruptive" is quite inflationary for the moment .

allbeit IT or collaboration - Clay Shirky: http://bit.ly/1crXRXo, processes, behavior etc.
C. McKinnon has written a nice article: http://bit.ly/1ibMFAD
Rethinking IM in the age of digital disruption; ....
everything is breaking in an extremely disruptive world: continuity seems to be out. Building trust in a disruptive age? - no more possible.

Bill Jensen (Simplicity) came up with a simple reader and a call to DISRUPT! BE EPIC AND THINK EPIC (25 successful habits about anything goes)
http://disruptmovement.com/

What for?

In the guiding principles for instance (p.148) it is suggested that HOW is the wrong question. Instead all about WHY is most important .

This is exactly the opposite of the core message of Dov Seidman's HOW book.
HOW we do anything means everything.
http://www.howistheanswer.com/

When it comes to the difficult question of information governance implementation, I prefer the HOW. It's much more ambitious ... a real task to build and orchestrate.

Professor William H.J. Hubbard from the University of Chicago Law School recently concluded his Preservation Costs Survey and the results are now available.

go to: http://bit.ly/1lx8gnx
download of executive summary and full report (for free)

The survey “is the first, and to date only, systematic effort to measure the extent and costs of preservation activity across a broad sample of companies,” and collected data from 128 companies, “including companies of all sizes and from a broad range of industries.”
The Survey generated conservative estimates of costs that are solely attributable to preservation obligations (scheduled records).
somehow a restricted scope of ESI.

No surprise, one of the results: Preservation of email and hard drives is the most common source of problems.

As stated in my last article in the Records Mgmt Journal (https://jhagmann.twoday.net/stories/600001224/)
one of the most difficult challenges in IG implementation is to develop a sustainable value proposition for specific business functions.

Top 10 Information Governance trends discovered during Legal Tech NY 2014 seem to confirm this!
especially the second trend is exactly the hard one:
" ....only benefits/value consideration would be able to sustain an IG program designed to take control of your information."

How true! excellent statement.

see:
http://animeshkum.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/top-10-ig-trends-ltny2014/

Yes. "Law firm partners and attorneys are increasingly being asked by their clients to advise on proactive information governance options rather than help with reactive e-discovery actions."

...this would mean more investments in content driven IM (appraisal of information and master data, metadata, tagging etc.) instead of "garbage in garbage out" activities of uncontrolled big data.
Enterprise search and predictive coding cannot help much when the input quality of the data (description) is so poor. Automation is not yet ripe to fully replace intellectual intervention.
Professional records managers have to take a resonsibility in this orchestration.


SEE ALSO: the summary of #LTNY by Barclay Blair
https://twitter.com/btblair/status/433372609053741056