9 Responses to Information Governance v Search: The Battle Lines Are Redrawn

  1. Ralph,
    Thanks for the thought provoking article. The themes you mentioned are ones I have been exploring as well. The challenge, though, is between retention and searching. Do people want to retain everything or do they want to find it easily? My focus, though, is limited to the organisation rather than the wider web.

    I think that records management is changing as the technology changes. However, records management is not a function of technology.

    The issue is whether what is retained and can be retained is usable. The individual may use it or the organisation may use it, but are they willing to invest in search and analytical capacity for dust particle tracking? At some point, we start to step back and understand that how we frame issues and ideas sets our data requirements and what we can take in a glance, a dusty room, may require more effort to do through a digital analysis system.

    In many ways, we are rediscovering nature through the digital domain.

  2. Christopher Carriero says:

    Thanks for the blog post. I work in IT in a highly regulated industry. I believe in a lot of what you are saying. But how can you balance the costs with the philosophy? The problem in some highly regulated industries is that we are required to keep much of our information in house. Much of what we have is not cloud, nor can we use cloud for unstructured information. The costs for storage internally is higher than cloud.

    Also, how do you balance the legal requirement to remove data after a period of time because of the potential exposure to the enterprise by retaining that data as compared to keeping the information around?

    • Ralph Losey says:

      I think the risks and expense of retention are overblown. Also, the counter-risks of deletion are often overlooked. The ESI you deleted could help prove your case. I have seen this happen many times in employment law cases. One side saves the email and texts favorable to them, and the other side does not. They did not know they were going to get sued. With only one side of the story you do not see the context. You do not see, for instance, that the behavior later complained about was in fact invited, even encouraged. Also, you may have deleted the ESI after some court, somewhere, holds that you had a duty to preserve that ESI, that you should have foreseen litigation, or known it was filed, and stopped your routines. Hard to do in some large enterprises.

      Keeping in clouds or not is another issue. I want to outsource sensitive client info to an e-discovery vendor known to be very secure, one with far more resources devoted to cybersecurity than my firm could afford. It is not really to the cloud in that situation, you know exactly where it is and how it is protected. Some corporations may be in the same boat. I think we will see more outsourcing to secure vaults, not just some random clouds.

  3. Ralph, great post and welcome to the good side of IG. I do think that records management has a place but I see it flowing like:

    Capture -> Classify automatically with Search -> Preserve/Delete

    We need to make sure that all information is captured in a place against which search can be applied. Information is then automatically classified, not to delete by default (though some may be REQUIRED to be deleted) but to protect some information from being deleted by the business when that information must be kept.

    One thing, Pivotal’s desire to not delete anything may be directly related to the fact that EMC makes a LOT of money selling storage devices. Deletion needs to not be reflexive but there are times where it is okay. Those lunch emails might lose meaning 5 years down the line. While it may not take a lot of storage the complexity of the search index and the speed of information retrieval COULD suffer. Tech might keep up but tech performance is no longer keeping pace with the growth of information. We’ll need better search tech to keep the pace.

    Going to be fun.


  4. Susan Graham says:

    This was a very interesting article. I am a records manager, and look forward to the time when search makes classification unnecessary. My concern to date has been that search doesn’t retrieve all the relevant documents on a topic, so that the only way someone has of accessing a complete case history of correspondence etc is if it is all stored on the “file”. If, for example, an email simply said, “Yes, go ahead”, can AI search retrieve it as the authorisation for a particular project?

    • Ralph Losey says:

      Quick answer to your question. Yes, most definitely. That would not even take AI. Probably could find by looking at entire chains and families. They would lead to the “Yes, go ahead” email. It is a question of finding the related emails. Of course, if the other emails providing context have already been destroyed, then no. You cannot find what no longer exists. Same is true of filing.

      Contemporaneous writings are far more reliable way to get at the truth than human memory and “he said she said” type disputes. Brian Williams’ memory is just one recent example of this. Without records to refresh memories it is very difficult to find out what really happened. We need to invest in better IG systems. That much we probably agree upon. My suggestion is to put the money into improved search capacities.

  5. […] to writing multi-part blogs in the 10,000 plus words category. For example, my blog last week, Information Governance v Search: The Battle Lines Are Redrawn, was 5,032 […]

  6. […] the post Information Governance v Search: The Battle Lines Are Redrawn on his excellent e-Discovery Team® blog, Ralph states that last year, he “came to believe that […]

%d bloggers like this: