Final Paper Information Governance

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Founded in 1807, John Wiley & Sons is the oldest independent publishing company in the United States. With offi ces in North America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, Wiley is globally committed to developing and marketing print and electronic products and services for our customers’ professional and personal knowledge and understanding.

The Wiley CIO series provides information, tools, and insights to IT executives and managers. The products in this series cover a wide range of topics that supply strategic and implementation guidance on the latest technology trends, leadership, and emerging best practices.

Titles in the Wiley CIO series include:

The Agile Architecture Revolution: How Cloud Computing, REST-Based SOA, and Mobile Computing Are Changing Enterprise IT by Jason BloombergT

Big Data, Big Analytics: Emerging Business Intelligence and Analytic Trends for Today’s Businesses by Michael Minelli, Michele Chambers, and Ambiga Dhiraj

The Chief Information Offi cer’s Body of Knowledge: People, Process, and Technology by Dean Lane

CIO Best Practices: Enabling Strategic Value with Information Technology (Second Edition) by Joe Stenzel, Randy Betancourt, Gary Cokins, Alyssa Farrell, Bill Flemming, Michael H. Hugos, Jonathan Hujsak, and Karl Schubert

The CIO Playbook: Strategies and Best Practices for IT Leaders to Deliver Value by Nicholas R. Colisto

Enterprise Performance Management Done Right: An Operating System for Your Organization by Ron Dimon

Executive’s Guide to Virtual Worlds: How Avatars Are Transforming Your Business and Your Brand by Lonnie Bensond

IT Leadership Manual: Roadmap to Becoming a Trusted Business Partner by Alan R. r Guibord

Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices, and Technologies by Robert F. s Smallwood

On Top of the Cloud: How CIOs Leverage New Technologies to Drive Change and Build Value Across the Enterprise by Hunter Muller

Straight to the Top: CIO Leadership in a Mobile, Social, and Cloud-based World (Second Edition) by Gregory S. Smith

Strategic IT: Best Practices for Managers and Executives by Arthur M. Langer ands Lyle Yorks

Transforming IT Culture: How to Use Social Intelligence, Human Factors, and Collaboration to Create an IT Department That Outperforms by Frank Wanders

Unleashing the Power of IT: Bringing People, Business, and Technology Together by Dan Roberts

The U.S. Technology Skills Gap: What Every Technology Executive Must Know to Save America’s Future by Gary J. Beach

Information Governance: Concepts, Strategies and Best Practices by Robert F. Smallwoods

Robert F. Smallwood

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

CONCEPTS, STRATEGIES AND

BEST PRACTICES

Cover image: © iStockphoto / IgorZh Cover design: Wiley

Copyright © 2014 by Robert F. Smallwood. All rights reserved.

Chapter 7 © 2014 by Barclay Blair

Portions of Chapter 8 © 2014 by Randolph Kahn

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008, or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifi cally disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fi tness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profi t or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

For general information on our other products and services or for technical support, please contact our Customer Care Department within the United States at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.

Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand. If this book refers to media such as a CD or DVD that is not included in the version you purchased, you may download this material at http://booksupport.wiley.com. For more information about Wiley products, visit www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Smallwood, Robert F., 1959- Information governance : concepts, strategies, and best practices / Robert F. Smallwood. pages cm. — (Wiley CIO series)

ISBN 978-1-118-21830-3 (cloth); ISBN 978-1-118-41949-6 (ebk); ISBN 978-1-118-42101-7 (ebk) 1. Information technology—Management. 2. Management information systems. 3. Electronic

records—Management. I. Title. HD30.2.S617 2014 658.4’038—dc23

2013045072

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

For my sons

and the next generation of tech-savvy managers

vii

CONTENTS

PREFACE xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS xvii

PART ONE—Information Governance Concepts, Defi nitions, and Principles 1p

CHAPTER 1 The Onslaught of Big Data and the Information Governance Imperative 3

Defi ning Information Governance 5

IG Is Not a Project, But an Ongoing Program 7

Why IG Is Good Business 7

Failures in Information Governance 8

Form IG Policies, Then Apply Technology for Enforcement 10

Notes 12

CHAPTER 2 Information Governance, IT Governance, Data Governance: What’s the Difference? 15

Data Governance 15

IT Governance 17

Information Governance 20

Impact of a Successful IG Program 20

Summing Up the Differences 21

Notes 22

CHAPTER 3 Information Governance Principles 25

Accountability Is Key 27

Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® 27 Contributed by Charmaine Brooks, CRM

Assessment and Improvement Roadmap 34

Who Should Determine IG Policies? 35

Notes 38

PART TWO—Information Governance Risk Assessment and Strategic Planning 41g g

CHAPTER 4 Information Risk Planning and Management 43

Step 1: Survey and Determine Legal and Regulatory Applicability and Requirements 43

viii CONTENTS

Step 2: Specify IG Requirements to Achieve Compliance 46

Step 3: Create a Risk Profi le 46

Step 4: Perform Risk Analysis and Assessment 48

Step 5: Develop an Information Risk Mitigation Plan 49

Step 6: Develop Metrics and Measure Results 50

Step 7: Execute Your Risk Mitigation Plan 50

Step 8: Audit the Information Risk Mitigation Program 51

Notes 51

CHAPTER 5 Strategic Planning and Best Practices for Information Governance 53

Crucial Executive Sponsor Role 54

Evolving Role of the Executive Sponsor 55

Building Your IG Team 56

Assigning IG Team Roles and Responsibilities 56

Align Your IG Plan with Organizational Strategic Plans 57

Survey and Evaluate External Factors 58

Formulating the IG Strategic Plan 65

Notes 69

CHAPTER 6 Information Governance Policy Development 71

A Brief Review of Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® 71

IG Reference Model 72

Best Practices Considerations 75

Standards Considerations 76

Benefi ts and Risks of Standards 76

Key Standards Relevant to IG Efforts 77

Major National and Regional ERM Standards 81

Making Your Best Practices and Standards Selections to Inform Your IG Framework 87

Roles and Responsibilities 88

Program Communications and Training 89

Program Controls, Monitoring, Auditing and Enforcement 89

Notes 91

PART THREE—Information Governance Key Impact Areas Based on the IG Reference Model 95p

CHAPTER 7 Business Considerations for a Successful IG Program 97

By Barclay T. Blair

Changing Information Environment 97

CONTENTS ix

Calculating Information Costs 99

Big Data Opportunities and Challenges 100

Full Cost Accounting for Information 101

Calculating the Cost of Owning Unstructured Information 102

The Path to Information Value 105

Challenging the Culture 107

New Information Models 107

Future State: What Will the IG-Enabled Organization Look Like? 110

Moving Forward 111

Notes 113

CHAPTER 8 Information Governance and Legal Functions 115

By Robert Smallwood with Randy Kahn, Esq., and Barry Murphy

Introduction to e-Discovery: The Revised 2006 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Changed Everything 115

Big Data Impact 117

More Details on the Revised FRCP Rules 117

Landmark E-Discovery Case: Zubulake v. UBS Warburg 119

E-Discovery Techniques 119

E-Discovery Reference Model 119

The Intersection of IG and E-Discovery 122 By Barry Murphy

Building on Legal Hold Programs to Launch Defensible Disposition 125 By Barry Murphy

Destructive Retention of E-Mail 126

Newer Technologies That Can Assist in E-Discovery 126

Defensible Disposal: The Only Real Way To Manage Terabytes and Petabytes 130 By Randy Kahn, Esq.

Retention Policies and Schedules 137 By Robert Smallwood, edited by Paula Lederman, MLS

Notes 144

CHAPTER 9 Information Governance and Records and Information Management Functions 147

Records Management Business Rationale 149

Why Is Records Management So Challenging? 150

Benefi ts of Electronic Records Management 152

Additional Intangible Benefi ts 153

Inventorying E-Records 154

Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® 155

E-Records Inventory Challenges 155

x CONTENTS

Records Inventory Purposes 156

Records Inventorying Steps 157

Ensuring Adoption and Compliance of RM Policy 168

General Principles of a Retention Scheduling 169

Developing a Records Retention Schedule 170

Why Are Retention Schedules Needed? 171

What Records Do You Have to Schedule? Inventory and Classifi cation 173

Rationale for Records Groupings 174

Records Series Identifi cation and Classifi cation 174

Retention of E-Mail Records 175

How Long Should You Keep Old E-Mails? 176

Destructive Retention of E-Mail 177

Legal Requirements and Compliance Research 178

Event-Based Retention Scheduling for Disposition of E-Records 179

Prerequisites for Event-Based Disposition 180

Final Disposition and Closure Criteria 181

Retaining Transitory Records 182

Implementation of the Retention Schedule and Disposal of Records 182

Ongoing Maintenance of the Retention Schedule 183

Audit to Manage Compliance with the Retention Schedule 183

Notes 186

CHAPTER 10 Information Governance and Information Technology Functions 189

Data Governance 191

Steps to Governing Data Effectively 192

Data Governance Framework 193

Information Management 194

IT Governance 196

IG Best Practices for Database Security and Compliance 202

Tying It All Together 204

Notes 205

CHAPTER 11 Information Governance and Privacy and Security Functions 207

Cyberattacks Proliferate 207

Insider Threat: Malicious or Not 208

Privacy Laws 210

Defense in Depth 212

Controlling Access Using Identity Access Management 212

Enforcing IG: Protect Files with Rules and Permissions 213

CONTENTS xi

Challenge of Securing Confi dential E-Documents 213

Apply Better Technology for Better Enforcement in the Extended Enterprise 215

E-Mail Encryption 217

Secure Communications Using Record-Free E-Mail 217

Digital Signatures 218

Document Encryption 219

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Technology 220

Missing Piece: Information Rights Management (IRM) 222

Embedded Protection 226

Hybrid Approach: Combining DLP and IRM Technologies 227

Securing Trade Secrets after Layoffs and Terminations 228

Persistently Protecting Blueprints and CAD Documents 228

Securing Internal Price Lists 229

Approaches for Securing Data Once It Leaves the Organization 230

Document Labeling 231

Document Analytics 232

Confi dential Stream Messaging 233

Notes 236

PART FOUR—Information Governance for Delivery Platforms 239y

CHAPTER 12 Information Governance for E-Mail and Instant Messaging 241

Employees Regularly Expose Organizations to E-Mail Risk 242

E-Mail Polices Should Be Realistic and Technology Agnostic 243

E-Record Retention: Fundamentally a Legal Issue 243

Preserve E-Mail Integrity and Admissibility with Automatic Archiving 244

Instant Messaging 247

Best Practices for Business IM Use 247

Technology to Monitor IM 249

Tips for Safer IM 249

Notes 251

CHAPTER 13 Information Governance for Social Media 253

By Patricia Franks, Ph.D, CRM, and Robert Smallwood

Types of Social Media in Web 2.0 253

Additional Social Media Categories 255

Social Media in the Enterprise 256

Key Ways Social Media Is Different from E-Mail and Instant Messaging 257

Biggest Risks of Social Media 257

Legal Risks of Social Media Posts 259

xii CONTENTS

Tools to Archive Social Media 261

IG Considerations for Social Media 262

Key Social Media Policy Guidelines 263

Records Management and Litigation Considerations for Social Media 264

Emerging Best Practices for Managing Social Media Records 267

Notes 269

CHAPTER 14 Information Governance for Mobile Devices 271

Current Trends in Mobile Computing 273

Security Risks of Mobile Computing 274

Securing Mobile Data 274

Mobile Device Management 275

IG for Mobile Computing 276

Building Security into Mobile Applications 277

Best Practices to Secure Mobile Applications 280

Developing Mobile Device Policies 281

Notes 283

CHAPTER 15 Information Governance for Cloud Computing 285

By Monica Crocker CRM, PMP, CIP, and Robert Smallwood

Defi ning Cloud Computing 286

Key Characteristics of Cloud Computing 287

What Cloud Computing Really Means 288

Cloud Deployment Models 289

Security Threats with Cloud Computing 290

Benefi ts of the Cloud 298

Managing Documents and Records in the Cloud 299

IG Guidelines for Cloud Computing Solutions 300

Notes 301

CHAPTER 16 SharePoint Information Governance 303

By Monica Crocker, CRM, PMP, CIP, edited by Robert Smallwood

Process Change, People Change 304

Where to Begin the Planning Process 306

Policy Considerations 310

Roles and Responsibilities 311

Establish Processes 312

Training Plan 313

Communication Plan 313

Note 314

CONTENTS xiii

PART FIVE—Long-Term Program Issues 315g g

CHAPTER 17 Long-Term Digital Preservation 317

By Charles M. Dollar and Lori J. Ashley

Defi ning Long-Term Digital Preservation 317

Key Factors in Long-Term Digital Preservation 318

Threats to Preserving Records 320

Digital Preservation Standards 321

PREMIS Preservation Metadata Standard 328

Recommended Open Standard Technology-Neutral Formats 329

Digital Preservation Requirements 333

Long-Term Digital Preservation Capability Maturity Model® 334

Scope of the Capability Maturity Model 336

Digital Preservation Capability Performance Metrics 341

Digital Preservation Strategies and Techniques 341

Evolving Marketplace 344

Looking Forward 344

Notes 346

CHAPTER 18 Maintaining an Information Governance Program and Culture of Compliance 349

Monitoring and Accountability 349

Staffi ng Continuity Plan 350

Continuous Process Improvement 351

Why Continuous Improvement Is Needed 351

Notes 353

APPENDIX A Information Organization and Classifi cation: Taxonomies and Metadata 355

By Barb Blackburn, CRM, with Robert Smallwood; edited by Seth Earley

Importance of Navigation and Classifi cation 357

When Is a New Taxonomy Needed? 358

Taxonomies Improve Search Results 358

Metadata and Taxonomy 359

Metadata Governance, Standards, and Strategies 360

Types of Metadata 362

Core Metadata Issues 363

International Metadata Standards and Guidance 364

Records Grouping Rationale 368

Business Classifi cation Scheme, File Plans, and Taxonomy 368

Classifi cation and Taxonomy 369

xiv CONTENTS

Prebuilt versus Custom Taxonomies 370

Thesaurus Use in Taxonomies 371

Taxonomy Types 371

Business Process Analysis 377

Taxonomy Testing: A Necessary Step 379

Taxonomy Maintenance 380

Social Tagging and Folksonomies 381

Notes 383

APPENDIX B Laws and Major Regulations Related to Records Management 385

United States 385

Canada 387 By Ken Chasse, J.D., LL.M.

United Kingdom 389

Australia 391

Notes 394

APPENDIX C Laws and Major Regulations Related to Privacy 397

United States 397

Major Privacy Laws Worldwide, by Country 398

Notes 400

GLOSSARY 401

ABOUT THE AUTHOR 417

ABOUT THE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS 419

INDEX 421

xv

PREFACE

Information governance (IG) has emerged as a key concern for business executivesand managers in today’s environment of Big Data, increasing information risks, co-lossal leaks, and greater compliance and legal demands. But few seem to have a clear understanding of what IG is; that is, how you defi ne what it is and is not, and how to implement it. This book clarifi es and codifi es these defi nitions and provides key in- sights as to how to implement and gain value from IG programs. Based on exhaustive research, and with the contributions of a number of industry pioneers and experts, this book lays out IG as a complete discipline in and of itself for the fi rst time.

IG is a super-discipline that includes components of several key fi elds: law, records management, information technology (IT), risk management, privacy and security, and business operations. This unique blend calls for a new breed of information pro- fessional who is competent across these established and quite complex fi elds. Training and education are key to IG success, and this book provides the essential underpinning for organizations to train a new generation of IG professionals.

Those who are practicing professionals in the component fi elds of IG will fi nd the book useful in expanding their knowledge from traditional fi elds to the emerging tenets of IG. Attorneys, records and compliance managers, risk managers, IT manag- ers, and security and privacy professionals will fi nd this book a particularly valuable resource.

The book strives to offer clear IG concepts, actionable strategies, and proven best practices in an understandable and digestible way; a concerted effort was made to simplify language and to offer examples. There are summaries of key points through- out and at the end of each chapter to help the reader retain major points. The text is organized into fi ve parts: (1) Information Governance Concepts, Defi nitions, and Principles; (2) IG Risk Assessment and Strategic Planning; (3) IG Key Impact Areas; (4) IG for Delivery Platforms; and (5) Long-Term Program Issues. Also included are appendices with detailed information on taxonomy and metadata design and on re- cords management and privacy legislation.

One thing that is sure is that the complex fi eld of IG is evolving. It will continue to change and solidify. But help is here: No other book offers the kind of compre- hensive coverage of IG contained within these pages. Leveraging the critical advice provided here will smooth your path to understanding and implementing successful IG programs.

Robert F. Smallwood

xvii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to sincerely thank my colleagues for their support and generous contribu-tion of their expertise and time, which made this pioneering text possible. Many thanks to Lori Ashley, Barb Blackburn, Barclay Blair, Charmaine Brooks, Ken Chasse, Monica Crocker, Charles M. Dollar, Seth Earley, Dr. Patricia Franks, Randy Kahn, Paula Lederman, and Barry Murphy.

I am truly honored to include their work and owe them a great debt of gratitude.

PART ONE Information Governance Concepts, Defi nitions, and Principles

3

The Onslaught of Big Data and the Information Governance Imperative

C H A P T E R 1

The value of information in business is rising, and business leaders are more andmore viewing the ability to govern, manage, and harvest information as critical to success. Raw data is now being increasingly viewed as an asset that can be leveraged, just like fi nancial or human capital.1 Some have called this new age of “Big Data” the “industrial revolution of data.”

According to the research group Gartner, Inc., Big Data is defi ned as “high-volume, high-velocity and high-variety information assets that demand cost-effective, inno- vative forms of information processing for enhanced insight and decision making.” 2 A practical defi nition should also include the idea that the amount of data—both struc- tured (in databases) and unstructured (e.g., e-mail, scanned documents) is so mas- sive that it cannot be processed using today’s database tools and analytic software techniques. 3

In today’s information overload era of Big Data—characterized by massive growth in business data volumes and velocity—the ability to distill key insights from enor- mous amounts of data is a major business differentiator and source of sustainable com- petitive advantage. In fact, a recent report by the World Economic Forum stated that data is a new asset class and personal data is “the new oil.” 4 And we are generating more than we can manage effectively with current methods and tools.

The Big Data numbers are overwhelming: Estimates and projections vary, but it has been stated that 90 percent of the data existing worldwide today was created in the last two years 5 and that every two days more information is generated than was from the dawn of civilization until 2003. 6 This trend will continue: The global market for Big Data technology and services is projected to grow at a compound annual rate of 27 percent through 2017, about six times faster than the general information and com- munications technology (ICT) market. 7

Many more comparisons and statistics are available, and all demonstrate the incredible and continued growth of data.

Certainly, there are new and emerging opportunities arising from the accu- mulation and analysis of all that data we are busy generating and collecting. New enterprises are springing up to capitalize on data mining and business intelligence opportunities. The U.S. federal government joined in, announcing $200 million in Big Data research programs in 2012.8

4 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Big Data values massive accumulation of data, whereas in business, e-discovery realities and potential legal liabilities dictate that data be culled to only that which has clear business value.

But established organizations, especially larger ones, are being crushed by this onslaught of Big Data: It is just too expensive to keep all the information that is being generated, and unneeded information is a sort of irrelevant sludge for decision makers to wade through. They have diffi culty knowing which information is an accurate and meaningful “wheat” and which is simply irrelevant “chaff.” This means they do not have the precise information they need to base good business decisions upon.

And all that Big Data piling up has real costs: The burden of massive stores of information has increased storage management costs dramatically, caused overloaded systems to fail, and increased legal discovery costs. 9 Further, the longer that data is kept, the more likely that it will need to be migrated to newer computing platforms, driving up conversion costs; and legally, there is the risk that somewhere in that mountain of data an organization stores is a piece of information that represents a signifi cant legal liability.10

This is where the worlds of Big Data and business collide . For Big Data proponents, more data is always better, and there is no perceived downside to accumulation of mas- sive amounts of data. In the business world, though, the realities of legal e-discovery mean the opposite is true. 11 To reduce risk, liability, and costs, it is critical for unneeded information to be disposed of in a systematic, methodical, and “legally defensible” (jus- tifi able in legal proceedings) way, when it no longer has legal, regulatory, or business value. And there also is the high-value benefi t of basing decisions on better, cleaner data, which can come about only through rigid, enforced information governance (IG) policies that reduce information glut.

Organizations are struggling to reduce and right-size their information footprint by discarding superfl uous and redundant data, e-documents, and information. But the critical issue is devising policies, methods, and processes and then deploying information technol- ogy (IT) to sort through which information is valuable and which no longer has business value and can be discarded.

IT, IG, risk, compliance, and legal representatives in organizations have a clear sense that most of the information stored is unneeded, raises costs, and poses risks. According to a survey taken at a recent Compliance, Governance and Oversight Counsel summit, respondents estimated that approximately 25 percent of information stored in organizations has real business value, while 5 percent must be kept as busi- ness records and about 1 percent is retained due to a litigation hold. “This means that

The onslaught of Big Data necessitates that information governance (IG) be implemented to discard unneeded data in a legally defensible way.

THE ONSLAUGHT OF BIG DATA AND THE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE IMPERATIVE 5

[about] 69 percent of information in most companies has no business, legal, or regulatory value. Companies that are able to dispose of this data debris return more profi t to sharehold- ers, can leverage more of their IT budgets for strategic investments, and can avoid excess expense in legal and regulatory response” (emphasis added). 12

With a smaller information footprint , organizations can more easily fi nd what they tt need and derive business value from it.13 They must eliminate the data debris regularly and consistently, and to do this, processes and systems must be in place to cull valuable information and discard the data debris daily. An IG program sets the framework to accomplish this.

The business environment has also underscored the need for IG. According to Ted Friedman at Gartner, “The recent global fi nancial crisis has put information gov- ernance in the spotlight. . . . [It] is a priority of IT and business leaders as a result of various pressures, including regulatory compliance mandates and the urgent need for improved decision-making.” 14

And IG mastery is critical for executives: Gartner predicts that by 2016, one in fi ve chief information offi cers in regulated industries will be fi red from their jobs for failed IG initiatives. s 15

Defi ning Information Governance

IG is a sort of super discipline that has emerged as a result of new and tightened legislation governing businesses, external threats such as hacking and data breaches, and the recog- nition that multiple overlapping disciplines were needed to address today’s information management challenges in an increasingly regulated and litigated business environment.16

IG is a subset of corporate governance, and includes key concepts from re- cords management, content management, IT and data governance, information se- curity, data privacy, risk management, litigation readiness, regulatory compliance, long-term digital preservation , and even business intelligence. This also means that it includes related technology and discipline subcategories, such as document management, enterprise search, knowledge management, and business continuity/ disaster recovery.

Only about one quarter of information organizations are managing has real business value.

With a smaller information footprint, it is easier for organizations to fi nd the information they need and derive business value from it.

IG is a subset of corporate governance.

6 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

IG is a sort of superdiscipline that encompasses a variety of key concepts from a variety of related disciplines.

Practicing good IG is the essential foundation for building legally defensible disposition practices to discard unneeded information and to secure confi dential in- formation, which may include trade secrets, strategic plans, price lists, blueprints, or personally identifi able information (PII) subject to privacy laws; it provides the basis for consistent, reliable methods for managing data, e-documents, and records.

Having trusted and reliable records, reports, data, and databases enables managers to make key decisions with confi dence.17 And accessing that information and business intelligence in a timely fashion can yield a long-term sustainable competitive advan- tage, creating more agile enterprises.

To do this, organizations must standardize and systematize their handling of in- formation. They must analyze and optimize how information is accessed, controlled, managed, shared, stored, preserved, and audited. They must have complete, current, and relevant policies, processes, and technologies to manage and control information, including who is able to access what information , and when, to meet external legal and regulatory demands and internal governance policy requirements. In short, IG is about information control and compliance.

IG is a subset of corporate governance, which has been around as long as corpora- tions have existed. IG is a rather new multidisciplinary fi eld that is still being defi ned, but has gained traction increasingly over the past decade. The focus on IG comes not only from compliance, legal, and records management functionaries but also from ex- ecutives who understand they are accountable for the governance of information and that theft or erosion of information assets has real costs and consequences.

“Information governance” is an all-encompassing term for how an organization manages the totality of its information.

According to the Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA), IG is “a strategic framework composed of standards, processes, roles, and metrics that hold organizations and individuals accountable to create, organize, secure, maintain, use, and dispose of information in ways that align with and contribute to the organization’s goals.”18

IG includes the set of policies, processes, and controls to manage information in compliance with external regulatory requirements and internal governance frameworks . Specifi c policiess apply to specifi c data and document types, records series, and other business informa- tion, such as e-mail and reports.

Stated differently, IG is “a quality-control discipline for managing, using, improv- ing, and protecting information.” 19

Practicing good IG is the essential foundation for building legally defensible disposition practices to discard unneeded information.

THE ONSLAUGHT OF BIG DATA AND THE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE IMPERATIVE 7

IG is “a strategic framework composed of standards, processes, roles, and metrics, that hold organizations and individuals accountable to create, orga- nize, secure, maintain, use, and dispose of information in ways that align with and contribute to the organization’s goals.” 20

Fleshing out the defi nition further: “Information governance is policy-based man- agement of information designed to lower costs, reduce risk, and ensure compliance with legal, regulatory standards, and/or corporate governance.”21 IG necessarily in- corporates not just policies but information technologies to audit and enforce those policies. The IG team must be cognizant of information lifecycle issues and be able to apply the proper retention and disposition policies, including digital preservation where records need to be maintained for long periods.

IG Is Not a Project, But an Ongoing Program

IG is an ongoing program , not a one-time project. IG provides an umbrella to manage and control information output and communications. Since technologies change so quickly, it is necessary to have overarching policies that can manage the various IT platforms that an organization may use.

Compare it to a workplace safety program; every time a new location, team member, piece of equipment, or toxic substance is acquired by the organization, the workplace safety program should dictate how that is handled. If it does not, the workplace safety policies/procedures/training that are part of the workplace safety program need to be updated. Regular reviews are conducted to ensure the program is being followed and ad- justments are made based on the fi ndings. The effort never ends. s 22 The same is true for IG.

IG is not only a tactical program to meet regulatory, compliance, and litigation demands. It can be strategic , in that it is the necessary underpinning for developing a c management strategy that maximizes knowledge worker productivity while minimiz- ing risk and costs.

Why IG Is Good Business

IG is a tough sell. It can be diffi cult to make the business case for IG, unless there has been some major compliance sanction, fi ne, legal loss, or colossal data breach. In fact, the largest

IG is how an organization maintains security, complies with regulations, and meets ethical standards when managing information.

IG is a multidisciplinary program that requires an ongoing effort.

8 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

impediment to IG adoption is simply identifying its benefi ts and costs, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit. Sure, the enterprise needs better control over its information, but how much better? At what cost? What is the payback period and the return on investment? 23

It is challenging to make the business case for IG, yet making that case is funda- mental to getting IG efforts off the ground.

Here are eight reasons why IG makes good business sense, from IG thought leader Barclay Blair:

1. We can’t keep everything forever. IG makes sense because it enables organiza- tions to get rid of unnecessary information in a defensible manner. Organi- zations need a sensible way to dispose of information in order to reduce the cost and complexity of the IT environment. Having unnecessary informa- tion around only makes it more diffi cult and expensive to harness informa- tion that has value.

2. We can’t throw everything away. 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 infor- mation to keep.

3. E-discovery. IG makes sense because it reduces the cost and pain of discov- ery. Proactively managing information reduces the volume of information exposed to e-discovery and simplifi es the task of fi nding and producing responsive information.

4. Your employees are screaming for it—just listen. IG makes sense because it helps knowledge workers separate “signal” from “noise” in their informa- tion fl ows. By helping organizations focus on the most valuable informa- tion, IG improves information delivery and improves productivity.

5. It ain’t gonna get any easier. IG makes sense because it is a proven way for organizations to respond to new laws and technologies that create new re- quirements and challenges. The problem of IG will not get easier over time, so organizations should get started now.

6. The courts will come looking for IG. IG makes sense because courts and regu- lators will closely examine your IG program. Falling short can lead to fi nes, sanctions, loss of cases, and other outcomes that have negative business and fi nancial consequences.

7. Manage risk: IG is a big one. Organizations need to do a better job of identi- fying and managing risk. The risk of information management failures is a critical risk that IG helps to mitigate.

8. E-mail: Reason enough. IG makes sense because it helps organizations take con- trol of e-mail. Solving e-mail should be a top priority for every organization. 24

Failures in Information Governance

The failure to implement and enforce IG can lead to vulnerabilities that can have dire consequences. The theft of confi dential U.S. National Security Agency documents

THE ONSLAUGHT OF BIG DATA AND THE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE IMPERATIVE 9

by Edward Snowden in 2013 could have been prevented by properly enforced IG. Also, Ford Motor Company is reported to have suffered a loss estimated at $50 to $100 million as a result of the theft of confi dential documents by one of its own em- ployees. A former product engineer who had access to thousands of trade secret docu- ments and designs sold them to a competing Chinese car manufacturer. A strong IG program would have controlled and tracked access and prevented the theft while pro- tecting valuable intellectual property. 25

Law enforcement agencies have also suffered from poor IG. In a rather frivolous case in 2013 that highlighted the lack of policy enforcement for the mobile environ- ment, it was reported that U.S. agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation used government-issued mobile phones to send explicit text messages and nude photographs to coworkers. The incidents did not have a serious impact but did compromise the agency and its integrity, and “adversely affected the daily activities of several squads.” 26 Proper mobile communications policies were obviously not developed and enforced.

IG is also about information security and privacy, and serious thought must be given when creating policies to safeguard personal, classifi ed or confi dential informa- tion. Schemes to compromise or steal information can be quite deceptive and devious, masked by standard operating procedures—if proper IG controls and monitoring are not in place. To wit: Granting remote access to confi dential information assets for key personnel is common. Granting medical leave is also common. But a deceptive and dishonest employee could feign a medical leave while downloading volumes of confi dential information assets for a competitor—and that is exactly what happened at Accenture, a global consulting fi rm. During a fraudulent medical leave, an employee was allowed access to Accenture’s Knowledge Exchange (KX), a detailed knowledge base containing previous proposals, expert reports, cost-estimating guidelines, and case studies. This activity could have been prevented by monitoring and analytics that would have shown an inordinate amount of downloads—especially for an “ailing” em- ployee. The employee then went to work for a direct competitor and continued to download the confi dential information from Accenture, estimated to be as many as 1,000 critical documents. While the online access to KX was secure, the use of the electronic documents could have been restricted even after the documents were down-r loaded, if IG measures were in place and newer technologies (such as information rights management [IRM] software) were deployed to secure them directly and main- tain that security remotely. With IRM, software security protections can be employed to seal the e-documents and control their use—even after they leave the organization. More details on IRM technology and its capabilities is presented later in this book.

Other recent high-profi le data and document leakage cases revealing information security weaknesses that could have been prevented by a robust IG program include:

■ Huawei Technologies, the largest networking and mobile communications company in China, was sued by U.S.-based Motorola for allegedly conspiring to steal trade secrets through former Motorola employees.

Ford’s loss from stolen documents in a single case of intellectual property (IP) theft was estimated at $50 to $100 million.

10 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

■ MI6, the U.K. equivalent of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, learned that one of its agents in military intelligence attempted to sell confi dential docu- ments to the intelligence services of the Netherlands for £2 million GBP ($3 million USD).

And breaches of personal information revealing failures in privacy protection abound; here are just a few:

■ Health information of 1,600 cardiology patients at Texas Children’s Hospital was compromised when a doctor’s laptop was stolen. The information includ- ed personal and demographic information about the patients, including their names, dates of birth, diagnoses, and treatment histories. 27

■ U.K. medics lost the personal records of nearly 12,000 National Health Service patients in just eight months. Also, a hospital worker was suspended after it was discovered he had sent a fi le containing pay-slip details for every member of staff to his home e-mail account. 28

■ Personal information about more than 600 patients  of the Fraser Health Authority in British Columbia, Canada, was stored on a laptop stolen from Burnaby General Hospital.

■ In December 2013, Target stores in the U.S. reported that as many as 110 million customer records had been breached in a massive attack that lasted weeks.

The list of breaches and IG failures could go on and on, more than fi lling the pages of this book. It is clear that it is occurring and that it will continue. IG controls to safeguard confi dential information assets and protect privacy cannot rely solely on the trustwor- thiness of employees and basic security measures. Up-to-date IG policies and enforcement efforts and newer technology sets are needed, with active, consistent monitoring and program adjustments to continue to improve.

Executives and senior managers can no longer avoid the issue, as it is abundantly clear that the threat is real and the costs of taking such avoidable risks can be high. A single security breach is an IG failure and can cost the entire business. According to Debra Logan of Gartner, “When organizations suffer high-profi le data losses, espe- cially involving violations of the privacy of citizens or consumers, they suffer serious reputational damage and often incur fi nes or other sanctions. IT leaders will have to take at least part of the blame for these incidents.” 29

Form IG Policies, Then Apply Technology for Enforcement

Typically, some policies governing the use and control of information and records may have been established for fi nancial and compliance reports, and perhaps e-mail, but they are often incomplete and out-of-date and have not been adjusted for changes in the business environment, such as new technology platforms (e.g., Web 2.0, social

IG controls to safeguard confi dential information assets and protect privacy can- not rely solely on the trustworthiness of employees and basic security measures.

THE ONSLAUGHT OF BIG DATA AND THE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE IMPERATIVE 11

media), changing laws (e.g., U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 2006 changes), and additional regulations.

Further adding to the challenge is the rapid proliferation of mobile devices like tablets, phablets, and smartphones used in business—information can be more easily lost or stolen—so IG efforts must be made to preserve and protect the enterprise’s information assets.

Proper IG requires that policies are fl exible enough not to hinder the proper fl ow of information in the heat of the business battle yet strict enough to control and audit for misuse, policy violations, or security breaches. This is a continuous iterative policy- making process that must be monitored and fi ne-tuned. Even with the absolute best efforts, some policies will miss the mark and need to be reviewed and adjusted.

Getting started with IG awareness is the crucial fi rst step. It may have popped up on an executive’s radar at one point or another and an effort might have been made, but many organizations leave these policies on the shelf and do not revise them on a regular basis.

IG is the necessary underpinning for a legally defensible disposition program that discards data debris and helps narrow the search for meaningful information on which to base business decisions. IG is also necessary to protect and preserve critical infor- mation assets. An IG strategy should aim to minimize exposure to risk, at a reasonable cost level, while maximizing productivity and improving the quality of information delivered to knowledge users.

But a reactive, tactical project approach is not the way to go about it—haphazardly t swatting at technological, legal, and regulatory fl ies. A proactive, strategic program, with a clear, accountable sponsor, an ongoing plan, and regular review process, is the only way to continuously adjust IG policies to keep them current so that they best serve the organization’s needs.

Some organizations have created formal governance bodies to establish strat- egies, policies, and procedures surrounding the distribution of information inside and outside the enterprise. These governance bodies, steering committees, or teams should include members from many different functional areas, since proper IG ne- cessitates input from a variety of stakeholders. Representatives from IT, records man- agement, corporate or agency archiving, risk management, compliance, operations, human resources, security, legal, fi nance, and perhaps knowledge management are typically a part of IG teams. Often these efforts are jump-started and organized by an executive sponsor who utilizes third-party consulting resources that specialize in IG efforts, especially considering the newness of IG and its emerging best practices.

So in this era of ever-growing Big Data, leveraging IG policies to focus on re- taining the information that has real business value, while discarding the majority of information that has no value and carries associated increased costs and risks, is criti- cal to success for modern enterprises. This must be accomplished in a systematic, consistent, and legally defensible manner by implementing a formal IG program. Other crucial elements of an IG program are the steps taken to secure confi dential information by enforcing and monitoring policies using the appropriate information technologies.

Getting started with IG awareness is the crucial fi rst step.

12 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ The onslaught of Big Data necessitates that IG be implemented to discard unneeded data in a legally defensible way.

■ Big Data values massive accumulation of data, whereas in business, e-discovery realities and potential legal liabilities dictate that data be culled to only that which has clear business value.

■ Only about one quarter of the information organizations are managing has real business value.

■ With a smaller information footprint, it is easier for organizations to fi nd the information they need and derive business value from it.

■ IG is a subset of corporate governance and encompasses the policies and leveraged technologies meant to manage what corporate information is re- tained, where, and for how long, and also how it is retained.

■ IG is a sort of super discipline that encompasses a variety of key concepts from a variety of related and overlapping disciplines.

■ Practicing good IG is the essential foundation for building legally defensible disposition practices to discard unneeded information.

■ According to ARMA, IG is “a strategic framework composed of standards, processes, roles, and metrics that hold organizations and individuals account- able to create, organize, secure, maintain, use, and dispose of information in ways that align with and contribute to the organization’s goals.” 30

■ IG is how an organization maintains security, complies with regulations and laws, and meets ethical standards when managing information.

■ IG is a multidisciplinary program that requires an ongoing effort and active participation of a broad cross-section of functional groups and stakeholders.

■ IG controls to safeguard confi dential information assets and protect privacy cannot rely solely on the trustworthiness of employees and basic security measures.

■ Getting started with IG awareness is the crucial fi rst step.

Notes

1. The Economist, “Data, Data Everywhere,” February 25, 2010, www.economist.com/node/15557443 2. Gartner, Inc., “IT Glossary: Big Data,” www.gartner.com/it-glossary/big-data/ (accessed April 15, 2013). 3. Webopedia, “Big Data,” www.webopedia.com/TERM/B/big_data.html (accessed April 15, 2013).

THE ONSLAUGHT OF BIG DATA AND THE INFORMATION GOVERNANCE IMPERATIVE 13

4. World Economic Forum, “Personal Data:The Emergence of a New Asset Class”(January 2011), http:// www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ITTC_PersonalDataNewAsset_Report_2011.pdf

5. Deidra Paknad, “Defensible Disposal: You Can’t Keep All Your Data Forever,” July 17, 2012, www .forbes.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/07/17/defensible-disposal-you-cant-keep-all-your-data-forever/

6. Susan Karlin, “Earth’s Nervous System: Looking at Humanity Through Big Data,” www.fastcocreate .com/1681986/earth-s-nervous-system-looking-at-humanity-through-big-data#1(accessed March 5, 2013).

7. IDC Press Release, December 18, ,2013, http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24542113 New IDC Worldwide Big Data Technology and Services Forecast Shows Market Expected to Grow to $32.4 Billion in 2017

8. Steve Lohr, “How Big Data Became So Big,” New York Times, August 11, 2012, www.nytimes. com/2012/08/12/business/how-big-data-became-so-big-unboxed.html?_r=2&smid=tw-share&

9. Kahn Consulting, “Information Governance Brief,” sponsored by IBM, www.delve.us/downloads/ Brief-Defensible-Disposal.pdf (accessed March 4, 2013).

10. Barclay T. Blair, “Girding for Battle,” Law Technology News, October 1, 2012, www.law.com/jsp/lawtech- nologynews/PubArticleLTN.jsp?id=1202572459732&thepage=1

11. Ibid. 12. Paknad, “Defensible Disposal.” 13. Randolph A. Kahn, https://twitter.com/InfoParkingLot/status/273791612172259329, November 28, 2012. 14. Gartner Press Release, “Gartner Says Master Data Management Is Critical to Achieving Effective

Information Governance,” www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1898914, January 19, 2012 15. Ibid. 16. Monica Crocker, e-mail to author, June 21, 2012. 17. Economist Intelligence Unit, “The Future of Information Governance,” www.emc.com/leadership/

business-view/future-information-governance.htm (accessed November 14, 2013). 18. ARMA International, Glossary of Records and Information Management Terms , 4th ed., 2012, TR 22–2012.s 19. Arvind Krishna, “Three Steps to Trusting Your Data in 2011,” IT Business Edge , posted March 9, 2011,

www.itbusinessedge.com/guest-opinions/three-steps-trusting-your-data-2011 . (accessed November 14, 2013).

20. ARMA International, Glossary of Records and Information Management Terms , 4th ed., 2012, TR 22–2012.s 21. Laura DuBoisand Vivian Tero, “Practical Information Governance: Balancing Cost, Risk, and Pro-

ductivity,” IDC White Paper (August 2010), www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-practical- information-governance-ar.pdf

22. Monica Crocker, e-mail to author, June 21, 2012. 23. Barclay T. Blair, Making the Case for Information Governance: Ten Reasons IG Makes Sense , ViaLumina

Ltd, 2010. Online at http://barclaytblair.com/making-the-case-for-ig-ebook/ (accessed November 14, 2013).

24. Barclay T. Blair, “8 Reasons Why Information Governance (IG) Makes Sense,” June 29, 2009, www. digitallandfi ll.org/2009/06/8-reasons-why-information-governance-ig-makes-sense.html

25. Peter Abatan, “Corporate and Industrial Espionage to Rise in 2011,” Enterprise Digital Rights Man- agement, http://enterprisedrm.tumblr.com/post/2742811887/corporate-espionage-to-rise-in-2011 . (accessed November 14, 2013).

26. BBC News, “FBI Staff Disciplined for Sex Texts and Nude Pictures,” February 22, 2013, www.bbc. co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21546135

27. Todd Ackerman, “Laptop Theft Puts Texas Children’s Patient Info at Risk,” Houston Chronicle , July 30, 2009, e www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Laptop-theft-puts-Texas-Children-s-patient-info-1589473. php . (accessed March 2, 2012).

28. Jonny Greatrex, “Bungling West Midlands Medics Lose 12,000 Private Patient Records,” Sunday Mer- cury, September 5, 2010, www.sundaymercury.net/news/sundaymercuryexclusives/2010/09/05/bun- gling-west-midlands-medics-lose-12–000-private-patient-records-66331–27203177/ (accessed March 2, 2012).

29. Gartner Press Release, “Gartner Says Master Data Management Is Critical to Achieving Effective Information Governance.”

30. ARMA International, Glossary of Records and Information Management Terms. s

15

Information Governance, IT Governance, Data Governance: What’s the Difference?

C H A P T E R 2

There has been a great deal of confusion around the term information gover-nance (IG) and how it is distinct from other similar industry terms, such as information technology (IT) governance and data governance . They are all a subset of corporate governance, and in the above sequence, become increasingly more granular in their approach. Data governance is a part of broader IT governance, which is also a part of even broader information governance. The few texts that exist have compounded the confusion by offering a limited defi nition of IG, or sometimes offering a defi nition of IG that is just plain incorrect , often confusing it with simple datat governance.

So in this chapter we spell out the differences and include examples in hopes of clarifying what the meaning of each term is and how they are related.

Data Governance

Data governance involves processes and controls to ensure that information at the data level—raw alphanumeric characters that the organization is gathering and inputting— is true and accurate, and unique (not redundant). It involves data cleansing ( or data scrubbing) to strip out corrupted, inaccurate, or extraneous data and gg de-duplication, to eliminate redundant occurrences of data.

Data governance focuses on information quality from the ground up at the lowest or root level, so that subsequent reports, analyses, and conclusions are based on clean, reliable, trusted data (or records) in database tables. Data governance is the most rudi- mentary level at which to implement information governance. Data governance efforts seek to ensure that formal management controls—systems, processes, and accountable employees who are stewards and custodians of the data—are implemented to govern critical data assets to improve data quality and to avoid negative downstream effects of poor data. The biggest negative consequence of poor or inaccurate data is poorly and inaccurately based decisions.

16 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Data governance is a newer, hybrid quality control discipline that includes elements of data quality, data management, IG policy development, business process improvement, and compliance and risk management.

Data Governance Strategy Tips

Everyone in an organization wants good-quality data to work with. But it is not so easy to implement a data governance program. First of all, data is at such a low level that executives and board members are typically unaware of the details of the “smoky back room” of data collection: cleansing, normalization, and input. So it is diffi cult to gain an executive sponsor and funding to initiate the effort. 1 And if a data governance program does move forward, there are challenges in getting business users to adhere to new policies. This is a crucial point, since much of the data is being generated by business units. But there are some general guidelines that can help improve a data governance program’s chances for success:

■ Identify a measureable impact. A data governance program must be able to dem- onstrate business value, or it will not get the executive sponsorship and funding it needs to move forward. A readiness assessment should capture the current state of data quality and whether an enterprise or business unit level effort is warranted. Other key issues include: Can the organization save hard costs by implementing data governance? Can it reach more customers or increase revenue generated from existing customers?2

■ Assign accountability for data quality to business units, not IT. Typically, IT has had responsibility for data quality, yet it is mostly not under that department’s con- trol, since most of the data is being generated in the business units. A pointed effort must be made to push responsibility and ownership for data to the busi- ness units that create and use the data.

■ Recognize the uniqueness of data as an asset. Unlike other assets, such as people, factories, equipment, and even cash, data is largely unseen, out of sight, and intangible. It changes daily. It spreads throughout business units. It is copied and deleted. Data growth can spiral out of control, obscuring the data that has true business value. So data has to be treated differently, and its unique qualities must be considered.

■ Forget the past; implement a going-forward strategy. It is a signifi cantly greater task to try to improve data governance across the enterprise for existing data. Remember, you may be trying to fi x decades of bad behavior, mismanagement, and lack of governance. Taking an incremental approach with an eye to the future provides for a clean starting point and can substantially reduce the pain required to implement. A proven best practice is to implement a from-this- point-on strategy where new data governance policies for handling data are implemented beginning on a certain date.

Data governance uses techniques like data cleansing and de-duplication to improve data quality and reduce redundancies.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE, IT GOVERNANCE, DATA GOVERNANCE 17

Good data governance ensures that downstream negative effects of poor data are avoided and that subsequent reports, analyses, and conclusions are based on reliable, trusted data.

■ Manage the change. Educate, educate, educate. People must be trained to under- stand why the data governance program is being implemented and how it will benefi t the business. The new policies represent a cultural change, and people need supportive program messages and training in order to make the shift. 3

IT Governance

IT governance is the primary way that stakeholders can ensure that investments in IT create business value and contribute toward meeting business objectives.4 This strategic align- ment of IT with the business is challenging yet essential. IT governance programs go further and aim to “improve IT performance, deliver optimum business value and ensure regulatory compliance.” 5

Although the CIO typically has line responsibility for implementing IT gover- nance, the CEO and board of directors must receive reports and updates to discharge their responsibilities for IT governance and to see that the program is functioning well and providing business benefi ts.

Typically, in past decades, board members did not get involved in overseeing IT governance. But today it is a critical and unavoidable responsibility. According to the IT Governance Institute’s Board Briefi ng on IT Governance , “IT governance is the re- sponsibility of the board of directors and executive management. It is an integral part of enterprise governance and consists of the leadership and organizational structures and processes that ensure that the organization’s IT sustains and extends the organiza- tion’s strategies and objectives.” 6

The focus is on the actual software development and maintenance activities of the IT department or function, and IT governance efforts focus on making IT effi cient and effective. That means minimizing costs by following proven software develop- ment methodologies and best practices, principles of data governance and information quality, and project management best practices while aligning IT efforts with the busi- ness objectives of the organization.

IT Governance Frameworks

Several IT governance frameworks can be used as a guide to implementing an IT governance program. (They are introduced in this chapter in a cursory way; detailed discussions of them are best suited to books focused solely on IT governance.)

IT governance seeks to align business objectives with IT strategy to deliver business value.

18 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Although frameworks and guidance like CobiT® and ITIL have been widely adopted, there is no absolute standard IT governance framework; the combination that works best for an organization depends on business factors, corporate culture, IT maturity, and staffi ng capability. The level of implementation of these frameworks will also vary by organization.

CobiT® CobiT (Control Objectives for Information and related Technology) is a process-T based IT governance framework that represents a consensus of experts worldwide. Codeveloped by the IT Governance Institute and ISACA (previously known as the Information Systems Audit and Control Association), CobiT addresses business risks, control requirements, compliance, and technical issues. 7

CobiT offers IT controls that:

■ Cut IT risks while gaining business value from IT under an umbrella of a glob- ally accepted framework.

■ Assist in meeting regulatory compliance requirements. ■ Utilize a structured approach for improved reporting and management deci-

sion making. ■ Provide solutions to control assessments and project implementations to im-

prove IT and information asset control. 8

CobiT consists of detailed descriptions of processes required in IT and also tools to measure progress toward maturity of the IT governance program. It is industry agnostic and can be applied across all vertical industry sectors, and it continues to be revised and refi ned. 9

CobiT is broken out into three basic organizational levels and their responsibili- ties: (1) board of directors and executive management; (2) IT and business manage- ment; and (3) line-level governance, and security and control knowledge workers. 10

The CobiT model draws on the traditional “plan, build, run, monitor” paradigm of traditional IT management, only with variations in semantics. The CobiT framework is divided into four IT domains—(1) plan and organize, (2) acquire and implement, (3) deliver and support, and (4) monitor and evaluate—which contain 34 IT processes and 210 control objectives. Specifi c goals and metrics are assigned, and responsibilities and accountabilities are delineated.

The CobiT framework maps to the international information security standard, ISO 17799, and is also compatible with IT Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and other y “accepted practices” in IT development and operations.11

ValIT® ValIT is a newer value-oriented framework that is compatible with and complemen- tary to CobiT. Its principles and best practices focus is on leveraging IT investments to gain maximum value. Forty key ValIT essential management practices (analogous to CobiT’s control objectives) support three main processes: value governance, portfolio management, and investment management. ValIT and CobiT “provide a full frame- work and supporting tool set” to help managers develop policies to manage business risks and deliver business value while addressing technical issues and meeting control objectives in a structured, methodic way. 12

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE, IT GOVERNANCE, DATA GOVERNANCE 19

ITIL ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) is a set of process-oriented best practices and guidance originally developed in the United Kingdom to standard- ize delivery of IT service management. ITIL is applicable to both the private and public sectors and is the “most widely accepted approach to IT service management in the world.”13 As with other IT governance frameworks, ITIL provides essential guidance for delivering business value through IT, and it “provides guidance to or- ganizations on how to use IT as a tool to facilitate business change, transformation and growth.”14

ITIL best practices form the foundation for ISO/IEC 20000 (previously BS15000), the International Service Management Standard for organizational certifi cation and compliance. 15 ITIL 2011 is the latest revision (as of this printing), and it consists of fi ve core published volumes that map the IT service cycle in a systematic way:

1. ITIL Service Strategy 2. ITIL Service Design 3. ITIL Service Transition 4. ITIL Service Operation 5. ITIL Continual Service Improvement 16

ISO 38500 ISO/IEC 38500:2008 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors, and those advising them, for the effective and effi cient use of IT. 17 Based primarily on AS 8015, the Australian IT gov- ernance standard, it “applies to the governance of management processes” that are performed at the IT service level, but the guidance assists executives in monitoring IT and ethically discharging their duties with respect to legal and regulatory compliance of IT activities.

The ISO 38500 standard comprises three main sections:

1. Scope, Application and Objectives 2. Framework for Good Corporate Governance of IT 3. Guidance for Corporate Governance of IT

CobiT is process-oriented and has been widely adopted as an IT governance framework. ValIT is value-oriented and compatible and complementary with CobiT, yet focuses on value delivery.

ITIL is the “most widely accepted approach to IT service management in the world.”

20 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

It is largely derived from AS 8015, the guiding principles of which were:

■ Establish responsibilities ■ Plan to best support the organization ■ Acquire validly ■ Ensure performance when required ■ Ensure conformance with rules ■ Ensure respect for human factors

The standard also has relationships with other major ISO standards, and embraces the same methods and approaches. 18

Information Governance

Corporate governance is the highest level of governance in an organization, and a key aspect of it is IG. IG processes are higher level than the details of IT governance and much higher than data governance, but both data and IT governance can be (and should be) a part of an overall IG program. The IG approach to governance focuses not on detailed IT or data capture and quality processes but rather on controlling the information that is generated by IT and offi ce systems. d

IG efforts seek to manage and control information assets to lower risk, ensure com- pliance with regulations, and improve information quality and accessibility while imple- menting information security measures to protect and preserve information that has busi- ness value.19 (See Chapter 1 for more detailed defi nitions.)

Impact of a Successful IG Program

When making the business case for IG and articulating its benefi ts, it is useful to focus on its central impact. Putting cost-benefi t numbers to this may be diffi cult, unless you

ISO 38500 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors responsible for IT governance.

IG is how an organization maintains security, complies with regulations and laws, and meets ethical standards when managing information.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE, IT GOVERNANCE, DATA GOVERNANCE 21

also consider the worst-case scenario of loss or misuse of corporate or agency records. What is losing the next big lawsuit worth? How much are confi dential merger and acquisition documents worth? How much are customer records worth? Frequently, executives and managers do not understand the value of IG until it is a crisis, an ex- pensive legal battle is lost, heavy fi nes are imposed for noncompliance, or executives go to jail.

There are some key outputs from implementing an IG program. A successful IG program should enable organizations to:

■ Use common terms across the enterprise. This means that departments must agree on how they are going to classify document types, which requires a cross- functional effort. With common enterprise terms, searches for information are more productive and complete. This normalization process begins with developing a standardized corporate taxonomy, which defi nes the terms (and substitute terms in a custom corporate thesaurus), document types, and their relationships in a hierarchy.

■ Map information creation and usage. This effort can be buttressed with the use of technology tools such as data loss prevention , which can be used to discover the fl ow of information within and outside of the enterprise. You must fi rst determine who is accessing which information when and where it is going. Then you can monitor and analyze these information fl ows. The goal is to stop the erosion or misuse of information assets and to stem data breaches with moni- toring and security technology.

■ Obtain “information confi dence” —that is, the assurance that information has ” integrity, validity, accuracy, and quality; this means being able to prove that the information is reliable and that its access, use, and storage meet compliance and legal demands.

■ Harvest and leverage information. Using techniques and tools like data min- ing and business intelligence, new insights may be gained that provide an enterprise with a sustainable competitive advantage over the long term, since managers will have more and better information as a basis for busi- ness decisions.21

Summing Up the Differences

IG consists of the overarching polices and processes to optimize and leverage informa- tion while keeping it secure and meeting legal and privacy obligations in alignment with stated organizational business objectives.

IT governance consists of following established frameworks and best practices to gain the most leverage and benefi t out of IT investments and support accomplishment of business objectives.

Data governance consists of the processes, methods, and techniques to ensure that data is of high quality, reliable, and unique (not duplicated), so that downstream uses in reports and databases are more trusted and accurate.

22 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Notes

1. “New Trends and Best Practices for Data Governance Success,” SeachDataManagement.com eBook, http://viewer.media.bitpipe.com/1216309501_94/1288990195_946/Talend_sDM_SO_32247_EB- ook_1104.pdf, accessed March 11, 2013.

2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. M.N. Kooper, R. Maes, and E.E.O. RoosLindgreen, “On the Governance of Information: Introducing

a New Concept of Governance to Support the Management of Information,” International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011): 195–120, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2297895 . (accessed t November 14, 2013).

5. Nick Robinson, “The Many Faces of IT Governance: Crafting an IT Governance Architecture,” ISACA Journal 1 (2007), www.isaca.org/Journal/Past-Issues/2007/Volume-1/Pages/The-Many-Faces-l of-IT-Governance-Crafting-an-IT-Governance-Architecture.aspx

6. Bryn Phillips, “IT Governance for CEOs and Members of the Board,” 2012, p.18. 7. Ibid., p.26. 8. IBM Global Business Services/Public Sector, “Control Objectives for Information and related Tech-

nology (CobiT®) Internationally Accepted Gold Standard for IT Controls & Governance,” http:// www-304.ibm.com/industries/publicsector/fi leserve?contentid=187551(accessed March 11, 2013).

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ Data governance uses techniques like data cleansing and de-duplication to improve data quality and reduce redundancies.

■ Good data governance ensures that downstream negative effects of poor data are avoided and that subsequent reports, analyses, and conclusions are based on reliable, trusted data.

■ IT governance seeks to align business objectives with IT strategy to deliver business value.

■ CobiT is processoriented and has been widely adopted as an IT governance framework. ValIT is valueoriented and compatible and complementary with CobiT yet focuses on value delivery.

■ The CobiT framework maps to the international information security stan- dard ISO 17799 and is also compatible with ITIL (IT Infrastructure Library).

■ ITIL is the “most widely accepted approach to IT service management in the world.”

■ ISO 38500 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors responsible for IT governance.

■ Information governance is how an organization maintains security, complies with regulations and laws, and meets ethical standards when managing information.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE, IT GOVERNANCE, DATA GOVERNANCE 23

9. Phillips, “IT Governance for CEOs and Members of the Board.” 10. IBM Global Business Services/Public Sector, “Control Objectives for Information and related Tech-

nology (CobiT®) Internationally Accepted Gold Standard for IT Controls & Governance.” 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. www.itil-offi cialsite.com/ (accessed March 12, 2013). 14. ITIL, “What Is ITIL?” www.itil-offi cialsite.com/AboutITIL/WhatisITIL.aspx(accessed March 12, 2013). 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. “ISO/IEC 38500:2008 “Corporate Governance of Information Technology” www.iso.org/iso/

catalogue_detail?csnumber=51639(accessed November 14, 2013). 18. ISO 38500 www.38500.org/ (accessed March 12, 2013). 19. www.naa.gov.au/records-management/agency/digital/digital-continuity/principles/ (accessed November 14,

2013). 20. ARMA International, Glossary of Records and Information Management Terms , 4th ed. TR 22–2012 (from s

ARMA.org). 21. Arvind Krishna, “Three Steps to Trusting Your Data in 2011,” CTO Edge , March 9, 2011, www.ctoedge

.com/content/three-steps-trusting-your-data-2011

25

Information Governance Principles *

C H A P T E R 3

Principles of information governance (IG) are evolving and expanding. SuccessfulIG programs are characterized by ten key principles, which are the basis for best practices and should be designed into the IG approach. They include: 1. Executive sponsorship. No IG effort will survive and be successful if it does not

have an accountable, responsible executive sponsor. The sponsor must drive the effort, clear obstacles for the IG team or committee, communicate the goals and business objectives that the IG program addresses, and keep upper management informed on progress.

2. Information policy development and communication. Clear policies must be es- tablished for the access and use of information, and those policies must be communicated regularly and crisply to employees. Policies for the use of e- mail, instant messaging, social media, cloud computing, mobile computing, and posting to blogs and internal sites must be developed in consultation with stakeholders and communicated clearly. This includes letting employees know what the consequences of violating IG policies are, as well as its value.

3. Information integrity. This area considers the consistency of methods used to create, retain, preserve, distribute, and track information. Adhering to good IG practices include data governance techniques and technologies to ensure quality data. Information integrity means there is the assurance that informa- tion is accurate, correct, and authentic. IG efforts to improve data quality and information integrity include de-duplicating (removing redundant data) and maintaining only unique data to reduce risk, storage costs, and informa- tion technology (IT) labor costs while providing accurate, trusted information for decision makers. Supporting technologies must enforce policies to meet legal standards of admissibility and preserve the integrity of information to guard against claims that it has been altered, tampered with, or deleted (called “ spoliation ”). Audit trails must be kept and monitored to ensure compliance with IG policies to assure information integrity. 1

4. Information organization and classifi cation. This means standardizing formats, categorizing all information, and semantically linking it to related information. It also means creating a retention and disposition schedule that spells out how

* Portions of this chapter are adapted from Chapter 3 of Robert F. Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices, and Technologies , © John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. s

26 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

long the information (e.g. e-mail, e-documents, spreadsheets, reports) and records should be retained and how they are to be disposed of or archived. Information, and particularly documents, should be classifi ed according to a global or corporate taxonomy that considers the business function and owner of the information, and semantically links related information. Information must be standardized in form and format. Tools such as document labeling can assist in identifying and classifying documents. Metadata associated with documents and records must be standardized and kept up-to-date. Good IG means good metadata management and utilizing metadata standards that are appropriate to the organization.

5. Information security. This means securing information in its three states: at rest, in motion, and in use. It means implementing measures to protect information from damage, theft, or alteration by malicious outsiders and insiders as well as nonmalicious (accidental) actions that may compromise information. For instance, an employee may lose a laptop with confi dential information, but if proper IG policies are enforced using security-related information tech- nologies, the information can be secured. This can be done by access control methods, data or document encryption, deploying information rights manage- ment software, using remote digital shredding capabilities, and implement- ing enhanced auditing procedures. Information privacy is closely related to information security and is critical when dealing with personally identifi able information (PII).n

6. Information accessibility. Accessibility is vital not only in the short term but also over time using long-term digital preservation (LTDP) techniques when appropriate (generally if information is needed for over fi ve years). Accessibil- ity must be balanced with information security concerns. Information acces- sibility includes making the information as simple as possible to locate and access, which involves not only the user interface but also enterprise search principles, technologies, and tools. It also includes basic access controls, such as password management, identity and access management , and delivering t information to a variety of hardware devices.

7. Information control. Document management and report management software must be deployed to control the access to, creation, updating, and printing of documents and reports. When documents or reports are declared records, they must be assigned to the proper retention and disposition schedule to be retained for as long as the records are needed to comply with legal retention periods and regulatory requirements. Also, information that may be needed or requested in legal proceedings is safeguarded through a legal hold process.

8. Information governance monitoring and auditing. To ensure that guidelines and policies are being followed and to measure employee compliance levels, in- formation access and use must be monitored. To guard against claims of spo- liation, use of e-mail, social media, cloud computing, and report generation should be logged in real time and maintained as an audit record. Technology tools such as document analytics can track how many documents or reports users access and print and how long they spend doing so.

9. Stakeholder consultation. Those who work most closely to information are the ones who best know why it is needed and how to manage it, so business units must be consulted in IG policy development. The IT department understands

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 27

its capabilities and technology plans and can best speak to those points. Le- gal issues must always be deferred to the in-house council or legal team. A cross-functional collaboration is needed for IG policies to hit the mark and be effective. The result is not only more secure information but also better information to base decisions on and closer adherence to regulatory and legal demands. 2

10. Continuous improvement. IG programs are not one-time projects but rather ongoing programs that must be reviewed periodically and adjusted to account for gaps or shortcomings as well as changes in the business environment, tech- nology usage, or business strategy.

Accountability Is Key

According to Debra Logan at Gartner Group, none of the proffered defi nitions of IG in- cludes “any notion of coercion, but rather ties governance to accountability [emphasis added] that is designed to encourage the right behavior. . . . The word that matters most is accountability .” The root of many problems with managing information is the “fact that there is no accountability for information as such.” 3

Establishing policies, procedures, processes, and controls to ensure the quality, in- tegrity, accuracy, and security of business records are the fundamental steps needed to reduce the organization’s risk and cost structure for managing these records. Then it is essential that IG efforts are supported by IT. The auditing, testing, maintenance, and im- provement of IG is enhanced by using electronic records management (ERM) software along with other complementary technology sets, such as workfl ow and business process management suite (BPMS) software and digital signatures.

Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles ®

Contributed by Charmaine Brooks, CRM A major part of an IG program is managing formal business records. Although they account for only about 7 to 9 percent of the total information that an organization holds, they are the most critically important subset to manage, as there are serious compliance and legal ramifi cations to not doing so.

Principles of successful IG programs are emerging. They include executive sponsorship, information classifi cation, integrity, security, accessibility, control, monitoring, auditing, policy development, and continuous improvement.

Accountability is a key aspect of IG.

28 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Records and recordkeeping are inextricably linked with any organized business activity. Through the information that an organization uses and records, creates, or receives in the normal course of business, it knows what has been done and by whom. This allows the organization to effectively demonstrate compliance with applicable standards, laws, and regulations as well as plan what it will do in the future to meet its mission and strategic objectives.

Standards and principles of recordkeeping have been developed by records and information management (RIM) practitioners to establish benchmarks for how or-t ganizations of all types and sizes can build and sustain compliant, defensible records management (RM) programs. t

The Principles

In 2009 ARMA International published a set of eight Generally Accepted Recordkeep- ing Principles,® known as The Principles 4 (or sometimes GAR Principles), to foster awareness of good recordkeeping practices. These principles and associated metrics provide an IG framework that can support continuous improvement.

The eight Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles are:

1. Accountability. A senior executive (or person of comparable authority) oversees the recordkeeping program and delegates program responsibility to appro- priate individuals. The organization adopts policies and procedures to guide personnel, and ensure the program can be audited.

2. Transparency. The processes and activities of an organization’s recordkeeping program are documented in a manner that is open and verifi able and is avail- able to all personnel and appropriate interested parties.

3. Integrity. A recordkeeping program shall be constructed so the records and information generated or managed by or for the organization have a reason- able and suitable guarantee of authenticity and reliability.

4. Protection. A recordkeeping program shall be constructed to ensure a reason- able level of protection to records and information that are private, confi den- tial, privileged, secret, or essential to business continuity.

5. Compliance. The recordkeeping program shall be constructed to comply with ap- plicable laws and other binding authorities, as well as the organization’s policies.

6. Availability. An organization shall maintain records in a manner that ensures timely, effi cient, and accurate retrieval of needed information.

7. Retention. An organization shall maintain its records and information for an appropriate time, taking into account legal, regulatory, fi scal, operational, and historical requirements.

8. Disposition. An organization shall provide secure and appropriate disposition for records that are no longer required to be maintained by applicable laws and the organization’s policies. 5

The Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles consist of eight principles that provide an IG framework that can support continuous improvement.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 29

The Principles apply to all sizes of organizations, in all types of industries, in both the private and public sectors, and can be used to establish consistent practices across business units. The Principles are an IG maturity model, and it is used as a preliminary evaluation of recordkeeping programs and practices.

Interest in and the application of The Principles for assessing an organization’s recordkeeping practices have steadily increased since their establishment in 2009. The Principles form an accountability framework that includes the processes, roles, stan- dards, and metrics that ensure the effective and effi cient use of records and informa- tion in support of an organization’s goals and business objectives.

As shown in Table 3.1 , the Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles matu- rity model associates characteristics that are typical in fi ve levels of recordkeeping capabilities ranging from 1 (substandard) to 5 (transformational). The levels are both descriptive and color coded for ease of understanding. The eight principles and levels (metrics) are applied to the current state of an organization’s recordkeeping capabili- ties and can be cross-referenced to the policies and procedures. While it is not unusual for an organization to be at different levels of maturity in the eight principles, the question “How good is good enough?” must be raised and answered ; a rating of less than “transforma-d tional” may be acceptable, depending on the organization’s tolerance for risk and an analysis of the costs and benefi ts of moving up each level.

The maturity levels defi ne the characteristics of evolving and maturing RM programs. The assessment should refl ect the current RM environment and practices. The principles and maturity level defi nitions, along with improvement recommendations (roadmap), outline the tasks required to proactively approach addressing systematic RM practices and reach the next level of maturity for each principle. While the Generally Accepted

Table 3.1 Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles Levels

Level 1

Substandard

Characterized by an environment where recordkeeping concerns are either not addressed at all or are addressed in an ad hoc manner.

Level 2

In Development

Characterized by an environment where there is a developing recognition that recordkeeping has an impact on the organization, and the organization may benefi t from a more defi ned information governance program.

Level 3

Essential

Characterized by an environment where defi ned policies and procedures exist that address the minimum or essential legal and regulatory requirements, but more specifi c actions need to be taken to improve recordkeeping.

Level 4

Proactive

Characterized by an environment where information governance issues and considerations are integrated into business decisions on a routine basis, and the organization consistently meets its legal and regulatory obligations.

Level 5

Transformational

Characterized by an environment that has integrated information governance into its corporate infrastructure and business processes to such an extent that compliance with program requirements is routine.

Source: Used with permission from ARMA.

The Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles maturity model measures recordkeeping maturity in fi ve levels.

30 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Recordkeeping Principles are broad in focus, they illustrate the requirements of good RM practices. The Principles Assessment can also be a powerful communication tool to promote cross-functional dialogue and collaboration among business units and staff.

Accountability The principle of accountability covers the assigned responsibility for RM at a seniory level to ensure effective governance with the appropriate level of authority. A senior- level executive must be high enough in the organizational structure to have suffi cient authority to operate the RM program effectively. The primary role of the senior ex- ecutive is to develop and implement RM policies, procedures, and guidance and to provide advice on all recordkeeping issues. The direct responsibility for managing or operating facilities or services may be delegated.

The senior executive must possess an understanding of the business and legislative environment within which the organization operates, business functions and activities, and the required relationships with key external stakeholders to understand how RM contributes to achieving the corporate mission, aims, and objectives.

It is important for top-level executives to take ownership of the RM issues of the organization and to identify corrective actions required for mitigation or ensure resolution of problems and recordkeeping challenges. An executive sponsor should identify opportunities to raise awareness of the relevance and importance of RM and effectively communicate the benefi ts of good RM to staff and management.

The regulatory and legal framework for RM must be clearly identifi ed and understood. The senior executive must have a sound knowledge of the organization’s information and technological architecture and actively participate in strategic deci- sions for IT systems acquisition and implementation.

The senior executive is responsible for ensuring that the processes, procedures, governance structures, and related documentation are developed. The policies should identify the roles and responsibilities at all levels of the organization.

An audit process must be developed to cover all aspects of RM within the organization, including substantiating that suffi cient levels of accountability have been assigned and accountability defi ciencies are identifi ed and remedied. Audit processes should include compliance with the organization policies and procedures for all records, regardless of format or media. Accountability audit requirements for electronic records include employing appropriate technology to audit the information architecture and systems. Accountability structures must be updated and maintained as changes occur in the technology infrastructure.

The audit process must reinforce compliance and hold individuals accountable. The results should be constructive, encourage continuous improvement, but not be used as a means of punishment. The audit should contribute to records program improve- ments in risk mitigation, control, and governance issues and have the capacity to support sustainability.

An audit process must be developed to cover all aspects of RM in the organization.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 31

Transparency Policies are broad guidelines for the operation of the organization and provide a basic guide to action that prescribes the boundaries within which business activities are to take place. They state the course of action to be followed by the organization, business unit, department, and employees.

Transparency of recordkeeping practices includes documenting processes and y promoting an understanding of the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders. To be effective, policies must be formalized and integrated into business processes. Business rules and recordkeeping requirements need to be communicated and installed at all levels of the organization.

Senior management must recognize that transparency is fundamental to IG and compliance. Documentation must be consistent, current, and complete. A review and approval process must be established to ensure that the introduction of new programs or changes can be implemented and integrated into business processes.

Employees must have ready access to RM policies and procedures. They must re- ceive guidance and training to ensure they understand their roles and requirements for RM. Recordkeeping systems and business processes must be designed and developed to clearly defi ne the records lifecycle.

In addition to policies and procedures, guidelines and operational instructions, diagrams and fl owcharts, system documentation, and user manuals must include clear guidance on how records are to be created, retained, stored, and dispositioned. The documentation must be readily available and incorporated in communications and training provided to staff.

Integrity Record generating systems and repositories must be assessed to determine record- keeping capabilities. A formalized process must be in place for acquiring or developing new systems, including requirements for capturing the metadata required for lifecycle management of records in the systems. In addition, the record must contain all the necessary elements of an offi cial record, including structure, content, and context. Records integrity, y reliability, and trustworthiness are confi rmed by ensuring that a record was created by a competent authority according to established processes.

Maintaining the integrity of records means that they are complete and protected from being altered. The authenticity of a record is ascertained from internal and exter- nal evidence, including the characteristics, structure, content, and context of the records, to verify they are genuine and not corrupted or altered. In order to trust that a record is authentic, organizations must ensure that recordkeeping systems that create, capture , and manage electronic records are capable of protecting re- cords from accidental or unauthorized alteration or deletion while the record has value.

To be effective, policies must be formalized and integrated into business processes.

32 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Protection Organizations must ensure the protection of records and ensure they are unaltered through loss, tampering, or corruption. This includes technological change or the failure of digital storage media and protecting records against damage or deterioration.

This principle applies equally to physical and electronic records, each of which has unique requirements and challenges.

Access and security controls need to be established, implemented, monitored, and reviewed to ensure business continuity and minimize business risk. Restrictions on access and disclosure include the methods for protecting personal privacy and propri- etary information. Access and security requirements must be integrated into the busi- ness systems and processes for the creation, use, and storage of records.

LTDP is a series of managed activities required to ensure continued access to digi- tal materials for as long as necessary. Electronic records requiring long-term retention may require conversion to a medium and format suitable to ensure long-term access and readability.

Compliance RM programs include the development and training of the fundamental components, including compliance monitoring to ensure sustainability of the program.g

Monitoring for compliance involves reviewing and inspecting the various facets of records management, including ensuring records are being properly created and captured, im- plementation of user permissions and security procedures, workfl ow processes through sampling to ensure adherence to policies and procedures, ensuring records are being retained following disposal authorization, and documentation of records destroyed or transferred to determine whether destruction/transfer was authorized in accordance with disposal instructions.

Compliance monitoring can be carried out by an internal audit, external organiza- tion, or RM and must be done on a regular basis.

Availability Organizations should evaluate how effectively and effi ciently records and information are stored and retrieved using present equipment, networks, and software . The evaluation should identify current and future requirements and recommend new systems as appropriate. Certain factors should be considered before upgrading or imple- menting new systems. These factors are practicality, cost, and effectiveness of new confi gurations.

A major challenge for organizations is ensuring timely and reliable access to and use of information and that records are accessible and usable for the entire length of the retention period. Rapid changes and enhancements to both hardware and software compound this challenge.

Retention Retention is the function of preserving and maintaining records for continuing use. The reten- tion schedule identifi es the actions needed to fulfi ll the requirements for the retention and disposal of records and provides the authority for employees and systems to retain, destroy, or transfer records. The records retention schedule documents the record- keeping requirements and procedures, identifying how records are to be organized

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 33

and maintained, what needs to happen to records and when, who is responsible for doing what, and whom to contact with questions or guidance.

Organizations must identify the scope of their recordkeeping requirements for documenting business activities based on regulated activities and jurisdictions that im- pose control over records. This includes business activities regulated by the govern- ment for every location or jurisdiction in which the company does business. Other considerations for determining retention requirements include operational, legal, fi s- cal, and historical ones.

Records appraisal is the process of assessing the value and risk of records to determine their retention and disposition requirements. Legal research is outlined in appraisal reports. This appraisal process may be accomplished as a part of the process of developing the records retention schedules as well as conducting a regular review to ensure that citations and requirements are current.

The records retention period is the length of time that records should be retained and d the actions taken for them to be destroyed or preserved. The retention periods for different records should be based on legislative or regulatory requirements as well as on admin- istrative and operational requirements.

It is important to document the legal research conducted and used to determine whether the law or regulation has been reasonably applied to the recordkeeping prac- tices and provide evidence to regulatory offi cials or courts that due diligence has been conducted in good faith to comply with all applicable requirements.

Disposition Disposition is the last stage in the life cycle of records. When the retention requirements have been met and the records no longer serve a useful business purpose, records may be destroyed. Records requiring long-term or permanent retention should be trans- ferred to an archive for preservation. The timing of the transfer of physical or elec- tronic records should be determined through the records retention schedule process. Additional methods, including migration or conversion, are often required to preserve electronic records.

Records must be destroyed in a controlled and secure manner and in accordance with authorized disposal instructions. The destruction of records must be clearly doc- umented to provide evidence of destruction according to an agreed-on program.

Destruction of records must be undertaken by methods appropriate to the con- fi dentiality of the records and in accordance with disposal instructions in the records retention schedule. An audit trail documenting the destruction of records should be maintained, and certifi cates of destruction should be obtained for destruction under- taken by third parties. In the event disposal schedules are not in place, written autho- rization should be obtained prior to destruction. Procedures should specify who must supervise the destruction of records. Approved methods of destruction must be speci- fi ed for each media type to ensure that information cannot be reconstructed.

Disposition is the last stage in the life cycle of records. Disposition is not syn- onymous with destruction, although destruction may be one disposal option.

34 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Disposition is not synonymous with destruction, although destruction may be one disposal option. Destruction of records must be carried out under controlled, confi dential conditions by shredding or permanent disposition. This includes the destruction of confi dential microfi lm, microfi che, computer cassettes, and computer tapes as well as paper.

Methods of Disposition

■ Discard. The standard destruction method for nonconfi dential records. If pos- sible, all records should be shredded prior to recycling. Note that transitory records can also be shredded.

■ Shred. Confi dential and sensitive records should be processed under strict security. This may be accomplished internally or by secure on-site shredding by a third party vendor who provides certifi cates of secure destruction. The shredded material is then recycled.

■ Archive. This designation is for records requiring long-term or permanent preservation. Records of enduring legal, fi scal, administrative, or historical value are retained.

■ Imaging. Physical records converted to digital images, after which the original paper documents are destroyed.

■ Purge. This special designation is for data, documents, or records sets that need to be purged by removing material based on specifi ed criteria. This often ap- plies to structure records in databases and applications.

Assessment and Improvement Roadmap

The Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® maturity model can be lever- aged to develop a current state assessment of an organization’s recordkeeping prac- tices and resources, identify gaps and assess risks, and develop priorities for desired improvements.

The Principles were developed by ARMA International to identify characteristics of an effective recordkeeping program. Each of the eight principles identifi es issues and practices that, when evaluated against the unique needs and circumstances of an organization, can be applied to improvements for a recordkeeping program that meets recordkeeping requirements. The Principles identify requirements and can be used to guide incremental improvement in creation, organization, security, maintenance, and other activities over a period of one to fi ve years. Fundamentally, RM and information governance are business disciplines that must be tightly integrated with operational policies, procedures, and infrastructure.

The Principles can be mapped to the four improvement areas in Table 3.2 . As an accepted industry guidance maturity model, the Principles provide a con-

venient and complete framework for assessing the current state of an organization’s recordkeeping and developing a roadmap to identify improvements that will bring the organization into compliance. An assessment/analysis of the current RM practices, procedures, and capabilities together with current and future state practices provides two ways of looking at the future requirements of a complete RM (see Table 3.3 ).

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 35

Table 3.2 Improvement Areas for Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles

Improvement Area A cc

o un

ta b

ili ty

Tr an

sp ar

en cy

In te

g ri

ty

Pr o

te ct

io n

C o

m p

lia n

ce

A va

ila b

ili ty

R et

en ti

o n

D is

p o

si ti

o n

Roles and responsibilities ◊ ◊ ◊

Policies and procedures ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Communication and training ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Systems and automation ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊ ◊

Who Should Determine IG Policies?

When forming an IG steering committee or board, it is essential to include represen- tatives from cross-functional groups and at different levels of the organization. The committee must be driven by an executive sponsor and include active members from key business units as well as other departments, including IT, fi nance, risk, compli- ance, RM, and legal. Then corporate training/education and communications must be involved to keep employees trained and current on IG policies. This function may be performed by an outside consulting fi rm if there is no corporate education staff.

Knowledge workers who work with records and sensitive information in any ca- pacity best understand the nature and value of the records they work with as they perform their day-to-day functions. IG policies must be developed and communicated clearly and consistently. Policies are worthless if people do not know or understand them or how to comply with them . And training is a crucial element that will be examined in any compliance hearing or litigation that may arise. “Did senior management not only cre- ate the policies but provide adequate training on them on a consistent basis?” This will be a key question raised. So a training plan is a necessary piece of IG, and education should be heavily emphasized. 6

The need for IG is increasing due to increased and tightened regulations, in- creased litigation, and the increased incidence of theft and misuse of internal docu- ments and records. Organizations that do not have active IG programs should reevaluate IG policies and their internal processes following any major loss of records, the inability to

When forming an IG steering committee or board, it is essential to include representatives from cross-functional groups.

Knowledge workers who work with records in any capacity best understand the nature and value of the records they work with.

36

Ta bl

e  3.

3 A

ss es

sm en

t R ep

or t a

nd R

oa d

M ap

.

Pr in

ci p

le Le

ve l

Fi n

d in

g s

R eq

ui re

m en

ts t

o M

o ve

t o

t h

e N

ex t

St ep

A cc

ou nt

ab ili

ty Le

ve l 1

Su bs

ta nd

ar d

N o

se ni

or e

xe cu

tiv e

(o r

p er

so n

of c

om p

ar ab

le a

ut ho

rit y)

is r

es p

on si

bl e

fo r

th e

RM p

ro gr

am .

Th e

re co

rd s

m an

ag er

r ol

e is

la rg

el y

no ne

xi st

en t

or is

a n

ad m

in is

tr at

iv e

an d/

or c

le ric

al r

ol e

di st

rib ut

ed a

m on

g ge

ne ra

l s ta

ff.

1.

A ss

ig n

RM r

es p

on si

bi lit

ie s

to s

en io

r ex

ec ut

iv e.

2.

H ire

o r

p ro

m ot

e re

co rd

s m

an ag

er .

Tr an

s p ar

en cy

Le ve

l 1

Su bs

ta nd

ar d

It is

d iffi

c ul

t to

o bt

ai n

in fo

rm at

io n

ab ou

t th

e or

ga ni

za tio

n or

it s

re co

rd s

in a

tim

el y

fa sh

io n.

N o

cl ea

r do

cu m

en ta

tio n

is r

ea di

ly a

va ila

bl e.

Th er

e is

n o

em p

ha si

s on

t ra

ns p

ar en

cy .

Pu bl

ic r

e q ue

st s

fo r

in fo

rm at

io n,

d is

co ve

ry fo

r lit

ig at

io n,

r eg

ul at

or y

re sp

on se

s, or

o th

er r

eq ue

st s

(e .g

., fr

om p

ot en

tia l b

us in

es s

p ar

tn er

s, in

ve st

or s,

o r

bu ye

rs )

ca nn

ot b

e re

ad ily

a cc

om m

od at

ed .

Th e

or ga

ni za

tio n

ha s

no t

es ta

bl is

he d

co nt

ro ls

t o

en su

re t

he c

on si

st en

cy o

f in

fo rm

at io

n di

sc lo

su re

.

Bu si

ne ss

p ro

ce ss

es a

re n

ot w

el l d

efi n

ed .

1.

D ev

el op

p ol

ic ie

s an

d p

ro ce

du re

s.

2.

D ev

el op

t ra

in in

g fo

r al

l l ev

el s

of s

ta ff.

3.

Id en

tif y

re q

ui re

m en

ts fo

r re

co rd

s fi n

da bi

lit y

an d

ac ce

ss ib

ili ty

.

4.

D efi

n e

bu si

ne ss

p ro

ce ss

es .

In te

gr ity

Le ve

l 1

Su bs

ta nd

ar d

Th er

e ar

e no

s ys

te m

at ic

a ud

its o

r de

fi n ed

p ro

ce ss

es fo

r sh

ow in

g th

e or

ig in

an

d au

th en

tic ity

o f a

r ec

or d.

Va rio

us o

rg an

iz at

io na

l f un

ct io

ns u

se a

d ho

c m

et ho

ds t

o de

m on

st ra

te

au th

en tic

ity a

nd c

ha in

o f c

us to

dy , a

s ap

p ro

p ria

te , b

ut t

he ir

tr us

tw or

th in

es s

ca nn

ot e

as ily

b e

gu ar

an te

ed .

1.

D ev

el op

a ud

it p

ro ce

ss .

2.

Id en

tif y

bu si

ne ss

a ct

iv iti

es fo

r cr

ea tio

n an

d st

or ag

e of

r ec

or ds

.

Pr ot

ec tio

n Le

ve l 1

Su bs

ta nd

ar d

N o

co ns

id er

at io

n is

g iv

en t

o re

co rd

p riv

ac y.

Re co

rd s

ar e

st or

ed h

ap ha

za rd

ly , w

ith p

ro te

ct io

n ta

ke n

by v

ar io

us g

ro up

s an

d de

p ar

tm en

ts w

ith n

o ce

nt ra

liz ed

a cc

es s

co nt

ro ls

.

A cc

es s

co nt

ro ls

, i f a

ny , a

re a

ss ig

ne d

by t

he a

ut ho

r.

1.

A ss

es s

se cu

rit y

an d

ac ce

ss c

on tr

ol s.

2.

D ev

el op

a cc

es s

an d

se cu

rit y

co nt

ro l s

ch em

e.

C om

p lia

nc e

Le ve

l 3

Es se

nt ia

l

Th e

or ga

ni za

tio n

ha s

id en

tifi e

d al

l r el

ev an

t co

m p

lia nc

e la

w s

an d

re gu

la tio

ns .

Re co

rd c

re at

io n

an d

ca p

tu re

a re

s ys

te m

at ic

al ly

c ar

rie d

ou t

in a

cc or

da nc

e w

ith R

M p

rin ci

p le

s.

Th e

or ga

ni za

tio n

ha s

a st

ro ng

c od

e of

b us

in es

s co

nd uc

t, w

hi ch

is in

te gr

at ed

in

to it

s ov

er al

l I G

s tr

uc tu

re a

nd r

ec or

d- ke

ep in

g p

ol ic

ie s.

C om

p lia

nc e

an d

th e

re co

rd s

th at

d em

on st

ra te

it a

re h

ig hl

y va

lu ed

a nd

m ea

su ra

bl e.

1.

Im p

le m

en t

sy st

em s

to c

ap tu

re a

nd p

ro te

ct re

co rd

s.

2.

D ev

el o p

m et

ad at

a sc

he m

e.

3.

D ev

el op

r em

ed ia

tio n

p la

n an

d im

p le

m en

t co

rr ec

tiv e

ac tio

ns .

37

Th e

ho ld

p ro

ce ss

is in

te gr

at ed

in to

t he

o rg

an iz

at io

n’ s

in fo

rm at

io n

m an

ag em

en t

an d

di sc

ov er

y p

ro ce

ss es

fo r

th e

m os

t cr

iti ca

l s ys

te m

s.

Th e

or ga

ni za

tio n

ha s

de fi n

ed s

p ec

ifi c

go al

s re

la te

d to

c om

p lia

nc e.

Av ai

la bi

lit y

Le ve

l 2

In D

ev el

op m

en t

Re co

rd r

et rie

va l m

ec ha

ni sm

s ha

ve b

ee n

im p

le m

en te

d in

c er

ta in

a re

as o

f t he

or

ga ni

za tio

n.

In t

ho se

a re

as w

ith r

et rie

va l m

ec ha

ni sm

s, it

is p

os si

bl e

to d

is tin

gu is

h be

tw ee

n of

fi c ia

l r ec

or ds

, d up

lic at

es , a

nd n

on re

co rd

m at

er ia

ls .

Th er

e ar

e so

m e

p ol

ic ie

s on

w he

re a

nd h

ow t

o st

or e

of fi c

ia l r

ec or

ds , b

ut a

st

an da

rd is

n ot

im p

os ed

a cr

os s

th e

or ga

ni za

tio n.

Le ga

l d is

co ve

ry is

c om

p lic

at ed

a nd

c os

tly d

ue t

o th

e in

co ns

is te

nt t

re at

m en

t of

in fo

rm at

io n.

1.

D ev

el op

e nt

er p

ris e

cl as

si fi c

at io

n sc

he m

e.

2.

Id en

tif y

us er

s ea

rc h

an d

re tr

ie va

l re

q ui

re m

en ts

.

3.

D ev

el op

s ta

nd ar

ds fo

r m

an ag

in g

th e

re co

rd s

lif ec

yc le

.

Re te

nt io

n Le

ve l 2

In D

ev el

op m

en t

A r

et en

tio n

sc he

du le

is a

va ila

bl e

bu t

do es

n ot

e nc

om p

as s

al l r

ec or

ds , d

id

no t

go t

hr ou

gh o

ffi ci

al r

ev ie

w , a

nd is

n ot

w el

l k no

w n

th ro

ug ho

ut t

he or

ga ni

za tio

n.

Th e

re te

nt io

n sc

he du

le is

n ot

r eg

ul ar

ly u

p da

te d

or m

ai nt

ai ne

d.

Ed uc

at io

n an

d tr

ai ni

ng a

bo ut

t he

r et

en tio

n p

ol ic

ie s

ar e

no t

av ai

la bl

e.

1.

D ev

el op

e nt

er p

ris e-

w id

e fu

nc tio

na l r

et en

tio n

sc he

du le

.

2.

M ap

r et

en tio

n sc

he du

le t

o cl

as si

fi c at

io n

sc he

m e.

3.

Im p

le m

en t

an a

nn ua

l r ev

ie w

p ro

ce ss

fo r

re co

rd s

er ie

s an

d le

ga l r

es ea

rc h.

4.

D ev

el op

t ra

in in

g fo

r cl

as si

fi c at

io n

sc he

m e

an d

re te

nt io

n sc

he du

le .

D is

p os

iti on

Le ve

l 2

In D

ev el

op m

en t

Pr el

im in

ar y

gu id

el in

es fo

r di

sp os

iti on

a re

e st

ab lis

he d.

Th er

e is

a r

ea liz

at io

n of

t he

im p

or ta

nc e

of s

us p

en di

ng d

is p

os iti

on in

a

co ns

is te

nt m

an ne

r, re

p ea

ta bl

e by

c er

ta in

le ga

l g ro

up in

gs .

Th er

e m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot b

e en

fo rc

em en

t an

d au

di tin

g of

d is

p os

iti on

.

1.

D ev

el op

p ro

ce du

re s

fo r

re co

rd s

di sp

os iti

on .

2.

Im p

le m

en t

di sp

os iti

on p

ro ce

ss es

.

3.

D ev

el op

a ud

it tr

ai ls

fo r

re co

rd s

tr an

sf er

s an

d de

st ru

ct io

n.

O ve

ra ll

Le ve

l 1

Su bs

ta nd

ar d

38 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ Principles of successful IG programs are emerging. They include executive sponsorship, information classifi cation, integrity, security, accessibility, control, monitoring, auditing, policy development, and continuous improvement.

■ Accountability is a key aspect of IG.

■ The Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® (“The Principles”) consist of eight principles that provide an IG framework that can support continuous improvement.

■ An audit process must be developed to cover all aspects of RM in the organization.

■ To be effective, policies must be formalized and integrated into business processes.

■ Disposition is the last stage in the life cycle of records. Disposition is not synonymous with destruction, although destruction may be one disposal option.

■ Knowledge workers who work with records in any capacity best understand the nature and value of the records they work with.

■ When forming an information governance steering committee or board, it is essential to include representatives from cross-functional groups.

■ Organizations without active IG programs should reevaluate IG policies and their internal processes following any major loss of records, the inability to produce accurate records in a timely manner, or any document security breach or theft.

produce accurate records in a timely manner, or any document security breach or theft. If review boards include a broad section of critical players on the IG committee and leverage executive sponsorship, theywill better prepare the organization for legal and regulatory rigors.

Notes

1. Laura DuBois and Vivian Tero, “Practical Information Governance: Balancing Cost, Risk, and Produc- tivity,” IDC White Paper, August 2010, www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-practical-infor- mation-governance-ar.pdf

2. Ibid. 3. Debra Logan, “What Is Information Governance? And Why Is It So Hard?” January 11, 2010, http://

blogs.gartner.com/debra_logan/2010/01/11/what-is-information-governance-and-why-is-it-so-hard/ .

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE PRINCIPLES 39

4. ARMA International, “Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles,” www.arma.org/r2/generally- accepted-br-recordkeeping-principles/copyright (accessed November 14, 2013).

5. ARMA International,“Information Governance Maturity Model,” www.arma.org/r2/generally- accepted-br-recordkeeping-principles (accessed November 14, 2013).

6. “Governance Overview (SharePoint Server 2010),” http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ cc263356.aspx (accessed April 19, 2011).

PART TWO Information Governance Risk Assessment and Strategic Planning

43

C H A P T E R 4 Information Risk Planning and Management

Information risk planning involves a number of progressive steps: identifying poten-tial risks to information, weighing those risks, creating strategic plans to mitigate therisks, and developing those plans into specifi c policies. Then it moves to develop- ing metrics to measure compliance levels and identifying those who are accountable for executing the new risk mitigating processes. These processes must be audited and tested periodically not only to ensure compliance, but also to fi ne tune and improve the processes.

Depending on the jurisdiction, information is required by specifi c laws and regu- lations to be retained for specifi ed periods, and to be produced in specifi ed situations. To determine which laws and regulations apply to your organization’s information, re- search into the legal and regulatory requirements for information in the jurisdictions in which your organization operates must be conducted.

Step 1: Survey and Determine Legal and Regulatory Applicability and Requirements

There are federal, provincial, state, and even municipal laws and regulations that may apply to the retention of information (data, documents, and records). Organizations operating in multiple jurisdictions must maintain compliance with laws and regula- tions that may cross national, state, or provincial boundaries. Legally required pri- vacy requirements and retention periods must be researched for each jurisdiction (e.g. county, state, country) in which the business operates, so that it complies with all ap- plicable laws.

IG, compliance, and records managers must conduct their own legislative research to apprise themselves of mandatory information retention requirements, as well as privacy considerations and requirements, especially in regard to personally identifi - able information (PII). This information must be analyzed and structured and pre- sented to legal staff for discussion. Then further legal and regulatory research must be conducted, and fi rm legal opinions must be rendered by legal counsel regarding information retention, privacy, and security requirements in accordance with laws and regulations. This is an absolute requirement. In order to arrive at a consensus on records that have legal value to the organization and to construct an appropriate retention

44 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

schedule, your legal staff or outside legal counsel should explain the legal hold process, provide opinions and interpretations of law that apply to your organization, and ex- plain the value of formal records.

Legal requirements trump all others. The retention period for a particular type of document or PII data or records series must meet minimum retention, privacy, and security requirements as mandated by law. Business needs and other considerations are secondary. So, legal research is required before determining and implementing reten- tion periods, privacy policies, and security measures.

In order to locate the regulations and citations relating to retention of records, there are two basic approaches. The fi rst approach is to use a records retention citation service, which publishes in electronic form all of the retention-related citations. These services usually are purchased on a subscription basis, as the cita- tions are updated on an annual or more frequent basis as legislation and regula- tions change.

Figure 4.1 is an excerpt from a Canadian records retention database product called FILELAW®. 1 In this case, the act, citation, and retention periods are clearly identifi ed.

Another approach is to search the laws and regulations directly using online or print resources. Records retention requirements for corporations operating in the United States may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

In identifying information requirements and risks, legal requirements trump all others.

Figure 4.1 Excerpt from Canadian Records Retention Database Source: Ontario, Electricity Act, FILELAW database, Thomson Publishers, May 2012.

INFORMATION RISK PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 45

The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) annual edition is the codifi cation of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the de- partments and agencies of the federal government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis. The annual update cycle is as follows: titles 1 to 16 are revised as of January 1; titles 17 to 27 are revised as of April 1; titles 28 to 41 are revised as of July 1; and titles 42 to 50 are revised as of October 1. Each title is divided into chapters, which usually bear the name of the issu- ing agency. Each chapter is further subdivided into parts that cover specifi c regulatory areas. Large parts may be subdivided into subparts. All parts are organized in sections, and most citations to the CFR refer to material at the section level. 2

There is an up-to-date version that is not yet a part of the offi cial CFR but is updated daily, the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) . “It is not an offi cial legal edition of the CFR. The e-CFR is an editorial compilation of CFR ma- terial and Federal Register amendments produced by the National Archives and Re- cords Administration’s Offi ce of the Federal Register . . . and the Government Printing Offi ce.”3 According to the gpoaccess.gov Web site:

The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) has autho- rized the National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) Offi ce of the Federal Register (OFR) and the Government Printing Offi ce (GPO) to develop and maintain the e-CFR as an informational resource pending ACFR action to grant the e-CFR offi cial legal status. The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information in the e-CFR editorial compilation with the objective of establishing it as an ACFR sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to en- sure that the e-CFR on GPO Access is accurate, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against the offi cial editions of the CFR, Federal Register and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), all available online at www.gpoaccess.gov . Until the ACFR grants it offi cial status, the e-CFR editorial compilation does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

The OFR updates the material in the e-CFR on a daily basis. Generally, the e-CFR is current within two business days. The current update status is displayed at the top of all e-CFR web pages.

For governmental agencies, a key consideration is complying with requests for information as a result of freedom of information laws like the U.S. Freedom of

In the United States the Code of Federal Regulations lists retention require- ments for businesses, divided into 50 subject matter areas.

46 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Information Act, Freedom of Information Act 2000 (in the United Kingdom), and similar legislation in other countries. So the process of governing information is criti- cal to meeting these requests by the public for governmental records.

Step 2: Specify IG Requirements to Achieve Compliance

Once the legal research has been conducted and a process for keeping updated on laws and regulations has been established, specifi c external compliance requirements can be listed and those data, document, and record sets that apply to those external compliance requirements can be mapped back to applicable holdings of data sets, document col- lections, and records series. The crucial task is keeping your legal and records manage- ment staff apprised of changes and updating the policies and processes appropriately.

Internal IG retention policies may be different from the legally mandated minimums. For instance, an organization that is not operating in a highly regulated industry that wants to balance defensible disposition with a need to retain corporate memory and develop knowledge management (KM) content or “knowledge bases” may have the optiont to dispose of e-mail that is not declared a record or cited for legal hold after 90 days, but may choose, based on corporate culture and other business factors, to retain e-mail messages for a year. Similarly, the organization may make legally defensible disposition decisions that reduce the total amount of information it must manage by using a “last ac- cessed” rationale, whereby information that has not been accessed for over one year (or whatever the specifi ed period is) may be destroyed and discarded, as a matter of policy.

Step 3: Create a Risk Profi le

Creating a risk profi le is a basic building block in enterprise risk management (yet t another ERM acronym), which assists executives in understanding the risks associatedr with stated business objectives and allocating resources, within a structured evaluation approach or framework. There are multiple ways to create a risk profi le, and how often it is done, the external sources consulted, and stakeholders who have input will vary from organization to organization. 4 A key tenet to bear in mind is that simpler is better and that sophisticated tools and techniques should not make the process overly complex. According to the ISO, risk is defi ned as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives,” and a risk profi le is “a description of a set of risks.”5 Creating a risk profi le involves identifying, docu- menting, assessing, and prioritizing risks that an organization may face in pursuing its business objectives. It can be a simple table chart. Those associated risks can then be evaluated and delineated within a risk or IG framework.

The corporate risk profi le should be an informative tool for executive manage- ment, the CEO, and the board of directors, so it should refl ect that tone. In other

The risk profi le is a high-level, executive decision input tool.

INFORMATION RISK PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 47

words, it should be clear, succinct, and simplifi ed. A risk profi le may also serve to in- form the head of a division or subsidiary, in which case it may contain more detail. The process can also be applied to public and nonprofi t entities.

The time horizon for a risk profi le varies, but looking out three to fi ve years is a good rule of thumb . 6 The risk profi le typically will be created annually, although semiannually would serve the organization better and account for changes in the business and legal environment. But if an organization is competing in a market sector with rapid busi- ness cycles or volatility, the risk profi le should be generated more frequently, perhaps quarterly.

There are different types of risk profi le methodologies; common methodologies are a top-10 list, a risk map , and a heat map . The top-10 list is a simple identifi cation and ranking of the 10 greatest risks in relation to business objectives. The risk map is a visual tool that is easy to grasp, with a grid depicting a likelihood axis and an impact axis, usually rated on a scale of 1 to 5. In a risk assessment meeting, stakeholders can weigh in on risks using voting technology to generate a consensus. A heat map is a color-coded matrix generated by stakeholders voting on risk level by color (e.g., red being highest).

Information gathering is a fundamental activity in building the risk profi le. Surveys are good for gathering basic information, but for more detail, a good method to employ is direct, person-to-person interviews, beginning with executives and risk professionals.7 Select a representative cross section of functional groups to gain a broad view. Depend- ing on the size of the organization, you may need to conduct 20 to 40 interviews, with one person asking the questions and probing while another team member takes notes and asks occasionally for clarifi cation or elaboration. Conduct the interviews in a com- pressed timeframe—knock them out within one to three weeks and do not drag the process out, as business conditions and personnel can change over the course of months.

Here are three helpful considerations to conducting successful interviews.

1. Prepare some questions for interviewees in advance and provide them to in- terviewees so they may prepare and do some of their own research.

2. Schedule the interview close to their offi ces, and at their convenience. 3. Keep the time as short as possible but long enough to get the answers you will

need: approximately 20 to 45 minutes. Be sure to leave some open time be- tween interviews to collect your thoughts and prepare for the next interview. And follow up with interviewees after analyzing and distilling your notes to confi rm you have gained the correct insights.

The information you will be harvesting will vary depending on the interviewee’s level and function. You will need to look for any hard data or reports that show performance and trends related to information risk. There may be benchmarking data

A common risk profi le method is to create a prioritized or ranked top-10 list of greatest risks to information.

48 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

available as well. Delve into information access and security policies, policy devel- opment, policy adherence, and the like. Ask questions about retention of e-mail and legal hold processes. Ask about records retention and disposition policies. Ask about long-term preservation of digital records. Ask about data deletion policies. Ask for documentation regarding IG-related training and communications. Dig into policies for access to confi dential data and securing vital records. Try to get a real sense of the way things are run, what is standard operating procedure, and also how workers might get around overly restrictive policies, or operate without clear policies. Learn enough so that you can grasp the management style and corporate culture, and then distill that information into your fi ndings.

Key events and developments must also be included in the risk profi le. For in- stance, a major data breach, the loss or potential loss of a major lawsuit, pending regu- latory changes that could impact your IG policies, or a change in business ownership or structure must all be accounted for and factored into the information risk profi le. Even changes in governmental leadership should be considered, if they might impact IG policies. These types of developments should be tracked on a regular basis and should continue to feed into the risk equation. 8 Key events should be monitored and incorporated in developing and subsequently updating the risk profi le.

At this point, it should be possible to generate a list of specifi c potential risks. It may be useful to group or categorize the potential risks into clusters, such as natural disaster, regulatory, safety, competitive, and so forth . Armed with this list of risks, you should solicit input from stakeholders as to the likelihood and timing of the threats or risks. As the organization matures in its risk identifi cation and handling capabilities, a good practice is to look at the risks and their ratings from previous years to attempt to gain insights into change and trends—both external and internal—that affected the risks.

Step 4: Perform Risk Analysis and Assessment

Once you have created a risk profi le and identifi ed key risks, you must conduct an as- sessment of the likelihood that these risks hold and their resultant impact.

There are fi ve basic steps in conducting a risk assessment: 9

1. Identify the risks. This should be an output of creating a risk profi le, but if con- ducting an information risk assessment, fi rst identify the major information- related risks.

2. Determine potential impact. If a calculation of a range of economic impact is possible (e.g., lose $5 to $10 million in legal damages), then include it. If not, be as specifi c as possible as to how a negative event related to an identifi ed risk can impact business objectives.

Once a list of risks is developed, grouping them into basic categories helps stakeholders grasp them more easily and consider their likelihood and impact.

INFORMATION RISK PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 49

3. Evaluate risk levels and probabilities and recommend action. This may be in the form of recommending new procedures or processes, new investments in in- formation technology (IT), or other actions to mitigate identifi ed risks.

4. Create a report with recommendations and implement. You may want to include a risk assessment table (see Table 4.1 ) as well as written recommendations, then implement.

5. Review periodically. Review annually or semiannually, as appropriate for your organization.

A helpful exercise and visual tool is to draw up a table of top risks, their potential impacts, actions that have been taken to mitigate the risks, and suggested new risk countermeasures, as in Table 4.1 .

Step 5: Develop an Information Risk Mitigation Plan

After setting out the risks, their potential impacts, and suggested countermeasures for mitigation, you must create the information risk mitigation plan , which means developing options and tasks to reduce the specifi ed risks and improve the odds of achieving business objectives. 10 Basically, you are putting in writing the information you have collected and analyzed in creating the risk profi le and risk assessment, and as- signing specifi cs. The information risk mitigation plan should include a timetable and milestones for implementation of the recommended risk mitigation measures, includ- ing IT acquisition and implementation and assigning roles and responsibilities, such as executive sponsor, project manager (PM), and project team.

Table 4.1 Risk Assessment

What Are the Risks?

How Might They Impact Business Objectives?

Actions and Processes Currently in Place

Additional Resources Needed to Manage This Risk

Action by Whom?

Action by When? Done

Breach of confi dential documents

Compromise confi dential information

Compromise competitive position

Compromise business negotiations

Utilizing ITIL and CobiT IT frameworks

Published security policies

Semiannual security audits

Implement newer technologies including information rights management

Implement quarterly audits

IT staff, security offi cer

01/10/2016 01/10/2016

The risk mitigation plan develops risk reduction options and tasks to reduce specifi ed risks and improve the odds for achieving business objectives.

50 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Step 6: Develop Metrics and Measure Results

How do you know how well you are doing? Have you made progress in reducing your organization’s exposure to information risk? To measure conformance and per- formance of your IG program, you must have an objective way to measure how you are doing, which means numbers and metrics. Assigning some quantitative measures that are meaningful and do, in fact, measure progress may take some serious effort and consultation with stakeholders. Determining relevant ways of measuring progress will allow executives to see progress, as, realistically, reducing risk is not something anyone can see or feel—the painful realizations are made only when the risk comes home to roost. Also, valid metrics help to justify investment in the IG program.

Although the proper metrics will vary from organization to organization, some specifi c metrics include:

■ Reduce the data lost on stolen or misplaced laptops by 50 percent over the previous fi scal year.

■ Reduce the number of hacker intrusion events by 75 percent over the previous fi scal year.

■ Reduce e-discovery costs by 25 percent over the previous fi scal year. ■ Reduce the number of adverse fi ndings in the risk and compliance audit by 50

percent over the previous fi scal year. ■ Provide information risk training to 100 percent of the knowledge-level work-

force this fi scal year. ■ Roll out the implementation of information rights management software to

protect confi dential e-documents to 50 users this fi scal year. ■ Provide confi dential messaging services for the organization’s 20 top executives

this fi scal year.

Your organization’s metrics should be tailored to address the primary goals of your IG program and should tie directly to stated business objectives.

Step 7: Execute Your Risk Mitigation Plan

Now that you have the risk mitigation plan, it must be executed. To do so, you must set up regular project/program team meetings, develop key reports on your information risk mitigation metrics, and manage the process. This is done using proven project and pro- gram management tools and techniques, which you may want to supplement with collab- oration software tools, knowledge management software, or even internal social media.

But most important, execution of the risk mitigation plan involves communicating clearly and regularly with the IG team on the progress and status of the IG effort to reduce information risk.

Metrics are required to measure progress in the risk mitigation plan.

INFORMATION RISK PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 51

Step 8: Audit the Information Risk Mitigation Program

The metrics you have developed to measure risk mitigation effectiveness must also be used for audit purposes. Put a process in place to separately and independently audit compliance to risk mitigation measures, to see that they are being implemented. The result of the audit should be a useful input in improving and fi ne-tuning the program. It should not be viewed as an opportunity to cite shortfalls and implement punitive actions. It should be a periodic and regular feedback loop into the IG program.

Notes

1. Ontario, Electricity Act, FILELAW database, Thomson Publishers, May 2012. 2. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce (GPO), “Code of Federal Regulations,” www.gpo.gov/help/index

.html#about_code_of_federal_regulations.htm (accessed April 22, 2012). 3. National Archives and Records Administration, “Electronic Code of Federal Regulations,” http://ecfr

.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl (accessed October 2, 2012). 4. John Fraser and Betty Simkins, eds., Enterprise Risk Management: Today’s Leading Research and Best

Practices for Tomorrow’s Executives (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), p. 171. s 5. “ISO 31000 2009 Plain English, Risk Management Dictionary,” www.praxiom.com/iso-31000-terms

.htm (accessed March 25, 2013). 6. Fraser and Simkins, p. 172. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid., p. 179. 9. Health and Safety Executive, “Five Steps to Risk Assessment,” www.hse.gov.uk/risk/fi vesteps.htm

(accessed March 25, 2013). 10. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge ( PMBOK Guide ),

4th ed. (Project Management Institute, 2008), ANSI/PMI 99-001-2008, pp. 273–312.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ In identifying information requirements and risks, legal requirements trump all others.

■ In the United States, the Code of Federal Regulations lists information reten- tion requirements for businesses, divided into 50 subject matter areas.

■ The risk profi le is a high-level, executive decision input tool.

■ A common risk profi le method is to create a prioritized or ranked top-10 list of greatest risks to information.

■ Once a list of risks is developed, grouping them into basic categories helps stake- holders to grasp them more easily and consider their likelihood and impact.

■ The risk mitigation plan develops risk reduction options and tasks to reduce specifi ed risks and improve the odds for achieving business objectives.

■ Metrics are required to measure progress in the risk mitigation plan.

■ The risk mitigation plan must be reviewed and audited regularly and proper adjustments made.

53

C H A P T E R 5 Strategic Planning and Best Practices for Information Governance

Securing a sponsor at the executive management level is always crucial to projectsand programs, and this is especially true of any strategic planning effort. An gexecutive must be on board and supporting the effort in order to garner the re- sources needed to develop and execute the strategic plan, and that executive must be held accountable for the development and execution of the plan. These axioms apply to the development of an information governance (IG) strategic plan.

Also, resources are needed—time, human capital, and budget money. The fi rst is a critical element: It is not possible to require managers to take time out of their other duties to participate in a project if there is no executive edict and consistent follow up, support, and communication. Executive sponsorship is a best practice and supports the key principle of accountability of the Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles ® (The Principles)1 (see Chapter 3 for more detail). And, of course, without an allocated budget, no program can proceed.

The higher your executive sponsor is in the organization, the better. 2 The imple- mentation of an IG program may be driven by the chief compliance offi cer, chief information offi cer (CIO), or, ideally, the chief executive offi cer (CEO). With CEO sponsorship come many of the key elements needed to complete a successful project, including allocated management time, budget money, and management focus.

It is important to bear in mind that this IG effort is truly a change management effort, in that it aims to change the structure, guidelines, and rules within which em- ployees operate. The change must occur at the very core of the organization’s culture. It must be embedded permanently, and for it to be, the message must be constantly and consistently reinforced. Achieving this kind of change requires commitment from the very highest levels of the organization.

Executive sponsorship is critical to project success. There is no substitute. Without it, a project is at risk of failure.

54 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

If the CEO is not the sponsor, then another high-level executive must lead the ef- fort and be accountable for meeting milestones as the program progresses. Programs with no executive sponsor can lose momentum and focus, especially as competing projects and programs are evaluated and implemented. Program failure is a great risk without an executive sponsor. Such a program likely will fade or fi zzle out or be relegated to the back burner. Without strong high-level leadership, when things go awry, fi nger pointing and political games may take over, impeding progress and cooperation.

The executive sponsor must be actively involved, tracking program objectives and milestones on a regular, scheduled basis and ensuring they are aligned with business objectives. He or she must be aware of any obstacles or disputes that arise, take an ac- tive role in resolving them, and push the program forward.

Crucial Executive Sponsor Role

The role of an executive sponsor is high level, requiring periodic and regular atten- tion to the status of the program, particularly with budget issues, staff resources, and milestone progress. The role of a program or project manager (PM) is more detailed and day to day, tracking specifi c tasks that must be executed to make progress toward milestones. Both roles are essential. The savvy PM brings in the executive sponsor to push things along when more authority is needed but reserves such project capital for those issues that absolutely cannot be resolved without executive intervention. It is best for the PM to keep the executive sponsor fully informed but to ask for assistance only when absolutely needed.

At the same time, the PM must manage the relationship with the executive spon- sor, perhaps with some gentle reminders, coaxing, or prodding, to ensure that the role and tasks of executive sponsorship are being fulfi lled. “[T]he successful Project Manager knows that if those duties are not being fulfi lled, it’s time to call a timeout and have a serious conversation with the Executive Sponsor about the viability of the project.” 3

The executive sponsor serves six key purposes on a project:

1. Budget. The executive sponsor ensures an adequate fi nancial commitment is made to see the project through and lobbies for additional expenditures when change orders are made or cost overruns occur.

2. Planning and control. The executive sponsor sets direction and tracks accom- plishment of specifi c, measureable business objectives.

3. Decision making. The executive sponsor makes or approves crucial decisions and resolves issues that are escalated for resolution.

4. Expectation Management. The executive sponsor must manage expectation, since success is quite often a stakeholder perception.

5. Anticipation. Every project that is competing for resources can run into un- foreseen blockages and objections. Executive sponsors run interference and provide political might for the PM to lead the project to completion, through a series of milestones.

6. Approval. The executive sponsor signs off when all milestones and objectives have been met.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 55

An eager and effective executive sponsor makes all the difference to a project—if the role is properly managed by the PM. It is a tricky relationship, since the PM is always below the executive sponsor in the organization’s hierarchy, yet the PM must coax the superior into tackling certain high-level tasks. Sometimes a third-party con- sultant who is an expert in the specifi c project can instigate and support requests made of the sponsor and provide a solid business rationale.

Evolving Role of the Executive Sponsor

The role of the executive sponsor necessarily evolves and changes over the life of the initial IG program launch, during the implementation phases, and on through the continued IG program.

To get the program off the ground, the executive sponsor must make the business case and get adequate budgetary funding. But an effort such as this takes more than money; it takes time— not just time to develop new policies and implement new tech-— nologies, but the time of the designated PM, program leaders, and needed program team members.

In order to get this time set aside, the IG program must be made a top prior- ity of the organization. It must be recognized, formalized, and aligned with orga- nizational objectives. All this up-front work is the responsibility of the executive sponsor.

Once the IG program team is formed, team members must clearly understand why the new program is important and how it will help the organization meet its busi- ness objectives. This message must be regularly reinforced by the executive sponsor; he or she must not only paint the vision of the future state of the organization but articulate the steps in the path to get there.

When the formal program effort commences, the executive sponsor must remain visible and accessible. He or she cannot disappear into everyday duties and expect the program team to carry the effort through. The executive sponsor must be there to help the team confront and overcome business obstacles as they arise and must praise the successes along the way. This requires active involvement and a willingness to spend the time to keep the program on track and focused.

The executive sponsor must be the lighthouse that shows the way even through cloudy skies and rough waters. This person is the captain who must steer the ship, even if the fi rst mate (PM) is seasick and the deckhands (program team) are drenched and tired.

After the program is implemented, the executive sponsor is responsible for main- taining its effectiveness and relevance. This is done through periodic compliance au- dits, testing and sampling, and scheduled meetings with the ongoing PM.

While the executive sponsor role is high level, the PM’s role and tasks are more detailed and involve day-to-day management.

56 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Building Your IG Team

Who should make up the IG team? Although there are no set requirements or for- mulas, the complex nature of IG and the fact that it touches upon a number of spe- cialized disciplines and functional areas dictates that a cross-functional approach be taken. So you will need representatives from several departments. There are some absolutes: you must have a representative from your legal staff or outside counsel, your information technology (IT) department, a senior records offi cer (SRO) or the equivalent, a risk management specialist or manager, an executive sponsor, and the IG program manager. In addition, there may be a need for input from managers of hu- man resources, company communications, and certain business units. Depending on the scope of the effort, other possible IG team members might include an IT security expert, the corporate or agency archivist, business analysts, chief knowledge offi cer or knowledge management (KM) professional, litigation support head, fi nancial analyst, business process specialist, project management professional, and other professionals in functions related to these areas.

Assigning IG Team Roles and Responsibilities

The executive sponsor will need to designate an IG PM. Depending on the focus of the IG effort, that person could come from several areas, including legal, compliance, risk management, records management, or IT.

In terms of breaking down the roles and responsibilities of the remainder of the IG team, the easy decision is to have IG team representatives take responsibility for the functional areas of their expertise. But there will be overlap, and it is best to have some pairs or small work groups teamed up to gain the broadest amount of input and optimum results. This will also facilitate cross training. For instance, inside legal counsel may be responsible for rendering the fi nal legal opinions, but because they are not expert in records, document management, or risk management, they could benefi t from input of others in specialized functional areas, which will inform them and help narrow and focus their legal research. Basic research into which regulations and laws apply to the

The role of the executive sponsor changes during the inception, planning, and execution of the IG program.

The risk mitigation plan develops risk reduction options and tasks to reduce specifi ed risks and improve the odds for achieving business objectives.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 57

organization regarding security, retention, and preservation of e-mail, e-records, and personally identifi able information (PII) could be conducted by the SRO or records management head, in consultation with the corporate archivist and CIO, with the results of their fi ndings and recommendations drafted and sent to the legal counsel. The draft report may offer up several alternative approaches that need legal input and decisions. Then the legal team lead can conduct its own, focused research and make fi nal recom- mendations regarding the organization’s legal strategy, business objectives, fi nancial po- sition, and applicable laws and regulations.

The result of the research, consultation, and collaboration of the IG team should result in a fi nal draft of the IG strategic plan. It will still need more input and devel- opment to align the plan with business objectives, an analysis of internal and external drivers, applicable best practices, competitive analysis, applicable IT trends, an analysis and inclusion of the organization’s culture, and other factors.

Align Your IG Plan with Organizational Strategic Plans

The IG plan must support the achievement of the organization’s business objectives and there-s fore must be melded into the organization’s overall strategic plan. Integration with the strategic plan means that the business objectives in the IG plan are consistent with, and in support of, the enterprise strategic plan.

So, for example, if the corporate strategy includes plans for acquiring smaller com- petitors and folding them into the organization’s structure as operating divisions, then the IG plan must assist and contribute to this effort. Plans for standardizing operating policies and procedures must include a consistent, systematized approach to the com- ponents of IG, including stakeholder consultation, user training and communications, and compliance audits. The IG plan should bring a standard approach across the spec- trum of information use and management within the organization and it must be forged to accommodate the new technology acquisitions. This means that e-mail policies, e-discovery policies, mobile device policies, social media policies, cloud collaboration and storage use, and even nitty-gritty details like report formats, data structures, document taxonomies, and metadata must be consistent and aligned with the overall strategic plan. In other words, the goal is to get all employees on the same page and working to support the business objectives of the strategic plan in everyday small steps within the IG plan.

The IG team must include a cross-functional group of stakeholders from various departments, including legal, records management, IT, and risk management.

The IG strategic plan must be aligned and synchronized with the organiza- tion’s overall strategic plans, goals, and business objectives.

58 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

The organization will also have an IT plan that must be aligned with the strategic plan to support overall business objectives. The IT strategy may be to convert new acquisitions to the internal fi nancial and accounting systems of the organization and to train new employees to use the existing software applications under the umbrella of the IG plan. Again, the IG plan needs to be integrated with the IT strategy and must consider the organization’s approach to IT.

The result of the process of aligning the IG effort with the IT strategy and the organization’s overall strategic plan will mean, ideally, that employee efforts are more effi cient and productive since they are consistently moving toward the achievement of the organization’s overall strategic goals. The organization will be healthier and will have less dissent and confusion with clear IG policies that leverage the IT strategy and help employees pursue overall business objectives.

Further considerations must be folded into the IG plan. As every corporate cul- ture is different and has a real impact on decision-making and operational approaches, corporate culture must be included in the plan. Corporate culture includes the organi- zation’s appetite for risk, its use of IT (e.g., forward-thinking fi rst adopter), its capital investment strategies, and other management actions.

So, if the organization is conservative and risk averse, it may want to hold off on implementing some emerging e-discovery technologies that can cut costs but also induce greater risk. Or if it is an aggressive, progressive, risk-taking organi- zation, it may opt to test and adopt newer e-discovery technologies under the IT strategy and umbrella of IG policies. An example may be the use of predictive coding technology in early case assessment (ECA). Predictive coding uses text auto-classifi cation technology and neural technology with the assistance of human input to “learn” which e-documents might be relevant in a particular legal matter and which may not be. Through a series of steps of testing and checking subsets of the documents, humans can provide input to improve the document sorting and selection process. The software uses machine learning (artifi cial intelligence whereby the software can change and improve on a particular task, as its decision engine is shaped and “trained” by input ) to improve its ability to cull through and sort documents.

Predictive coding can reduce e-discovery costs, yet there are risks that the ap- proach can be challenged in court and could, in fact, affect the case adversely. Thus, a decision on a technology like predictive coding can involve and include elements of the IG plan, IT strategy, and overall organizational strategic plan.

And there are resource issues to consider: How much management time, or band- width, is available to pursue the IG plan development and execution? Is there a budget item to allow for software acquisitions and training and communications to support the execution of the IG plan? Obviously, without the allocated management time and budget money, the IG plan cannot be executed.

Survey and Evaluate External Factors

The IG plan is now harmonized and aligned with your organization’s strategic plan and IT strategy, but you are not fi nished yet, because the plan cannot survive in a vacuum: Organizations must analyze and consider the external business, legal, and technological environment and fold their analysis into their plans.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 59

Analyze IT Trends

IG requires IT to support and monitor implementation of polices, so it matters what is s developing and trending in the IT space. What new technologies are coming online? Why are they being developed and becoming popular? How do these changes in the business environment that created opportunities for new technologies to be developed affect your organization and its ability execute its IG plan? How can new technologies assist? Which ones are immature and too risky? These are some of the questions that must be addressed in regard to the changing IT landscape.

Some changes in information and communications technology (ICT) are rathery obvious, such as the trends toward mobile computing, tablet and smartphone devices, cloud storage, and social media use. Each one of these major trends that may affect or assist in implementing IG needs to be considered within the framework of the organiza- tion’s strategic plan and IT strategy. If the corporate culture is progressive and supportive of remote work and telecommuting, and if the organizational strategy aims to lower fi xed costs by reducing the amount of offi ce space for employees and moving to a more mobile workforce, then trends in tablet and smartphone computing that are relevant to your or- ganization must be analyzed and considered. Is the organization going to provide mobile devices or support a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) environment? Which equipment will you support? Will you support iOS, Android, or both? What is your policy going to be on phone jacking? What is the IG policy regarding confi dential documents on mobile devices? Will you use encryption? If so, which software? Is your enterprise moving to the cloud computing model? Utilizing social media? What about Big Data and analytics ? Are you going to consider deploying auto-classifi cation and predictive coding technolo- gies? What are the trends that might affect your organization?

Many, many questions must be addressed, but the evaluation must be narrowed down to those technology trends that specifi cally might impact the execution of your IG plan and rollout of new technology.

On a more granular level, you must evaluate even supported fi le and document formats. It gets that detailed, when you are crafting IG policy. For instance, PDF/A is the standard format for archiving electronic documents. So your plans must include long-term digital preservation (LTDP) standards and best practices.

Survey Business Conditions and the Economic Environment

If the economy is on a down cycle, and particularly if your business sector has been nega- tively affected, resources may be scarcer than in better times. Hence, it may be more dif- fi cult to get budget approval for necessary program expenses, such as new technologies, staff, training materials, communications, and so forth. This means your IG plan may need to be scaled back or its scope reduced. Implementing the plan in a key division rath- er than attempting an enterprise rollout may be the best tactic in tough economic times.

The IG strategic plan must be informed with an assessment of relevant tech- nology trends.

60 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

But if things are booming and the business is growing fast, budget money for in- vestments in the IG program may be easier to secure, and the goals may be expanded.

IG should be an ongoing program, but it takes time to implement, and it takes resources to execute, audit, and continue to refi ne. So an executive looking for a quick and calculable payback on the investment may want to focus on narrower areas. For instance, the initial focus may be entirely on the legal hold and e-discovery process, with business objectives that include reducing pretrial costs and attorney fees by a cer- tain percentage or amount. It is much easier to see concrete results when focusing on e-discovery, since legal costs are real, and always will be there. The business case may be more diffi cult to make if the IG effort is broader and improves the ability to or- ganize and search for information faster and to execute more complete searches to improve the basis for management decision making. Improved management decision making will improve the organization’s competitiveness long-term, but it may be dif- fi cult to cite specifi c examples where costs were saved or revenues were increased as a result of the “better decisions” that should come about through better IG.

Analyze Relevant Legal, Regulatory, and Political Factors

In consultation with your legal team or lead, the laws and regulations that affect your industry should be identifi ed. Narrowing the scope of your analysis, those that specifi - cally could impact your governance of information should be considered and analyzed. What absolute requirements do they impose? Where there is room for interpretation, where, legally, does your organization want to position itself? How much legal risk is acceptable? These are the types of questions you will have to look to your legal and risk management professionals to make. Again, legal requirements trump all others.

Your decision process must include considerations for the future and anticipated fu- ture changes. Changes in the legal and regulatory environment happen based on the po- litical leaders who are in place and any pending legislation. So you must go further and analyze the current political environment and make some judgments based on the best information you can gather, the organization’s culture and appetite for risk, management style, available resources, and other factors. Generally, a more conservative environment means less regulation, and this analysis must also be folded into your IG strategic plan.

Trends and conditions in the internal and external business environment must be included in the IG strategic plan.

Laws and regulations relevant to your organization’s management and distri- bution of information in all jurisdictions must be considered and included in the IG strategic plan. Legal requirements trump all others.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 61

Survey and Determine Industry Best Practices

IG is a developing hybrid discipline. In a sense, it is a superset of records management and a subset of governance, risk management, and compliance (GRC), that emerged to help manage the explosion in the amount of records, documents, and data that must be managed in today’s increasingly high-volume and velocity business environment and highly regulated compliance and litigation environment. As such, best practices are still being formed and added to. This process of testing, proving, and sharing best practices will continue for some time as the practices are expanded, revised, and refi ned.

The most relevant study of IG best practices is one that is conducted for your organization and surveys your industry and what some of your more progressive com- petitors are doing in regard to IG. Often the best way to accomplish such a study is by engaging a third-party consultant, who can more easily contact, study, and interview your competitors in regard to their practices. Business peer groups and trade associa- tions also can provide some consensus as to emerging best practices.

Twenty-fi ve IG best practices covering a number of areas in which IG has an im- pact or should be a major consideration are listed next.

1. IG is a key underpinning for a successful RM program. Practicing good IG is the essential foundation for building a legally defensible RM program; it pro- vides the basis for consistent, reliable methods for managing documents and records. Having trusted and reliable records, reports, and databases allows managers to make key decisions with confi dence.4 And accessing that infor- mation and business intelligence in a timely fashion can yield a long-term sustainable competitive advantage, creating more agile enterprises.

To implement a successful IG program, enterprises must standardize and systematize their handling of information, in particular their formal busi- ness records. They must analyze and optimize how information is accessed, controlled, managed, shared, stored, preserved, and audited. They must have complete, current, and relevant policies, processes, and technologies to man- age and control information, including who is able to access what information ,t and when , to meet external legal and regulatory demands and internal gover- nance requirements. This, in short, is IG.

2. IG is not a project but rather an ongoing program that provides an umbrella of rules and policies, monitored and enforced with the support of IT to manage and control information output and communications. Since technologies change so quickly, it is necessary to have overarching technology-agnostic policies that can manage the various IT platforms that an organization may use.

Compare the IG program to a workplace safety program; every time a new location, team member, piece of equipment, or toxic substance is acquired by the organization, the workplace safety program should dictate how that is

Include a best practices review in your IG strategic plan. The most relevant best practices in IG are those in your industry proven by peers and competitors.

62 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

handled. If it does not, the workplace safety policies/procedures/training that are part of the workplace safety program need to be updated. Regular reviews are conducted to ensure the program is being followed, and adjustments are made based on the fi ndings. The effort never ends.5

3. Using an IG framework or maturity model is helpful in assessing and guiding IG programs. Various models are offered, such as The Principles from ARMA International; the Information Governance Reference Model, which grew out of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (found at EDRM.net); 6 or MIKE2.0, which was developed by the consulting fi rm Bearing Point and released to the public domain. Another tool that is particularly used in the Australian market for records management projects is Designing and Imple- menting Recordkeeping Systems (DIRKS).

4. Defensible deletion of data debris and information that no longer has value is critical in the era of Big Data. You must have IG polices in place and be able to prove that you follow them consistently and systematically in order to justify, to the courts and regulators, deletion of information. With a smaller information footprint, organizations can more easily fi nd what they need and derive busi- ness value from it. 7 Data debris must be eliminated regularly and consistently, and to do this, processes and systems must be in place to cull out valuable information and discard the data debris. An IG program sets the framework to accomplish this.

5. IG policies must be developed before enabling technologies are deployed to assist in enforcement. After the policy-making effort, seek out the proper technology tools to assist in monitoring, auditing, and enforcement.

6. To provide comprehensive e-document security throughout a document’s life cycle, documents must be secured upon creation using highly sophisticated technologies, such as information rights management (IRM) technology. IRM acts as a sort of “secu- rity wrapper” that denies access without proper credentials. Document access and use by individuals having proper and current credentials is also tightly monitored IRM software controls the access, copying, editing, forwarding, and printing of documents using a policy engine that manages the rights to view and work on an e-document. Access rights are set by levels or “roles” that employees are responsible for within an organization.

7. A records retention schedule and legal hold notifi cation (LHN) process are the two primary elements of a fundamental IG program. These are the basics. Implemen- tation will require records inventorying, taxonomy development, metadata normalization and standardization, and a survey of LHN best practices.

8. A cross-functional team is required to implement IG. Since IG contains and requires elements of a number of established disciplines, representatives from the key areas must be included in the planning and implantation effort. At a minimum, you will need team leaders from legal, IT, records manage- ment, compliance and risk management, human resources, and executive management. Members from corporate communications, knowledge man- agement, systems security, fi nance and accounting, and other functional areas also may be needed. Depending on the circumstances, you may need repre- sentatives from major business units within the organization.

9. The fi rst step in information risk planning is to consider the applicable laws and regulations that apply to your organization in the jurisdictions in which it conducts

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 63

business . Federal, provincial, state, and even municipal laws and regulationss may apply to the retention of data, documents, and records. Organizations operating in multiple jurisdictions must be compliant with laws and regula- tions that may cross national, state, or provincial boundaries. Legally required privacy requirements and retention periods must be researched for each ju- risdiction (state, country) in which the business operates, so that all applicable laws are complied with.

10. Developing a risk profi le is a basic building block in enterprise risk management, which assists executives in understanding the risks associated with stated business objectives and in allocating resources within a structured evaluation approach or framework . There are multiple ways to create a risk profi le, and the frequency with which it is created, the external sources consulted, and stakeholders who have input will vary from organization to organization. 8 A key tenet to bear in mind is that simpler is better and that sophisticated tools and techniques should not make the process overly complex.

11. An information risk mitigation plan is a critical part of the IG planning process. An information risk mitigation plan helps in developing risk mitigation options and tasks to reduce the specifi ed risks and improve the odds of achieving busi- ness objectives. 9

12. Proper metrics are required to measure the conformance and performance of your IG program. You must have an objective way to measure how you are doing, which means numbers and metrics. Assigning some quantitative measures that are meaningful before rolling out the IG program is essential.

13. IG programs must be audited for effectiveness. Periodic audits will tell you how your organization is doing and where to fi ne-tune your efforts. To keep an IG program healthy, relevant, and effective, changes and fi ne-tuning will always be required.

14. An enterprise wide retention schedule is preferable because it eliminates the possibility that different business units will have confl icting records retention periods. For exam- ple, if one business unit discards a group of records after 5 years, it would not make sense for another business unit to keep the same records for 10 years. Where enterprise-wide retention schedules are not possible, smaller business units, such as divisions or regions, should operate under a consistent retention schedule.

15. Senior management must set the tone and lead sponsorship for vital records program governance and compliance. Although e-records are easier to protect and back- up, most vital records today are e-records. These are an organization’s most essential records. Without them, an organization cannot continue operations.

16. Business processes must be redesigned to improve and optimize the management and security of information and especially the most critical of information, electronic re- cords, before implementing enabling technologies. For instance, using electronic records management (ERM) software fundamentally changes the way people work, and greater effi ciencies can be gained with business process redesign (versus simply using ERM systems as electronic fi ling cabinets to speed up poor processes).

17. E-mail messages, both inbound and outbound, should be archived automatically and (preferably) in real time. This ensures that spoliation (i.e., the loss of proven authenticity of an e-mail) does not occur. Archiving preserves legal validity

64 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

and forensic compliance. By policy, most messages will be deleted in a short timeframe. Additionally, e-mail should be indexed to facilitate the searching process, and all messages should be secured in a single location (with backups). With these measures, the authenticity and reliability of e-mail records can be ensured.

18. Personal archiving of e-mail messages should be disallowed. Although users will want to save certain e-mail messages for their own reasons, control and man- agement of e-mail archiving must be at the organization level or as high of a level as is practical, such as division or region.

19. Destructive retention of e-mail helps to reduce storage costs and legal risk while im- proving “fi ndability” of critical records. It makes good business sense to have a policy to, say, destroy all e-mail messages after 90 or 120 days that are not fl agged as potential records (which, e.g., help document a transaction or a situ- ation that may come into dispute in the future) or those that have a legal hold.

20. Take a practical approach and limit cloud use to documents that do not have long retention periods and carry a low litigation risk. Doing this will reduce the risk of compromising or losing critical documents and e-records. Some duplicate copies of vital records may be stored securely in the cloud to help the organi- zation recover in the event of a disaster.

21. Manage social media content by IG policies and monitor it with controls that ensure protection of critical information assets and preservation of business records. Your organization must state clearly what content and tone is acceptable in social media use, and it must retain records of that use, which should be captured in real time.

22. International and national standards provide effective guidance for implementing IG. Although there are no absolutes, researching and referencing International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and other standards must be a part of any IG effort.

23. Creating standardized metadata terms should be part of an IG effort that enables faster, more complete, and more accurate searches and retrieval of records. This is important not only in everyday business operations but also when delv- ing through potentially millions of records during the discovery phase of litigation. Good metadata management also assists in the maintenance of corporate memory and in improving accountability in business operations. 10 Using a standardized format and controlled vocabulary provides a “precise and comprehensible description of content, location, and value.”11 Using a controlled vocabulary means your organization has standardized a set of terms used for metadata elements that describe records. This ensures consistency across a collection and helps with optimizing search and retrieval functions and records research as well as with meeting e-discovery requests, compliance demands, and other legal and regulatory requirements.

24. Some digital information assets must be preserved permanently as part of an orga- nization’s documentary heritage.12 It is critical to identify records that must be kept long term as early in the process as possible; ideally, these records should be identifi ed prior to or upon creation. LTDP applies to content that is born digital as well as content that is converted to digital form. Digital preservation is defi ned as long-term, error-free storage of digital information, with means for retrieval and interpretation, for the entire time span that the information

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 65

is required to be retained. Dedicated repositories for historical and cultural memory, such as libraries, archives, and museums, need to move forward to put in place trustworthy digital repositories that can match the secu- rity, environmental controls, and wealth of descriptive metadata that these institutions have created for analog assets (such as books and paper records). Digital challenges associated with records management affect all sectors of society—academic, government, private, and not-for-profi t enterprises—and ultimately citizens of all developed nations.

25. Executive sponsorship is crucial. Securing an executive sponsor at the senior management level is key to successful IG programs. It is not possible to require managers to take time out of their other duties to participate in a project if there is no executive edict. It is a best practice across industry sec- tors and technology sets and supports the Accountability principle of The Principles.13

Formulating the IG Strategic Plan

Now comes the time to make sense of all the data and input your IG team has gathered and hammer it into a workable IG strategic plan. Doing this will involve some give-and-take among IG team members, each having their own perspective and priorities. Everyone will be lobbying for the view of their functional groups. It is the job of the executive sponsor to set the tone and to emphasize organizational business objectives so that the effort does not drag out or turn into a competition but is a well-informed consensus development process that results in a clear, workable IG strategic plan.

Synthesize Gathered Information and Fuse It into IG Strategy

Your IG team will have gathered a great deal of information, which needs to be ana- lyzed and distilled into actionable strategies. This process will depend on the expertise and input of the specialized knowledge your team brings to the table within your organizational culture. Team members must be able to make decisions and establish priorities that refl ect organizational business objectives and consider a number of in- fl uencing factors.

Do not prolong the strategy development process. The longer it lasts, the more key factors infl uencing it can change. You want to develop a strategic plan that is durable enough to withstand changes in technology, legislation, and other key infl uencing factors, but it should be relevant to that snapshot of information that was collected early on. When all the parts and pieces start changing and require reconsideration, a dated IG plan does not serve the organization well.

Develop IG strategies for each of the critical areas, including the legal hold pro- cess, e-discovery action plans, e-mail policy, mobile computing policy, IT acquisition strategy, confi dential document handling, vital records and disaster planning, social media policy, and other areas that are important to your organization. To maintain focus, do this fi rst without regard to the prioritization of these areas.

66 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Then you must go through the hard process of prioritizing your strategies and aligning them to your organizational goal and objectives . This may not be diffi cult in the beginning—fors instance, your IG strategies for legal holds and e-discovery readiness are likely going to take higher priority than your social media policy, and protecting vital records is paramount to any organization. As the process progresses, it will become more chal- lenging to make trade-offs and establish priorities. Then you must tie these strategies to overall organizational goals and business objectives.

A good technique to keep goals and objectives in mind may be to post them prom- inently in the meeting room where these strategy sessions take place. This will help to keep the IG team focused.

Develop Actionable Plans to Support Organizational Goals and Objectives

Plans and policies to support your IG efforts must be developed that identify specifi c tasks and steps and defi ne roles and responsibilities for those who will be held ac- countable for their implementation. This is where the rubber meets the road. But you cannot simply create the plan and marching orders: You must build in periodic checks and audits to test that new IG policies are being followed and that they have hit their mark. Invariably, there will be adjustments made continually to craft the policies for maximum effectiveness and continued relevance in the face of changes in external factors, such as legislation and business competition, and internal changes in manage- ment style and structure.

Create New IG Driving Programs to Support Business Goals and Objectives

You have to get things moving and get employees motivated, and launching new sub- programs within the overall IG program is a good way to start. For instance, a new “e-discovery readiness” initiative can show almost immediate results if implemented properly, with the support of key legal and records management team members, driven by the executive sponsor. You may want to revamp the legal hold process to make it more complete and verifi able, assigning specifi c employees accountabil- ity for specifi c tasks. Part of that effort may be evaluating and implementing new technology-assisted review (TAR) processes and predictive coding technology. So you will need to bring in the IG team members responsible for IT and perhaps busi- ness analysis. Working cooperatively on smaller parts of the overall IG program is a way to show real results within defi ned time frames. Piecing together a series of pro- gram components is the best way to get started, and it breaks the overall IG program

Fuse the fi ndings of all your analyses of external and internal factors into your IG strategic plan. Develop strategies and then prioritize them.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 67

down into digestible, doable chunks. A small win early on is crucial to maintain mo- mentum and executive sponsorship. And e-discovery has real costs: yet progress can be measured objectively in terms of reducing the cost of activities such as early case assessment (ECA). Benefi ts can be measured in terms of reduced attorney review hours, reduced costs, and reduced time to accomplish pretrial tasks.

To be clear, you will need to negotiate and agree on the success metrics the pro- gram will be measured on in advance.

There are other examples of supporting IG subprograms, such as e-mail manage- ment and archiving, where storage costs, search times, and information breaches can be measured in objective terms. Or you may choose to roll out new policies for the use of mobile devices within your organization, where adherence to policy can be mea- sured by scanning mobile devices and monitoring their use.

Draft the IG Strategic Plan and Gain Input from a Broader Group of Stakeholders

Once you have the pieces of the plan drafted and the IG team is in agreement that it has been harmonized and aligned with overall organizational goals and objectives, you must test the waters to see if you have hit the mark. It is a good practice to expose a broader group of stakeholders to the plan to gain their input. Perhaps your IG team has become myopic or has passed over some points that are important to the broader stakeholder audience. Solicit and discuss their input, and to the degree that there is a consensus, refi ne the IG strategic plan one last time before fi nalizing it. But remember, it is a living document, a work in progress, which will require revisiting and updating to ensure it is in step with changing external and internal factors. Periodic auditing and review of the plan will reveal areas that need to be adjusted and revised to keep it relevant and effective.

Get Buy-in and Sign-off and Execute the Plan

Take the fi nalized plan to executive management, preferably including the CEO, and present the plan and its intended benefi ts to them. Field their questions and address any concerns to gain their buy-in and the appropriate signatures. You may have to make some minor adjustments if there are signifi cant objections, but, if you have ex- ecuted the stakeholder consultation process properly, you should be very close to the mark. Then begin the process of implementing your IG strategic plan, including regu- lar status meetings and updates, steady communication and reassurance of your execu- tive sponsor, and planned audits of activities.

Create supporting subprograms to jump-start your IG program effort. Smaller programs should be able to measure real results based on metrics that are agreed on in advance.

68 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ Engaged and vested executive sponsors are necessary for IG program success. It is not possible to require managers to take time out of their other duties to participate in a project if there is no executive edict or allocated budget.

■ The executive sponsor must be: (1) directly tied to the success of the pro- gram, (2) fully engaged in and aware of the program, and (3) actively elimi- nating barriers and resolving issues.

■ The role of the executive sponsor evolves over the life of the IG program and IG program effort. Initially, the focus is on garnering the necessary resources, but as the program commences, the emphasis is more on supporting the IG program team and clearing obstacles. Once the program is implement- ed, the responsibilities shift to maintaining the effectiveness of the program through testing and audits.

■ While the executive sponsor role is high level, the project manager’s role and tasks involve more detailed and day-to-day management.

■ The risk mitigation plan develops risk reduction options and tasks to reduce specifi ed risks and improve the odds for achieving business objectives.

■ The IG team must include a cross-functional group of stakeholders from various departments, including legal, records management, IT, and risk management.

■ The IG strategic plan must be aligned and synchronized with the organiza- tion’s overall strategic plans, goals, and business objectives.

■ The IG strategic plan must include an assessment of relevant technology trends.

■ Trends and conditions in the internal and external business environment must be included in the IG strategic plan.

■ Laws and regulations relevant to your organization’s management and distri- bution of information in all jurisdictions must be considered and included in the IG strategic plan. Legal requirements trump all others.

■ Include a best practices review in your IG strategic plan. The most relevant best practices in IG are those in your industry proven by peers and competitors. (Twenty-fi ve IG best practices are listed in this chapter for the fi rst time in print.)

■ Fuse the fi ndings of all your analysis of external and internal factors into your IG strategic plan. Develop strategies and then prioritize them.

■ Creating supporting subprograms to jump-start your IG program effort. Smaller programs should be able to measure real results based on metrics that are agreed on in advance.

■ Make sure to get executive sign-off on your IG strategic plan before moving to execute it.

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BEST PRACTICES FOR INFORMATION GOVERNANCE 69

Notes

1. ARMA International, “How to Cite GARP,” www.arma.org/garp/copyright.cfm (accessed October 9, 2013).

2. Roger Kastner, “Why Projects Succeed—Executive Sponsorship,” February 15, 2011, http://blog .slalom.com/2011/02/15/why-projects-succeed-%E2%80%93-executive-sponsorship/

3. Ibid. 4. Economist Intelligence Unit, “The Future of Information Governance,” www.emc.com/leadership

/business-view/future-information-governance.htm (accessed October 9, 2013). 5. Monica Crocker, e-mail to author, June 21, 2012. 6. EDRM, “Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) Guide,” www.edrm.net/resources

/guides/igrm (accessed November 30, 2012). 7. Randolph A. Kahn, https://twitter.com/InfoParkingLot/status/273791612172259329, Nov. 28, 2012. 8. John Fraser and Betty Simkins, eds., Enterprise Risk Management: Today’s Leading Research and Best Prac-

tices for Tomorrow’s Executives (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), p. 171. s 9. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide ),

4th ed. (Newtown Square, PA Project Management Institute, 2008), ANSI/PMI 99–001–2008, pp. 273–312.

10. Kate Cumming, “Metadata Matters,” in Julie McLeod and Catherine Hare, eds., Managing Electronic Records , p. 34 (London: Facet, 2005).s

11. Minnesota State Archives, Electronic Records Management Guidelines, “Metadata,” March 12, 2012, www.mnhs.org/preserve/records/electronicrecords/ermetadata.html .

12. Charles Dollar and Lori Ashley, e-mail to author, August 10, 2012. 13. ARMA International, “How to Cite GARP.”

71

Information Governance Policy Development

C H A P T E R 6

To develop an information governance (IG) policy, you must inform and frame the policy with internal and external frameworks, models, best practices, and standards—those that apply to your organization and the scope of its planned IG program. In this chapter, we fi rst present and discuss major IG frameworks and models and then identify key standards for consideration.

A Brief Review of Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles®

In Chapter 3 we introduced and discussed ARMA International’s eight Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles ® , known as The Principles 1 (or sometimes GAR Principles). These Principles and associated metrics provide an IG framework that can support continuous improvement.

To review, the eight Principles are:

1. Accountability 2. Transparency 3. Integrity 4. Protection 5. Compliance 6. Availability 7. Retention 8. Disposition2

The Principles establish benchmarks for how organizations of all types and sizes can build and sustain compliant, legally defensible records management (RM)t programs. Using the maturity model (also presented in Chapter 3 ), organizations can assess where they are in terms of IG, identify gaps, and take steps to improve across the eight areas The Principles cover.

72 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

IG Reference Model

In late 2012, with the support and collaboration of ARMA International and the Com- pliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC), the Electronic Discovery Ref- erence Model (EDRM) Project released version 3.0 of its Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM), which added information privacy and security “as pri-y mary functions and stakeholders in the effective governance of information.” 3 The model is depicted in Figure 6.1 .

The IGRM is aimed at fostering IG adoption by facilitating communication and collaboration between disparate (but overlapping) IG stakeholder functions, includ- ing information technology (IT), legal, RM, risk management, and business unit

Figure 6.1 Information Governance Reference Model Source: EDRM.net

Linking duty + value to information asset = efficient, effective management

Duty: Legal obligation for specific information

Value: Utility or business purpose of specific information

Asset: Specific container of information

VALUE

Create, Use

DUTY ASSET

Dispose

Hold, Discover

Store, Secure

Retain Archive

UNI FIED GOVERNANCE

BUSINESS Profit

IT Efficiency

LEGAL Risk

RIM Risk

PRIVACY AND

SECURITY Risk

PROCESS TRANS PA

RE NC

Y

POLIC Y INTEGRATION

Information Governance Reference Model / © 2012 / v3.0 / edrm.net

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 73

stakeholders. 4 It also aims to provide a common, practical framework for IG that will foster adoption of IG in the face of new Big Data challenges and increased legal and regulatory demands. It is a clear snapshot of where IG touches and shows critical in- terrelationships and unifi ed governance.5 It can help organizations forge policy in an orchestrated way and embed critical elements of IG policy across functional groups. Ultimately, implementation of IG helps organizations leverage information value, re- duce risk, and address legal demands.

The growing CGOC community (2,000+ members and rising) has widely adopted the IGRM and developed a process maturity model that accompanies and leverages IGRM v3.0. 6

Interpreting the IGRM Diagram *

Outer Ring Starting from the outside of the diagram, successful information management is about conceiving a complex set of interoperable processes and implementing the procedures and structural elements to put them into practice. It requires:

■ An understanding of the business imperatives of the enterprise, ■ Knowledge of the appropriate tools and infrastructure for managing informa-

tion, and ■ Sensitivity to the legal and regulatory obligations with which the enterprise

must comply.

For any piece of information you hope to manage, the primary stakeholder is the business user of that information [emphasis added]. We use the term “business” broadly; the same ideas apply to end users of information in organizations whose ultimate goal might not be to generate a profi t.

Once the business value is established, you must also understand the legal duty at- tached to a piece of information. The term “legal” should also be read broadly to refer to a wide range of legal and regulatory constraints and obligations, from e-discovery and government regulation to contractual obligations such as payment card industry requirements.

Finally, IT organizations must manage the information accordingly, ensuring pri- vacy and security as well as appropriate retention as dictated by both business and legal or regulatory requirements.

* This section is adapted with permission by EDRM.net, http://www.edrm.net/resources/guides/igrm (accessed January 24, 2014).

You must inform and frame IG policy with internal and external frameworks, models, best practices, and standards.

74 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Center

In the center of the diagram is a work-fl ow or life-cycle diagram. We include this com- ponent in the diagram to illustrate the fact that information management is important at all stages of the information life cycle—from its creation through its ultimate disposition. This part of the diagram, once further developed, along with other secondary-level diagrams, will outline concrete, actionable steps that organizations can take in imple- menting information management programs.

Even the most primitive business creates information in the course of daily operations, and IT departments spring up to manage the logistics; indeed, one of the biggest challeng- es in modern organizations is trying to stop individuals from excess storing and securing of information. Legal stakeholders can usually mandate the preservation of what is most critical, though often at great cost. However, it takes the coordinated effort of all three groups to defensibly dispose of a piece of information that has outlived its usefulness and retain what is useful in a way that enables accessibility and usability for the business user. s

How the IGRM Complements the Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles *

The IGRM supports ARMA International’s “Principles” by identifying the cross- functional groups of key information governance stakeholders and by depicting their intersecting objectives for the organization. This illustration of the relation- ship among duty, value, and the information asset demonstrates cooperation among stakeholder groups to achieve the desired level of maturity of effective information governance.

Effective IG requires a continuous and comprehensive focus. The IGRM will be used by proactive organizations as an introspective lens to facilitate visualization and discussion about how best to apply The Principles. The IGRM puts into sharp focus The Principles and provides essential context for the maturity model.

* This section is adapted with permission by EDRM.net, http://www.edrm.net/resources/guides/igrm (accessed January 24, 2014).

The business user is the primary stakeholder of managed information.

Information management is important at all stages of the life cycle.

Legal stakeholders can usually mandate the preservation of what is most criti- cal, though often at great cost.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 75

Best Practices Considerations

IG best practices should also be considered in policy formulation . Best practices in IG are evolv- ing and expanding, and those that apply to organizational scenarios may vary. A best practices review should be conducted, customized for each particular organization.

In Chapter 5 , we provided a list of 25 IG best practices, with some detail. The IG world is maturing, and more best practices will evolve. The 25 best practices, summa- rized next, are fairly generic and widely applicable.

1. IG is a key underpinning for a successful ERM program. 2. IG is not a project but rather an ongoing program. 3. Using an IG framework or maturity model is helpful in assessing and guiding

IG programs. 4. Defensible deletion of data debris and information that no longer has value is

critical in the era of Big Data. 5. IG policies must be developed before enabling technologies are added to as-

sist in enforcement. 6. To provide comprehensive e-document security throughout a document’s life

cycle, documents must be secured upon creation using highly sophisticated technologies, such as information rights management (IRM) technology.

7. A records retention schedule and legal hold notifi cation process (LHN) are the two primary elements of a fundamental IG program.

8. A cross-functional team is required to implement IG. 9. The fi rst step in information risk planning is to consider the applicable laws

and regulations that apply to your organization in the jurisdictions in which it conducts business.

10. A risk profi le is a basic building block in enterprise risk management, assisting executives in understanding the risks associated with stated business objec- tives and in allocating resources within a structured evaluation approach or framework.

11. An information risk mitigation plan is a critical part of the IG planning process. An information risk mitigation plan involves developing risk mitiga- tion options and tasks to reduce the specifi ed risks and improve the odds of achieving business objectives. 7

12. Proper metrics are required to measure the conformance and performance of your IG program.

13. IG programs must be audited for effectiveness. 14. An enterprise-wide retention schedule is preferable because it eliminates the

possibility that different business units will have different records retention periods.

The IGRM was developed by the EDRM Project to foster communication among stakeholders and adoption of IG. It complements ARMA’s Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles.

76 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

15. Senior management must set the tone and lead sponsorship for vital records program governance and compliance.

16. Business processes must be redesigned to improve the management of electron- ic records or implement an electronic records management (ERM) system. t

17. E-mail messages, both inbound and outbound, should be archived automati- cally and (preferably) in real time.

18. Personal archiving of e-mail messages should be disallowed. 19. Destructive retention of e-mail helps to reduce storage costs and legal risk

while improving “fi ndability” of critical records. 20. Take a practical approach and limit cloud use to documents that do not have

long retention periods and carry a low litigation risk. 21. Manage social media content by IG policies and monitor it with controls that en-

sure protection of critical information assets and preservation of business records. 22. International and national standards provide effective guidance for imple-

menting IG. 23. Creating standardized metadata terms should be part of an IG effort that

enables faster, more complete, and more accurate searches and retrieval of records. 8

24. Some digital information assets must be preserved permanently as part of an organization’s documentary heritage.

25. Executive sponsorship is crucial.

Standards Considerations

Standards must also be considered in policy development. There are two general types of standards: de jure and de facto. De jure (“the law”) standards are those published by recognized standards-setting bodies, such as the International Organization for Stan- dardization (ISO), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST—this is how most people refer to it, as they do not know what the acronym stands for), British Standards Institute (BSI), Standards Council of Canada, and Standards Australia. Standards promulgated by authorities such as these have the formal status of standards.

De facto (“the fact”) standards are not formal standards but are regarded by many as if they were. They may arise though popular use (e.g., Windows at the busi- ness desktop in the 2001–2010 decade) or may be published by other bodies, such as the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or Department of Defense (DoD) for the U.S. military sector. They may also be published by formal standards-setting bodies without having the formal status of a “standard” (such as some technical reports published by ISO). 9

Benefi ts and Risks of Standards

Some benefi ts of developing and promoting standards are:

■ Quality assurance support. If a product meets a standard, you can be confi dent of a certain level of quality.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 77

■ Interoperability support. Some standards are detailed and mature enough to allow for system interoperability between different vendor platforms.

■ Implementation frameworks and certifi cation checklists. These help to provide guides for projects and programs to ensure all necessary steps are taken.

■ Cost reduction , due to supporting uniformity of systems. Users have lower main- tenance requirements and training and support costs when systems are more uniform.

■ International consensus. Standards can represent “best practice” recommenda- tions based on global experiences. 10

Some downside considerations are:

■ Possible decreased fl exibility in development or implementation. Standards can, at times, act as a constraint when they are tied to older technologies or methods, which can reduce innovation.

■ “Standards confusion” from competing and overlapping standards. For instance, ” an ISO standard may be theory-based and use different terminology, whereas regional or national standards are more specifi c, applicable, and understandable than broad international ones.

■ Real-world shortcomings due to theoretical basis. Standards often are guides based on theory rather than practice.

■ Changing and updating requires cost and maintenance. There are costs to develop- ing, maintaining, and publishing standards. 11

Key Standards Relevant to IG Efforts

Below we introduce and discuss some established standards that should be researched and considered as a foundation for developing IG policy.

Risk Management

ISO 31000:2009 is a broad, industry-agnostic (not specifi c to vertical markets) risk management standard. It states “principles and generic guidelines” of risk manage- ment that can be applied to not only IG but also to a wide range of organizational ac- tivities and processes throughout the life of an organization.12 It provides a structured framework within which to develop and implement risk management strategies and programs.

ISO 31000 defi nes a risk management framework as a set of two basic compo-k nents that “support and sustain risk management throughout an organization.” 13 The stated components are: foundations, which are high level and include risk management policy, objectives, and executive edicts; and organizational arrangements, which are more specifi c and actionable, including strategic plans, roles and responsibilities, al- located budget, and business processes that are directed toward managing an organiza- tion’s risk.

Additional risk management standards may be relevant to your organization’s IG policy development efforts, depending on your focus, scope, corporate culture, and demands of your IG program executive sponsor.

78 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Information Security and Governance

ISO/IEC 27001:2005 is an information security management system (ISMS) stan- dard that provides guidance in the development of security controls to safeguard information assets. Like ISO 31000, the standard is applicable to all types of organiza- tions, irrespective of vertical industry. 14 It “specifi es the requirements for establishing, implementing, operating, monitoring, reviewing, maintaining and improving a docu- mented information security management system within the context of the organiza- tion’s overall business risks.”

ISO/IEC 27001 is fl exible enough to be applied to a variety of activities and pro- cesses when evaluating and managing information security risks, requirements, and objectives, and compliance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements. This includes use of the standards guidance by internal and external auditors as well as internal and external stakeholders (including customers and potential customers).

ISO/IEC 27002:2005, “Information Technology—Security Techniques—Code of Practice for Information Security,” 15

establishes guidelines and general principles for initiating, implementing, maintaining, and improving information security management in an orga- nization and is identical to the previous published standard, ISO 17799. The objectives outlined provide general guidance on the commonly accepted goals of information security management. ISO/IEC 27002:2005 contains best practices of control objectives and controls in the following areas of informa- tion security management:

■ security policy; ■ organization of information security; ■ asset management; ■ human resources security; ■ physical and environmental security; ■ communications and operations management; ■ access control; ■ information systems acquisition, development, and maintenance; ■ information security incident management; ■ business continuity management; and ■ compliance.

The control objectives and controls in ISO/IEC 27002:2005 are intended to be implemented to meet the requirements identifi ed by a risk assessment. ISO/ IEC 27002:2005 is intended as a common basis and practical guideline for de- veloping organizational security standards and effective security management practices, and to help build confi dence in inter-organizational activities.

ISO 31000 is a broad risk management standard that applies to all types of businesses.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 79

ISO/IEC 38500:2008 is an international standard that provides high-level prin- ciples and guidance for senior executives and directors, and those advising them, for the effective and effi cient use of IT.16 Based primarily on AS 8015, the Australian IT governance standard, it “applies to the governance of management processes” that are performed at the IT service level, but the guidance assists executives in monitoring IT and ethically discharging their duties with respect to legal and regulatory compliance of IT activities.

The ISO 38500 standard comprises three main sections:

1. Scope, Application and Objectives 2. Framework for Good Corporate Governance of IT 3. Guidance for Corporate Governance of IT

It is largely derived from AS 8015, the guiding principles of which were:

■ Establish responsibilities ■ Plan to best support the organization ■ Acquire validly ■ Ensure performance when required ■ Ensure conformance with rules ■ Ensure respect for human factors

The standard also has relationships with other major ISO standards, and em- braces the same methods and approaches. It is certain to have a major impact upon the IT governance landscape. 17

Records and E-Records Management

ISO 15489–1:2001 is the international standard for RM. It identifi es the elements of RM and provides a framework and high-level overview of RM core principles. RM is defi ned as the “fi eld of management responsible for the effi cient and systematic control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use and disposition of records, including the processes for capturing and maintaining evidence of and information about busi- ness activities and transactions in the form of records.”18

ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27002 are information security management systems standards that provide guidance in the development of security controls.

ISO 38500 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors responsible for IT governance.

80 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

The second part of the standard, ISO 15489–2:2001, contains the technical specifi cations and a methodology for implementing the standard, originally based on early standards work in Australia ( Design and Implementation of Recordkeeping Systems—DIRKS ). Note: Although still actively used in Australian states, the National Archives of Australia has not recommended use of DIRKS by Australian national agencies since 2007 and has removed DIRKS from its Web site.)19

The ISO 15489 standard makes little mention of electronic records, as it is written to ad- dress all kinds of records; nonetheless it was widely viewed as the defi nitive framework of what RM means.

In 2008, the International Council on Archives (ICA) formed a multination- al team of experts to develop “Principles and Functional Requirements for Records in Electronic Offi ce Environments,” commonly referred to as ICA-Req. q 20 The project was cosponsored by the Australasian Digital Recordkeeping Initiative (ADRI), which was undertaken by the Council of Australasian Archives and Records Authorities, which “com- prises the heads of the government archives authorities of the Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, and each of the Australian States and Territories.” 21 The National Archives of Australia presented a training and guidance manual to assist in implementing the prin- ciples at the 2012 International Congress on Archives Congress in Brisbane, Australia.

In Module 1 of ICA-Req, principles are presented in a high-level overview; Mod- ule 2 contains specifi cations for electronic document and records management sys- tems (EDRMS) that are “globally harmonized”; and Module 3 contains a require- ments set and “implementation advice for managing records in business systems.”22 Module 3 recognizes that digital recordkeeping does not have to be limited to the EDRMS paradigm—the insight that has now been picked up by “Modular Require- ments for Records Systems” (MoReq2010, the European standard released in 2011).23

Parts 1 to 3 of ISO 16175 were fully adopted in 2010–2011 based on the ICA-Req standard. The standard may be purchased at www.ISO.org, and additional information on the Australian initiative may be found at www.adri.gov.au.

ISO 16175 is guidance, not a standard that can be tested and certifi ed against. This is the criticism by advocates of testable, certifi able standards like U.S. DoD 5015.2 and the European standard, MoReq2010.

In November 2011, ISO issued new standards for ERM, the fi rst two in the ISO 30300 series, which are based on a managerial point of view and targeted at a manage-l ment-level audience rather than at records managers or technical staff:

■ ISO 30300:2011 , “Information and Documentation—Management Systems for Records—Fundamentals and Vocabulary”

■ ISO 30301:2011 , “Information and Documentation—Management Systems for Records—Requirements”

ISO 15489 is the international RM standard.

The ICA-Req standard was adopted as ISO 16175. It does not contain a testing regime for certifi cation.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 81

The standards apply to “management systems for records ” (MSR), a term that, as of this printing, is not typically used to refer to ERM or RM application [RMA] software in the United States or Europe and is not commonly found in ERM research or literature.

The ISO 30300 series is a systematic approach to the creation and management of records that is “ aligned with organizational objectives and strategies. ” [italics added] 24

“ISO 30300 MSR ‘Fundamentals and Vocabulary’ explains the rationale behind the creation of an MSR and the guiding principles for its successful implementation. and it provides the terminology that ensures that it is compatible with other manage- ment systems standards.

ISO 30301 MSR ‘Requirements’ specifi es the requirements necessary to develop a records policy. It also sets objectives and targets for an organization to implement systemic improvements. This is achieved through designing records processes and systems; estimating the appropriate allocation of resources; and establishing bench- marks to monitor, measure, and evaluate outcomes. These steps help to ensure that corrective action can be taken and continuous improvements are built into the sys- tem in order to support an organization in achieving its mandate, mission, strategy, and goals.”25

Major National and Regional ERM Standards

For great detail on national and regional standards related to ERM, see the book l Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices, and Technologies (Wiley 2013) by s Robert F. Smallwood. Below is a short summary:

United States E-Records Standard

The U.S. Department of Defense 5015.2 Design Criteria Standard for Electronic Records Management Software Applications , standard was established in 1997 and is endorsed by s the leading archival authority, the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). There is a testing regime that certifi es software vendors that is adminis- tered by JITC. JITC “builds test case procedures, writes detailed and summary fi nal reports on 5015.2-certifi ed products, and performs on-site inspection of software.” 26 The DoD standard was built for the defense sector, and logically “refl ects its govern- ment and archives roots.”

Since its endorsement by NARA, the standard has been the key requirement for ERM system vendors to meet, not only in U.S. public sector bids, but also in the com- mercial sector.

The 5015.2 standard has since been updated and expanded, in 2002 and 2007, to include requirements for metadata, e-signatures and Privacy and Freedom of Information Act requirements, and, as previously stated, was scheduled for update by 2013.

The U.S. DoD 5015.2-STD has been the most infl uential worldwide since it was fi rst introduced in 1997. It best suits military applications.

82 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Canadian Standards and Legal Considerations for Electronic Records Management *

The National Standards of Canada for electronic records management are: (1) Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN/CGSB-72.34–2005 (“72.34”), published in December 2005; and, (2) Microfi lm and Electronic Images as Documen- tary Evidence CAN/CGSB-72.11–93, fi rst published in 1979 and updated to 2000 (“72.11”).27 72.34 incorporates all that 72.11 deals with and is therefore the more important of the two. Because of its age, 72.11 should not be relied upon for its “legal” content. However, 72.11 has remained the industry standard for “imaging” procedures—converting original paper records to electronic storage. The Canada Revenue Agency has adopted these standards as applicable to records concerning taxation.28

72.34 deals with these topics: (1) management authorization and accountability; (2) documentation of procedures used to manage records; (3) “reliability testing” of electronic records according to existing legal rules; (4) the procedures manual and the chief records offi cer; (5) readiness to produce (the “prime directive”); (6) records recorded and stored in accordance with “the usual and ordinary course of business” and “system integrity,” being key phrases from the Evidence Acts in Canada; (7) re- tention and disposal of electronic records; (8) backup and records system recovery; and, (9) security and protection. From these standards practitioners have derived many specifi c tests for auditing, establishing, and revising electronic records man- agement systems. 29

The “prime directive” of these standards states: “An organization shall always be prepared to produce its records as evidence.”30 The duty to establish the “prime directive” falls upon senior management:31

5.4.3 Senior management, the organization’s own internal law-making author- ity, proclaims throughout the organization the integrity of the organization’s records system (and, therefore, the integrity of its electronic records) by establishing and de- claring:

a. the system’s role in the usual and ordinary course of business; b. the circumstances under which its records are made; and c. its prime directive for all RMS [records management system] purposes, i.e.,

an organization shall always be prepared to produce its records as evidence. This dominant principle applies to all of the organization’s business records, including electronic, optical, original paper source records, microfi lm, and other records of equivalent form and content.

* This section was contributed by Ken Chasse J.D., LL.M., a records management attorney and consultant, and mem- ber of the Law Society of Upper Canada (Ontario) and of the Law Society of British Columbia, Canada.

The 5015.2 standard has been updated to include specifi cations such as those for e-signatures and FOI requirements.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 83

Being the “dominant principle” of an organization’s electronic records manage- ment system, the duty to maintain compliance with the “prime directive” should fall upon its senior management.

Legal Considerations Because an electronic record is completely dependent upon its ERM system for every- thing, compliance with these National Standards and their “prime directive” should be part of the determination of the “admissibility” (acceptability) of evidence and of electronic discovery in court proceedings (litigation) and in regulatory tribunal proceedings. 32

There are 14 legal jurisdictions in Canada: 10 provinces, 3 territories, and the federal jurisdiction of the Government of Canada. Each has an Evidence Act (the Civil Code in the province of Quebec 33 ), which applies to legal proceedings within its leg- islative jurisdiction. For example, criminal law and patents and copyrights are within federal legislative jurisdiction, and most civil litigation comes within provincial legisla- tive jurisdiction. 34

The admissibility of records as evidence is determined under the “business record” provi- sions of the Evidence Acts.35 They require proof that a record was made “in the usual and ordinary course of business,” and of “the circumstances of the making of the record.” In addition, to obtain admissibility for electronic records, most of the Evidence Acts contain electronic record provisions, which state that an electronic record is admis- sible as evidence on proof of the “integrity of the electronic record system in which the data was recorded or stored.” 36 This is the “system integrity” test for the admissibility of electronic records. The word “integrity” has yet to be defi ned by the courts. 37

However, by way of sections such as the following, the electronic record provi- sions of the Evidence Acts make reference to the use of standards such as the National Standards of Canada:

For the purpose of determining under any rule of law whether an electronic record is admissible, evidence may be presented in respect of any standard, procedure, usage or practice on how electronic records are to be recorded or stored, having regard to the type of business or endeavor that used, recorded, or stored the electronic record and the nature and purpose of the electronic record. 38

U.K. and European Standards

In the United Kingdom, The National Archives (TNA) (formerly the Public Record Offi ce, or PRO) “has published two sets of functional requirements to promote the development of the electronic records management software market (1999 and 2002).” It ran a program to evaluate products against the 2002 requirements.39 Initially these requirements were established in collaboration with the central government, and they later were utilized by the public sector in general, and also in other nations. The Na- tional Archives 2002 requirements remain somewhat relevant, although no additional development has been underway for years. It is clear that the second version of Model Requirements for Management of Electronic Records, MoReq2, largely supplanted the UK standard, and subsequently the newer MoReq2010 may further supplant the UK standard.

84 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

MoReq2010 “unbundles” some of the core requirements in MoReq2, and sets out functional requirements in modules. The approach seeks to permit the later creation of e-records software standards in various vertical industries such as defense, health care, fi nancial services, and legal services.

MoReq2010 is available free—all 525 pages of it (by comparison, the U.S. DoD 5015.2 standard is less than 120 pages long). For more information on MoReq2010, visit www.moreq2010.eu. The entire specifi cation may be downloaded at: http:// moreq2010.eu/pdf/moreq2010_vol1_v1_1_en.pdf.

MoReq2010 In November 2010, the DLM Forum, a European Commission–supported body, announced the availability of the fi nal draft of the MoReq2010 specifi cation for electronic records manage- ment systems (ERMS), following extensive public consultation. The fi nal specifi cation was published in mid-2011. 40

The DLM Forum explains that “With the growing demand for [electronic] re- cords management, across a broad spectrum of commercial, not-for-profi t, and gov- ernment organizations, MoReq2010 provides the fi rst practical specifi cation against which all organizations can take control of their corporate information. IT software and services vendors are also able to have their products tested and certifi ed that they meet the MoReq2010 specifi cation.” 41

MoReq2010 supersedes its predecessor MoReq2 and has the continued support and backing of the European Commission.

Australian ERM and Records Management Standards

Australia has adopted all three parts of ISO 16175 as its e-records management standard. 42 (For more detail on this standard go to ISO.org.)

Australia has long led the introduction of highly automated electronic document management systems and records management standards. Following the approval and release of the AS 4390 standard in 1996, the international records management com- munity began work on the development of an International standard. This work used AS 4390–1996 Records Management as its starting point.

Development of Australian Records Standards In 2002 Standards Australia published a new Australian Standard on records manage- ment, AS ISO 15489, based on the ISO 15489 international records management stan- dard. It differs only in its preface verbiage. 43 AS ISO 15489 carries through all these main components of AS 4390, but internationalizes the concepts and brings them up to date. The standards thereby codify Australian best practice but are also progressive in their recommendations.

Additional Relevant Australian Standards The Australian Government Recordkeeping Metadata Standard Version 2.0 pro- vides guidance on metadata elements and subelements for records management. It is a baseline tool that “describes information about records and the context in which they are captured and used in Australian Government agencies.” This standard is intended to help Australian agencies “meet business, accountability and archival requirements

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 85

in a systematic and consistent way by maintaining reliable, meaningful and accessible records.” The standard is written in two parts, the fi rst describing its purpose and features and the second outlining the specifi c metadata elements and subelements.44

The Australian Government Locator Service , AGLS, is published as AS 5044– 2010, the metadata standard to help fi nd and exchange information online. It updates the 2002 version, and includes changes made by the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI).

Another standard, AS 5090:2003, “Work Process Analysis for Recordkeep- ing ,” complements AS ISO 15489 and provides guidance on understanding business g processes and workfl ow so that recordkeeping requirements may be determined. 45

Long-Term Digital Preservation

Although many organizations shuffl e dealing with digital preservation issues to the back burner, long-term digital preservation (LTDP) is a key area in which IG policy should be applied. LTDP methods, best practices, and standards should be applied to preserve an organization’s historical and vital records ( those without which it cannot operate or restart operations) and to maintain its corporate or organizational memory. The key standards that apply to LTDP are listed next.

The offi cial standard format for preserving electronic documents is PDF/A-1, based on PDF 1.4 originally developed by Adobe. ISO 19005–1:2005, “Document Manage- ment—Electronic Document File Format for Long-Term Preservation—Part 1: Use of PDF 1.4 (PDF/A-1),” is the published specifi cation for using PDF 1.4 for LTDP, which is applicable to e-documents that may contain not only text characters but also graphics (either raster or vector). 46

ISO 14721:2012 , “Space Data and Information Transfer Systems—Open Archival Information Systems—Reference Model (OAIS),” is applicable to LTDP. 47 ISO 14271 “specifi es a reference model for an open archival information system (OAIS). The pur- pose of ISO 14721 is to establish a system for archiving information, both digitalized and physical, with an organizational scheme composed of people who accept the re- sponsibility to preserve information and make it available to a designated commu- nity.” 48 The fragility of digital storage media combined with ongoing and sometimes rapid changes in computer software and hardware poses a fundamental challenge to ensuring access to trustworthy and reliable digital content over time. Eventually, ev- ery digital repository committed to long-term preservation of digital content must have a strategy to mitigate computer technology obsolescence. Toward this end, the

The ISO 30300 series of e-records standards are written for a managerial audi- ence and encourage ERM that is aligned to organizational objectives.

LTDP is a key area to which IG policy should be applied.

86 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems developed the OAIS reference model to support formal standards for the long-term preservation of space science data and information assets. OAIS was not designed as an implementation model.

OAIS is the lingua franca of digital preservation, as the international digital pres- ervation community has embraced it as the framework for viable and technologically sustainable digital preservation repositories. An LTDP strategy that is OAIS compliant offers the best means available today for preserving the digital heritage of all organizations, private and public. (See Chapter 17 .)

ISO TR 18492 (2005) , “ Long-Term Preservation of Electronic Document Based Information,” provides practical methodological guidance for the long-term preser- vation and retrieval of authentic electronic document-based information, when the retention period exceeds the expected life of the technology (hardware and software) used to create and maintain the information assets. ISO 18492 takes note of the role of ISO 15489 but does not cover processes for the capture, classifi cation, and disposition of authentic electronic document-based information.

ISO 16363:2012 , “ Space Data and Information Transfer Systems—Audit and Certifi cation of Trustworthy Digital Repositories,” “defi nes a recommended prac- tice for assessing the trustworthiness of digital repositories. It is applicable to the entire range of digital repositories.”49 It is an audit and certifi cation standard orga- nized into three broad categories: Organization Infrastructure, Digital Object Man- agement, and Technical Infrastructure and Security Risk Management. ISO 16363 represents the gold standard of audit and certifi cation for trustworthy digital repositories. (See Chapter 17 .)

Business Continuity Management

ISO 22301:2012, “Societal Security—Business Continuity Management Systems— Requirements,” spells out the requirements for creating and implementing a stan- dardized approach to business continuity management (BCM, also known as di- saster recovery [DR]), in the event an organization is hit with a disaster or major business interruption. 50 The guidelines can be applied to any organization regard- less of vertical industry or size. The specifi cation includes the “requirements to plan, establish, implement, operate, monitor, review, maintain and continually im- prove a documented management system to protect against, reduce the likelihood

An LTDP strategy that is OAIS compliant (based on ISO 14721) offers the best means available today for preserving the digital heritage of all organizations.

ISO 16363 represents the gold standard of audit and certifi cation for trustwor- thy digital repositories.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 87

of occurrence, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disruptive incidents when they arise.”

The UK business continuity standard, BS25999-2, which heavily infl uenced the newer ISO standard, was withdrawn when ISO 22301 was released. 51 The business rationale is that, with the increasing globalization of business, ISO 22301 will allow and support more consistency worldwide not only in business continuity planning and practices but also will promote common terms and help to embed various ISO management systems standards within organizations. U.S.-based ANSI, Standards Australia, Standards Singapore, and other standards bodies also contributed to the development of ISO 22301.

Benefi ts of ISO 22301

■ Threat identifi cation and assessment. Discover, name, and evaluate potential seri- ous threats to the viability of the business.

■ Threat and recovery planning. so the impact and resultant downtime and recov- ery from real threats that do become incidents is minimized

■ Mission-critical process protection. Identifying key processes and taking steps to ensure they continue to operate even during a business interruption.

■ Stakeholder confi dence. Shows prudent management planning and business re- silience to internal and external stakeholders, including employees, business units, customers, and suppliers. 52

Making Your Best Practices and Standards Selections to Inform Your IG Framework

You must take into account your organization’s corporate culture, management style, and organizational goals when determining which best practices and standards should receive priority in your IG framework. However, you must step through your business rationale in discussions with your cross-functional IG team and fully document the reasons for your approach. Then you must present this approach and your draft IG

ISO 22301 spells out requirements for creating and implementing a standard- ized approach to business continuity management.

You must take into account your organization’s corporate culture, manage- ment style, and organizational goals when determining which best practice and standards should be selected for your IG framework.

88 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

framework to your key stakeholders and be able to defend your determinations while allowing for input and adjustments. Perhaps you have overlooked some key factors that your larger stakeholder group uncovers, and their input should be folded into a fi nal draft of your IG framework.

Next, you are ready to begin developing IG policies that apply to various aspects of information use and management, in specifi c terms. You must detail the policies you expect employees to follow when handling information on various information deliv- ery platforms (e.g., e-mail, blogs, social media, mobile computing, cloud computing). It is helpful at this stage to collect and review all your current policies that apply and to gather some examples of published IG policies, particularly from peer organiza- tions and competitors (where possible). Of note: You should not just adopt another organization’s polices and believe that you are done with policy making. Rather, you must enter into a deliberative process, using your IG framework for guiding principles and considering the views and needs of your cross-functional IG team. Of paramount importance is to be sure to incorporate the alignment of your organizational goals and business objectives when crafting policy.

With each policy area, be sure that you have considered the input of your stake- holders, so that they will be more willing to buy into and comply with the new policies and so that the policies do not run counter to their business needs and required busi- ness processes. Otherwise, stakeholders will skirt, avoid, or halfheartedly follow the new IG policies, and the IG program risks failure.

Once you have fi nalized your policies, be sure to obtain necessary approvals from your executive sponsor and key senior managers.

Roles and Responsibilities

Policies will do nothing without people to advocate, support, and enforce them. So clear lines of authority and accountability must be drawn , and responsibilities must be assigned.

Overall IG program responsibility resides at the executive sponsor level, but beneath that, an IG program manager should drive team members toward mile- stones and business objectives and should shoulder the responsibility for day-to-day program activities, including implementing and monitoring key IG policy tasks. These tasks should be approved by executive stakeholders and assigned as appropri- ate to an employee’s functional area of expertise. For instance, the IG team member from legal may be assigned the responsibility for researching and determining legal requirements for retention of business records, perhaps working in conjunction with the IG team member from RM, who can provide additional input based on interviews with representatives from business units and additional RM research into best practices.

Lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility must be clearly drawn for the IG program to succeed.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 89

Program Communications and Training

Your IG program must contain a communications and training component, as a stan- dard function. Your stakeholder audience must be made aware of the new policies and practices that are to be followed and how this new approach contributes toward the organization’s goals and business objectives.

The fi rst step in your communications plan is to identify and segment your stake- holder audiences and to customize or modify your message to the degree that is neces- sary to be effective. Communications to your IT team can have a more technical slant, and communications to your legal team can have some legal jargon and emphasize le- gal issues. The more forethought you put into crafting your communications strategy, the more effective it will be.

That is not to say that all messages must have several versions: Some core concepts l and goals should be emphasized in communications to all employees.

How should you communicate? The more ways you can get your IG message to your core stakeholder audiences, the more effective and lasting the message will be. So posters, newsletters, e-mail, text messages, internal blog or intranet posts, and company meetings should all be a part of the communications mix. Remember, the IG program requires not only training but re training, and the aim should be to create a compliance culture that is so prominent and expected that employees adopt the new practices and policies and integrate them into their daily activities. Ideally, employees will provide valuable input to help fi ne-tune and improve the IG program.

Training should take multiple avenues as well. Some can be classroom instruc- tion, some online learning, and you may want to create a series of training videos. But the training effort must be consistent and ongoing to maintain high levels of IG effectiveness. Certainly, this means you will need to add to your new hire training pro- gram for employees joining or transferring to your organization.

Program Controls, Monitoring, Auditing, and Enforcement

How do you know how well you are doing? You will need to develop metrics to de- termine the level of employee compliance, its impact on key operational areas, and progress made toward established business objectives.

Testing and auditing the program provides an opportunity to give feedback to employees on how well they are doing and to recommend changes they may make. But having objective feedback on key metrics also will allow for your executive sponsor to see where progress has been made and where improvements need to focus.

Communications regarding your IG program should be consistent and clear and somewhat customized for various stakeholder groups.

90 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ You must inform and frame IG policy with internal and external frameworks, models, best practices, and standards

■ The business user is the primary stakeholder of managed information.

■ Information management is important at all stages of the life cycle.

■ Legal stakeholders usually can mandate the preservation of what is most criti- cal, though often at great cost.

■ The IGRM was developed by the EDRM Project to foster communication among stakeholders and adoption of IG. It complements ARMA’s The Principles.

■ ISO 31000 is a broad risk management standard that applies to all types of businesses.

■ ISO/IEC 27001 and ISO/IEC 27002 are ISMS standards that provide guidance in the development of security controls.

■ ISO 15489 is the international RM standard.

■ The ICA-Req standard was adopted as ISO 16175. It does not contain a test- ing regime for certifi cation.

■ The ISO 30300 series of e-records standards are written for a managerial au- dience and encourage ERM that is aligned to organizational objectives.

■ DoD 5015.2 is the U.S. ERM standard; the European ERM standard is MoReq2010. Australia has adopted all three parts of ISO 16175 as its e-records management standard.

■ LTDP is a key area to which IG policy should be applied.

■ An LTDP strategy that is OAIS compliant (based on ISO 14721) offers the best means available today for preserving the digital heritage of all organizations.

■ ISO 16363 represents the gold standard of audit and certifi cation for trust- worthy digital repositories.

■ ISO 38500 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors responsible for IT governance.

■ ISO 22301 spells out requirements for creating and implementing a standardized approach to business continuity management.

Clear penalties for policy violations must be communicated to employees so they know the seriousness of the IG program and how important it is in helping the orga- nization pursue its business goals and accomplish stated business objectives.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 91

Notes

1. ARMA International, “Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles,” www.arma.org/r2/generally- accepted-br-recordkeeping-principles/copyright (accessed November 25, 2013).

2. ARMA International, “Information Governance Maturity Model,” www.arma.org/r2/generally- accepted-br-recordkeeping-principles/metrics (accessed November 25, 2013).

3. Electronic Discovery, “IGRM v3.0 Update: Privacy & Security Offi cers As Stakeholders – Electronic Discovery,” http://electronicdiscovery.info/igrm-v3-0-update-privacy-security-offi cers-as-stakehold- ers-electronic-discovery/ (accessed April 24, 2013).

4. EDRM, “Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM),” www.edrm.net/projects/igrm (accessed October 9, 2013).

5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide ),

4th ed. (Newtown Square, PA, Project Management Institute, 2008), ANSI/PMI 99-001-2008, pp. 273–312.

8. Kate Cumming, “Metadata Matters,” in Julie McLeod and Catherine Hare, eds., Managing Electronic Records , p. 34 (London: Facet, 2005).s

9. Marc Fresko, e-mail to author, May 13, 2012. 10. Hofman, “The Use of Standards and Models,” in Julie McLeod and Catherine Hare, eds., Managing

Electronic Records , p. 34 (London: Facet, 2005) pp. 20–21. s 11. Ibid. 12. International Organization for Standardization, “ISO 31000:2009 Risk Management—Principles and

Guidelines,” www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=43170 (accessed April 22, 2013).

13. Ibid. 14. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 27001:2005, “Information Technology—

Security Techniques—Information Security Management Systems—Requirements,” www.iso.org/iso/ catalogue_detail?csnumber=42103 (accessed April 22, 2013).

15. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 27002:2005, “Information Technology— Security Techniques—Code of Practice for Information Security Management,” www.iso.org/iso/cata- logue_detail?csnumber=50297 (accessed July 23, 2012).

16. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 38500:2008, www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_ detail?csnumber=51639 (accessed March 12, 2013).

17. ISO 38500 IT Governance Standard, www.38500.org/ (accessed March 12, 2013). 18. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 15489-1: 2001 Information and Documentation—

Records Management. Part 1: General (Geneva: ISO, 2001), section 3.16. l

■ You must take into account your organization’s corporate culture, manage- ment style, and organizational goals when determining which best practices and standards should be selected for your IG framework.

■ Lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility must be clearly drawn for the IG program to succeed.

■ Communications regarding your IG program should be consistent and clear and somewhat customized for various stakeholder groups.

■ IG program audits are an opportunity to improve training and compliance, not to punish employees.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

92 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

19. National Archives of Australia, www.naa.gov.au/records-management/publications/DIRKS-manual .aspx (accessed October 15, 2012).

20. International Council on Archives, “ICA-Req: Principles and Functional Requirements for Records in Electronic Offi ce Environments: Guidelines and Training Material,” November 29, 2011, www .ica.org/11696/activities-and-projects/icareq-principles-and-functional-requirements-for-records-in- electronic-offi ce-environments-guidelines-and-training-material.html.

21. Council of Australasian Archives and Records Authorities, www.caara.org.au/ (accessed May 3, 2012). 22. Adrian Cunningham, blog post comment, May 11, 2011. http://thinkingrecords.co.uk/2011/05/06/

how-moreq-2010-differs-from-previous-electronic-records-management-erm-system-specifi cations/. 23. Ibid. 24. “Relationship between the ISO 30300 Series of Standards and Other Products of ISO/TC 46/SC

11: Records Processes and Controls,” White Paper, ISO TC46/SC11- Archives/Records Management (March 2012), www.iso30300.es/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/ISOTC46SC11_White_paper_rela- tionship_30300_technical_standards12032012v6.pdf

25. Ibid. 26. Julie Gable, Information Management Journal, November 1, 2002, www.thefreelibrary.com/Everything-

+you+wanted+to+know+about+DoD+5015.2:+the+standard+is+not+a…-a095630076. 27. These standards were developed by the CGSB (Canadian General Standards Board), which is a stan-

dards-writing agency within Public Works and Government Services Canada (a department of the federal government). It is accredited by the Standards Council of Canada as a standards development agency. The Council must certify that standards have been developed by the required procedures be- fore it will designate them as being National Standards of Canada. 72.34 incorporates by reference as “normative references”: (1) many of the standards of the International Organization for Standardiza- tion (ISO) in Geneva, Switzerland. (“ISO,” derived from the Greek word isos (equal) so as to provide s a common acronym for all languages); and (2) several of the standards of the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The “Normative references” section of 72.34 (p. 2) states that these “referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this document.” 72.11 cites (p. 2, “Applicable Pub- lications”) several standards of the American National Standards Institute/Association for Information and Image Management (ANSI/AIIM) as publications “applicable to this standard.” The process by which the National Standards of Canada are created and maintained is described within the standards themselves (reverse side of the front cover), and on the CGSB’s Web site (see, “Standards Develop- ment”), from which Web site these standards may be obtained; http://www.ongc-cgsb.gc.ca.

28. The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) informs the public of its policies and procedures by means, among others, of its Information Circulars (IC’s), and s GST/HST Memoranda . (GST: goods and services tax; HST: harmonized sales tax, i.e. , the harmonization of federal and provincial sales taxes into one retail sales tax.) In particular, see: IC05-1 , dated June 2010, entitled, Electronic Record Keeping , paragraphs 24, 26 and 28.g Note that use of the National Standard cited in paragraph 26, Microfi lm and Electronic Images as Documen- tary Evidence CAN/CGSB-72.11-93 is mandatory for, “Imaging and microfi lm (including microfi che) reproductions of books of original entry and source documents . . .” Paragraph 24 recommends the use of the newer national standard, Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN/CGSB-72.34-2005, “To ensure the reliability, integrity and authenticity of electronic records.” However, if this newer standard is given the same treatment by CRA as the older standard, it will be made mandatory as well. And similar statements appear in the GST Memoranda, Computerized Records 500-1-2, s Books and Records 500-1. IC05-s 1. Electronic Record Keeping , concludes with the note, “Most Canada Revenue Agency publications areg available on the CRA Web site www.cra.gc.ca under the heading ‘Forms and Publications.’”

29. There are more than 200 specifi c compliance tests that can be applied to determine if the principles of 72.34 are being complied with. The analysts—a combined team of records management and legal expertise—analyze: (1) the nature of the business involved; (2) the uses and value of its records for its various functions; (3) the likelihood and risk of the various types of its records being the subject of legal proceedings, or of their being challenged by some regulating authority; and (4) the consequences of the unavailability of acceptable records—for example, the consequences of its records not being accepted in legal proceedings. Similarly, in regard to the older National Standard of Canada, 72.11, there is a comparable series of more than 50 tests that can be applied to determine the state of compliance with its principles.

30. Electronic Records as Documentary Evidence CAN/CGSB-72.34-2005 (“72.34”), clause 5.4.3 c) at p. 17; and Microfi lm and Electronic Images as Documentary Evidence CAN/CGSB-72.11-93 (“72.11”), paragraph 4.1.2 at p. 2, supra note 49.

31. 72.34, Clause 5.4.3, ibid. 32. “Admissibility” refers to the procedure by which a presiding judge determines if a record or other

proffered evidence is acceptable as evidence according the rules of evidence. “Electronic discovery”

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE POLICY DEVELOPMENT 93

is the compulsory exchange of relevant records by the parties to legal proceedings prior to trial.” As to the admissibility of records as evidence see: Ken Chasse, “The Admissibility of Electronic Business Records” (2010), 8 Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 105; and Ken Chasse, “Electronic Re- cords for Evidence and Disclosure and Discovery” (2011) 57 The Criminal Law Quarterly 284. For the electronic discovery of records see: Ken Chasse, “Electronic Discovery— Sedona Canada is Inadequate on Records Management—Here’s Sedona Canada in Amended Form,” Canadian Journal of Law and Tech- nology 9 (2011): 135; and Ken Chasse, “Electronic Discovery in the Criminal Court System,” Canadian Criminal Law Review 14 (2010): 111. See also note 18 infra , and accompanying text.

33. For the province of Quebec, comparable provisions are contained in Articles 2831-2842, 2859-2862, 2869-2874 of Book 7 “Evidence” of the Civil Code of Quebec, S.Q. 1991, c. C-64, to be read in con- junction with, An Act to Establish a Legal Framework for Information Technology, R.S.Q. 2001, c. C-1.1, ss. 2, 5-8, and 68.

34. For the legislative jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments in Canada, see The Constitu- tion Act, 1867 (U.K.) 30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3, s. 91 (federal), and s. 92 (provincial), www.canlii.org/en/ca/ laws/stat/30—31-vict-c-3/latest/30—31-vict-c-3.html.

35. The two provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador do not have business record provisions in their Evidence Acts. Therefore “admissibility” would be determined in those jurisdictions by way of the court decisions that defi ne the applicable common law rules; such decisions as, Ares v. Venner [1970]r S.C.R. 608, 14 D.L.R. (3d) 4 (S.C.C.), and decisions that have applied it.

36. See for example, the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, ss. 31.1-31.8; Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-18, ss. 41.1-41.8; (Ontario) Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23, s. 34.1; and the (Nova Scotia) Evidence Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 154, ss. 23A-23G. The Evidence Acts of the two provinces of British Columbia and Newfoundland and Labrador do not contain electronic record provisions. However, because an electronic record is no better than the quality of the record system in which it is recorded or stored, its “integrity” (reliability, credibility) will have to be determined under the other provincial laws that determine the admissibility of records as evidence.

37. The electronic record provisions have been in the Evidence Acts in Canada since 2000. They have been applied to admit electronic records into evidence, but they have not yet received any detailed analysis by the courts.

38. This is the wording used in, for example, s. 41.6 of the Alberta Evidence Act, s. 34.1(8) of the (Ontario) Evidence Act; and s. 23F of the (Nova Scotia) Evidence Act, supra note 10. Section 31.5 of the Canada Evidence Act, supra note 58, uses the same wording, the only signifi cant difference being that the word “document” is used instead of “record.” For the province of Quebec, see sections 12 and 68 of, An Act to Establish a Legal Framework for Information Technology, R.S.Q., chapter C-1.1.

39. “Giving Value: Funding Priorities for UK Archives 2005–2010, a key new report launched by the Na- tional Council on Archives (NCA) in November 2005,” www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/stan- dards_guidance.pdf (accessed October 15, 2012).

40. DLM Forum Foundation, MoReq2010 ® : Modular Requirements for Records Systems—Volume 1: Core Ser- vices & Plug-in Modules, 2011, http://moreq2010.eu/ (accessed May 7, 2012, published in paper form ass ISBN 978-92-79-18519-9 by the Publications Offi ce of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

41. DLM Forum, Information Governance across Europe, www.dlmforum.eu/ (accessed December 14, 2010).

42. National Archives of Australia, “Australian and International Standards,” 2012, www.naa.gov.au /records-management/strategic-information/standards/ASISOstandards.aspx (accessed July 16, 2012).

43. E-mail to author from Marc Fresko, May 13, 2012. 44. National Archives of Australia, “Australian Government Recordkeeping Metadata Standard,” 2012,

www.naa.gov.au/records-management/publications/agrk-metadata-standard.aspx (accessed July 16, 2012).

45. National Archives of Australia, “Australian and International Standards,” 2012, www.naa.gov.au /records-management/strategic-information/standards/ASISOstandards.aspx (accessed July 16, 2012).

46. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 19005-1:2005, “Document Management— Electronic Document File Format for Long-Term Preservation—Part 1: Use of PDF 1.4 (PDF/A-1),” www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=38920 (accessed July 23, 2012).

47. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 14721:2012, “Space Data and Information Trans- fer Systems Open Archival Information System—Reference Model,” www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/ catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=57284 (accessed November 25, 2013).

48. Ibid. 49. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 16363:2012, “Space Data and Information

Transfer Systems—Audit and Certifi cation of Trustworthy Digital Repositories,” www.iso.org/iso/ iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=56510 (accessed July 23, 2012).

94 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

50. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 22301:2012 “Societal Security—Business Conti- nuity Management Systems—Requirements,” www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=50038 (ac- cessed April 21, 2013).

51. International Organization for Standardization, “ISO Business Continuity Standard 22301 to Replace BS 25999-2,” www.continuityforum.org/content/news/165318/iso-business-continuity-standard-22301- replace-bs-25999-2 (accessed April 21, 2013).

52. BSI, “ISO 22301 Business Continuity Management,” www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/iso-22301-business- continuity (accessed April 21, 2013).

PART THREE Information Governance Key Impact Areas Based on the IG Reference Model

97

Business Considerations for a Successful IG Program

C H A P T E R 7

By Barclay T. Blair

The business case for information governance (IG) programs has historically been diffi cult to justify. It is hard to apply a strict, short-term return on invest-ment (ROI) calculation. A lot of time, effort, and expense is involved before true economic benefi ts can be realized. So a commitment to the long view and an un- derstanding of the many areas where an organization will improve as a result of a successful IG program are needed. But the bottom line is that reducing exposure to business risk, improving the quality and security of data and e-documents, cutting out unneeded stored information, and streamlining information technology (IT) develop- ment while focusing on business results add up to better organizational health and viability and, ultimately, an improved bottom line.

Let us take a step back and examine the major issues affecting information costing and calculating the real cost of holding information, consider Big Data and e-discov- ery ramifi cations, and introduce some new concepts that may help frame information costing issues differently for business managers. Getting a good handle on the true cost of information is essential to governing it properly, shifting resources to higher- value information, and discarding information that has no discernible business value and carries inherent, avoidable risks.

Changing Information Environment

The information environment is changing. Data volumes are growing, but unstructured information (such as e-mail, word processing documents, social media posts) is grow- ing faster than our ability to manage it. Some unstructured information has more structure than others containing some identifi able metadata (e.g., e-mail messages all have a header, subject line, time/date stamp, and message body). This is often termed as semistructured information, but for purposes of this book, we use the term “unstruc-d tured information” to include semistructured information as well.

The volume of unstructured information is growing dramatically. Analysts estimate that, over the next decade, the amount of data worldwide will grow by 44 times (from .8 zettabytes to 35 zettabytes: 1 zettabyte = 1 trillion gigabytes). 1 However, the volume

98 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

of unstructured information will actually grow 50 percent faster than structured data. Analysts also estimate that fully 90 percent of unstructured information will require formal governance and management by 2020. In other words, the problem of unstruc- tured IG is growing faster than the problem of data volume itself.

What makes unstructured information so challenging? There are several factors, including

■ Horizontal versus vertical. Unstructured information is typically not clearly at- tached to a department or a business function. Unlike the vertical focus of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) database, for example, an e-mail system serves multiple business functions—from employee communication to fi ling with regulators—for all parts of the business. Unstructured information is much more horizontal, making it diffi cult to develop and apply business rules.

■ Formality. The tools and applications used to create unstructured information often engender informality and the sharing of opinions that can be problematic in litigation, investigations, and audits—as has been repeatedly demonstrated in front-page stories over the past decade. This problem is not likely to get any easier as social media technologies and mobile devices become more common in the enterprise.

■ Management location. Unstructured information does not have a single, obvious home. Although e-mail systems rely on central messaging servers, e-mail is just as likely to be found on a fi le share, mobile device, or laptop hard drive. This makes the application of management rules more diffi cult than the application of the same rules in structured systems, where there is a close marriage between the application and the database.

■ “Ownership” issues. Employees do not think that they “own” data in an accounts receivable system like they “own” their e-mail or documents stored on their hard drive. Although such information generally has a single owner (i.e., the organization itself), this non-ownership mind-set can make the imposition of management rules for unstructured information more challenging than for structured data.

■ Classifi cation. The business purpose of a database is generally determined prior to its design. Unlike structured information, the business purpose of unstruc- tured information is diffi cult to infer from the application that created or stores the information. A word processing fi le stored in a collaboration environment could be a multimillion-dollar contract or a lunch menu. As such, classifi ca- tion of unstructured content is more complex and expensive than structured information.

Taken together, these factors reveal a simple truth: Managing unstructured infor- mation is a separate and distinct discipline from managing databases. It requires different

The problem of unstructured IG is growing faster than the problem of data volume itself.

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 99

methods and tools. Moreover, determining the costs and benefi ts of owning and man- aging unstructured information is a unique—but critical—challenge.

The governance of unstructured information creates enormous complexity and risk for business managers to consider while making it diffi cult for organizations to generate real value from all this information. Despite the looming crisis, most organi- zations have limited ability to quantify the real cost of owning and managing unstruc- tured information. Determining the total cost of owning unstructured information is an essential precursor to managing and monetizing that information while cutting information costs—key steps in driving profi t for the enterprise.

Storing things is cheap . . . I’ve tended to take the attitude, “Don’t throw elec- tronic things away.”

—Data scientist quoted in Anne Eisenberg, “What 23 Years of E-Mail May Say About You,” New York Times, ” April 7, 2012

The company spent $900,000 to produce an amount of data that would con- sume less than one-quarter of the available capacity of an ordinary DVD.

— Nicholas M. Pace and Laura Zakaras, “Where the Money Goes: Understanding Litigant Expenditures for Producing Electronic

Discovery,” RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2012

Calculating Information Costs

We are not very good at fi guring out what information costs— truly costs. Many orga- nizations act as if storage is an infi nitely renewable resource and the only cost of in- formation. But, somehow, enterprise storage spending rises each year and IT support costs rise, even as the root commodity (disk drives) grows ever cheaper and denser. Obviously, they are not considering labor and overhead costs incurred with managing information, and the additional knowledge worker time wasted sifting through moun- tains of information to fi nd what they need.

Some of this myopic focus on disk storage cost is simple ignorance. The executive who concludes that a terabyte costs less than a nice meal at a restaurant after browsing storage drives on the shelves of a favorite big-box retailer on the weekend is of little help.

Rising information storage costs cannot be dismissed. Each year the billions that or- ganizations worldwide spend on storage grows, even though the cost of a hard drive is less than 1 percent of what it was about a decade ago. We have treated storage as a resource that has no cost to the organization outside of the initial capital outlay and basic operational costs. This is shortsighted and outdated.

Some of the reason that managers and executives have diffi culty comprehending the true cost of information is old-fashioned miscommunication. IT departments do not see (or pay for) the full cost of e-discovery and litigation. Even when IT “part- ners” with litigators, what IT learn rarely drives strategic IT decisions. Conversely, law departments (and outside fi rms) rarely own and pay for the IT consequences of their litigation strategies. It is as if when the litigation fi re needs to be put out, nobody calculates the cost of gasoline and water for the fi re trucks.

100 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

But calculating the cost of information—especially information that does not sit neatly in the rows and columns of enterprise database “systems of record”—is complex. It is more art than science. And it is more politics than art. There is no Aristotelian Golden Mean for information.

The true cost of mismanaging information is much more profound than simply calculating storage unit costs. It is the cost of opportunity lost—the lost benefi t of in- formation that is disorganized, created and then forgotten, cast aside and left to rot. It is the cost of information that cannot be brought to market. Organizations that realize this, and invest in managing and leveraging their unstructured information, will be the winners of the next decade.

Most organizations own vast pools of information that is effectively “dark”: They do not know what it is, where it is, who is responsible for managing it, or whether it is an asset or a liability. It is not classifi ed, indexed, or managed according to the or- ganization’s own policies. It sits in shared drives, mobile devices, abandoned content systems, single-purpose cloud repositories, legacy systems, and outdated archives.

And when the light is fi nally fl icked on for the fi rst time by an intensive hunt for information during e-discovery, this dark information can turn out to be a liability. An e-mail message about “paying off fat people who are a little afraid of some silly lung problem” might seem innocent—until it is placed in front of a jury as evidence that a drug company did not care that its diet drug was allegedly killing people. 2

The importance of understanding the total cost of owning unstructured informa- tion is growing. We are at the beginning of a “seismic economic shift” in the informa- tion landscape, one that promises to not only “reinvent society,” (according to an MIT data scientist) but also to create “the new oil . . . a new asset class touching all aspects of society.” 3

Big Data Opportunities and Challenges

We are entering the epoch of Big Data—an era of Internet-scale enterprise infrastruc- ture, powerful analytical tools, and massive data sets from which we can potentially wring profound new insights about business, society, and ourselves. It is an epoch that, according to the consulting fi rm McKinsey, promises to save the European Union public sector billions of euros, increase retailer margins by 60 percent, and reduce U.S. national health care spending by 8 percent, while creating hundreds of thousands of jobs. 4 Sounds great, right?

However, the early days of this epoch are unfolding in almost total ignorance of the true cost of information. In the near nirvana contemplated by some Big Data

Smart leaders across industries will see using big data for what it is: a manage- ment revolution.

—Andrew McAfee and Erik Brynjolfsson, “Big Data: The Management Revolution,” Harvard Business Review ” (October 2012)

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 101

proponents, all data is good, and more data is better . Yet it would be an exaggeration to r say that there is no awareness of potential Big Data downsides. A recent study by the Pew Research Center was positive overall but did note concerns about privacy, social control, misinformation, civil rights abuses, and the possibility of simply being over- whelmed by the deluge of information. 5

But the real-world burdens of managing, protecting, searching, classifying, retain- ing, producing, and migrating unstructured information are foreign to many Big Data cheerleaders. This may be because the Big Data hype cycle 6 is not yet in the “trough of disillusionment” where the reality of corporate culture and complex legal require- ments sets in. But set in it will, and when it does, the demand for intelligent analysis of costs and benefi ts will be high.

IG professionals must be ready for these new challenges and opportunities—ready with new models for thinking about unstructured information. Models that calculate the risks of keeping too much of the wrong information as well as the s benefi ts of clean,s reliable, and accessible pools of the right information. Models that drive desirable behavior in the enterprise, and position organizations to succeed on the “next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity.”7

Full Cost Accounting for Information

It is diffi cult for organizations to make educated decisions about unstructured infor- mation without knowing its full cost. Models like total cost of ownership (TCO) and ROI are designed for this purpose and have much in common with full cost account- ing (FCA) models. FCA seeks to create a complete picture of costs that includes past, g future, direct, and indirect costs rather than direct cash outlays alone.

FCA has been used for many purposes, including the decidedly earthbound task of determining what it costs to take out the garbage and the loftier task of calculating how much the International Space Station really costs. A closely related concept, often called triple bottom line, has gained traction in the world of environmental account- ing, positing that organizations must take into account societal and environmental costs as well as monetary costs.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promotes the use of FCA for mu- nicipal waste management, and several states have adopted laws requiring its use. It is fascinating—and no accident—that this accounting model has been widely used to calculate the full cost of managing an unwanted by-product of modern life. The anal- ogy to outdated, duplicate, and unmanaged unstructured information is clear.

Applying the principles of FCA to information can increase cost transparency and drive better management decisions. In municipal garbage systems where citizens do not see a separate bill for taking out the garbage, it is more diffi cult to get new

IG professionals must be ready with new models that calculate the risks of stor- ing too much of the wrong information and also the benefi ts of clean, reliable, accessible information.

102 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

spending on waste management approved. 8 Without visibility into the true cost, how can citizens—or CEOs—make informed decisions?

Responsible, innovative managers and executives should investigate FCA models for calculating the total cost of owning unstructured information. Consider costs such as:

■ General and administrative costs, such as cost of IT operations and personnel, facilities, and technical support.

■ Productivity gains or losses related to the information. s ■ Legal and e-discovery costs associated with the information and information systems. y ■ Indirect costs, such as the accounting, billing, clerical support, contract manage-

ment, insurance, payroll, purchasing, and so on. ■ Up-front costs, such as the acquisition of the system, integration and confi gura-

tion, and training. This should include the depreciation of capital outlays. ■ Future costs, such as maintenance, migration, and decommissioning of informa-

tion systems. Future outlays should be amortized.

Calculating the Cost of Owning Unstructured Information

Any system designed to calculate the cost or benefi t of a business strategy is inher- ently political. That is, it is an argument designed to convince an t audience. Well-known models like TCO and ROI are primarily decision tools designed to help organizations predict the economic consequences of a decision. While there are certainly objective truths about the information environment, human decision making is a complex and imperfect process. There are plenty of excellent guides on how to create a standard TCO or ROI. That is not our purpose here. Rather, we want to inspire creative think- ing about how to calculate the cost of owning unstructured information and help or- ganizations minimize the risk—and maximize the value—of unstructured information.

Any economic model for calculating the cost of unstructured information depends on reliable facts. But facts can be hard to come by. A client recently went in search of an accurate number for the annual cost per terabyte of Tier 1 storage in her company. The company’s storage environment was completely outsourced, leading her to believe that the number would be transparent and easy to fi nd. However, after days spent poring over the massive contract, she was no closer to the truth. Although there was a line item for storage costs, the true costs were buried in “complexity fees” and other opaque terms.

Organizations need tools that help them establish facts about their unstructured information environment. The business case for better management depends on these facts. Look for tools that can help you:

■ Find unstructured information wherever it resides across the enterprise, including s e-mail systems, shared network drives, legacy content management systems, and archives.

Organizations can learn from accounting models used by cities to calculate the total cost of managing municipal waste and apply them to the IG problem.

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 103

■ Enable fast and intuitive access to basic metrics , such as size, date of last access,s and fi le type.

■ Provide sophisticated analysis of the nature of the content itself to drive classifi ca-s tion and information life cycle decisions.

■ Deliver visibility into the environment through dashboards that are easy to fors nonspecialists to confi gure and use.

Sources of Cost

Unstructured information is ubiquitous. It is typically not the product of a single-pur- pose business application. It often has no clearly defi ned owner. It is endlessly duplicat- ed and transmitted across the organization. Determining where and how unstructured information generates cost is diffi cult.

However, doing so is possible. Our research shows that at least 10 key factors that s drive the total cost of owning unstructured information. These 10 factors identify where organizations typically spend money throughout the life cycle of managing un- structured information. These factors are listed in Figure 7.1 , along with examples of elements that typically increase cost (“Cost Drivers,” on the left side) and elements that typically reduce costs (“Cost Reducers,” on the right side).

1. E-discovery: fi nding, processing, and producing information to support law- suits, investigations, and audits. Unstructured information is typically the most common target in e-discovery, and a poorly managed information environment can add millions of dollars in cost to large lawsuits. Simply reviewing a gigabyte of information for litigation can cost $14,000 or more. 9

2. Disposition: getting rid of information that no longer has value because it is duplicate, out of date, or has no value to the business. In poorly man- aged information environments, separating the wheat from the chaff can cost large organizations millions of dollars. For enterprises with frequent litigation, the risk of throwing away the wrong piece of information only increases risk and cost. Better management and smart IG tools drive costs down.

3. Classifi cation and organization: keeping unstructured information organized so that employees can use it. It also is necessary so management rules supporting privacy, privilege, confi dentiality, retention, and other requirements can be applied.

4. Digitization and automation. Many business processes continue to be a combi- nation of digital, automated steps and paper-based, manual steps. Automating

Identifying and building consensus on the sources of cost for unstructured information is critical to any TCO or ROI calculation. It is critical that all stake- holders agree on these sources, or they will not incorporate the output of the calculation in their strategy and planning.

104 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

and digitizing these processes requires investment but also can drive signifi - cant returns. For example, studies have shown that automating accounts pay- able “can reduce invoice processing costs by 90 percent.”10

5. Storage and network infrastructure: the cost of the devices, networks, software, and labor required to store unstructured information. Although the cost of the baseline commodity (i.e., a gigabyte of storage space) continues to fall, for most organizations overall volume growth and complexity means that storage budgets go up each year. For example, between 2000 and 2010, organization more than doubled the amount they spent on storage-related software even though the cost of raw hard drive space dropped by almost 100 times. 11

6. Information search, access, and collaboration: the cost of hardware, software, and services designed to ensure that information is available to those who need it, when they need it. This typically includes enterprise content management systems, enterprise search, case management, and the infrastructure necessary to support employee access and use of these systems.

7. Migration: the cost of moving unstructured information from outdated sys- tems to current systems. In poorly managed information environments, the cost of migration can be very high—so high that some organizations maintain legacy systems long after they are no longer supported by the vendor just to avoid (more likely, simply to defer ) the migration cost and complexity.rr

8. Policy management and compliance: the cost of developing, implementing, enforcing, and maintaining IG policies on unstructured information. Good policies, consistently enforced, will drive down the total cost of owning un- structured information.

9. Discovering and structuring business processes: the cost of identifying, improv- ing, and systematizing or “routinizing” business processes that are currently ad hoc and disorganized. Typical examples include contract management and

Cost Drivers: Examples

Outdoted, unenforced policies

Poorly defined information ownership and governance

Open loop, reactive e-discovery processes

Uncontrolled information respositiories

Modernist, paper-focused information rules

Ad hoc, unstructured business processes

Disconnected governance programs

Formal, communicated, and enforced policies

Automated classification and organization

Defensible deletion and selective content migration

Data maps

Proactive, repeatable e-discovery procedures

Clear corporate governance

Managed and structured repositories

Cost Reducers: Examples

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

E-Discovery

Disposition

Classification and Organization

Digitization and Automation

Storage and Network Infrastructure

Information Search, Access, Collaboration

Migration

Policy Management and Compliance

Discovering and Structuring Business Processes

Knowledge Capture and Transfer

Figure 7.1 Key Factors Driving Cost Source: Barclay T. Blair

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 105

accounts receivable as well as revenue-related activities, such as sales and cus- tomer support. Moving from informal e-mail and document-based processes to fi xed work fl ows drives down cost.

10. Knowledge capture and transfer: the cost of capturing critical business knowl- edge held at the department and employee level and putting that information in a form that enables other employees and parts of the organization to ben- efi t from it. Examples include intranets and their more contemporary cousins such as wikis, blogs, and enterprise social media platforms.

The Path to Information Value

At its peak during World War II, the Brooklyn Navy Yard had 70,000 people coming to work every day. The site was once America’s premier shipbuilding facility, build- ing the steam-powered Ohio in 1820 and the aircraft carrier USS Independence in the 1950s. But the site fell apart after it was decommissioned in the 1960s. Today, an “Admiral’s Row” of Second Empire–style mansions once occupied by naval offi cers are an extraordinary sight, with gnarled oak trees pushing through the rotting mansard roofs. 12

Seventy percent of managers and executives say data are “extremely impor- tant” for creating competitive advantage. “The key, of course, is knowing which data matter, who within a company needs them, and fi nding ways to get that data into users’ hands.”

— The Economist Intelligence Unit, “Levelling the Playing Field: How Companies Use Data to Create Advantage” (January 2011)

However, after decades of decay, the Navy Yard is being reborn as the home of YY hundreds of businesses—from major movie studios to artisanal whisky makers—taking advantage of abundant space and a desirable location. There were three phases in the yard’s rebirth:

1. Clean. Survey the site to determine what had value and what did not. Dispose of toxic waste and rotting buildings, and modernize the infrastructure.

2. Build and maintain. Implement a plan to continuously improve, upgrade, and maintain the facility.

3. Monetize. Lease the space.

Most organizations face a similar problem. However, our Navy Yards are the vast YY piles of unstructured information that were created with little thought to how and when the pile might go away. They are records management programs built for a dif- ferent era—like an automobile with a metal dashboard, six ashtrays, and no seat belts. Our Navy Yards are information environments no longer fi t for purpose in the Big YY Data era, overwhelmed by volume and complexity.

We are doing a bad job at managing information. McKinsey estimates that in some circumstances, companies are using up to 80 percent of their infrastructure to store duplicate data.13 Nearly half of respondents in a survey ViaLumina recently conducted

106 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

said that at least 50 percent of the information in their organization is duplicate, out- dated, or unnecessary. 14 We can do better.

1. Clean

We should put the Navy Yard’s blueprint to work, fi rst by identifying our piles of rot-YY ting unstructured information. Duplicate information. Information that has not been accessed in years. Information that no longer supports a business process and has little value. Information that we have no legal obligation to keep. The economics of such “defensible deletion” projects can be compelling simply on the basis of recovering the storage space and thus reallocating capital that would have been spent on the annual storage purchase.

2. Build and Maintain

Cleaning up the Navy Yard is only the fi rst step. We cannot repeat the past mistakes.YY We avoid this by building and maintaining an IG program that establishes our infor- mation constitution (why), laws (what), and regulations (how). We need a corporate governance, compliance, and audit plan that gives the program teeth, and a technology infrastructure that makes it real. It must be a defensible program to ensure we comply with the law and manage regulatory risk.

3. Monetize

IG is a means to an end, and that end is value creation. IG also mitigates risk and drives down cost. But extracting value is the key. Although monetization and value creation often are associated with structured data, new tools and techniques create exciting new opportunities for value creation from unstructured information.

For example, what if an organization could use sophisticated analytics on the e- mail account of their top salesperson (the more years of e-mail the better), look for markers of success, then train and hire salespeople based on that template? What is the pattern of a salesperson’s communications with customers and prospects in her territory? What is the substance of the communications? What is the tone? When do successful salespeople communicate? How are the patterns different between suc- cessful deals and failed deals? What knowledge and insight resides in the thousands of messages and gigabytes of content? The tools and techniques of Big Data applied to e-mail can bring powerful business insights. However, we have to know what questions to ask. According to Computerworld , “the hardest part of using big data is trying to get business people to sit down and defi ne what they want out of the huge amount of unstructured and semi-structured data that is available to enterprises these days.”15

Key steps in driving information value are: (1) clean; (2) build and maintain; and (3) monetize.

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 107

The analytics challenges of Big Data create opportunities. For example, McKinsey pre- dicts that demand for “deep analytical talent in the United States could be 50 to 60 percent greater than its projected supply by 2018.” A chief reason for this gap is that “this type of talent is diffi cult to produce, taking years of training in the case of some- one with intrinsic mathematical abilities.” However, the more profound opportunity is for the “1.5 million extra additional managers and analysts in the United States who can ask the right questions and consume the results of the analysis of big data effectively.” 16

Some companies are using analytics to set prices. For example, the largest dis- tributor of heating oil in the United States sets prices on the fl y, based on commodity prices and customer retention risks. 17 In a case that caught the attention of morning news shows, with breathless headlines like “Are Mac Users Paying More?” an online travel company revealed that “Mac users are 40 percent more likely to book four or fi ve-star hotels . . . compared to PC users.”18 Despite the headlines, the company was not charging Mac users more. Rather, computer brand was a variable used to deter- mine which products were highlighted.

The path to information value is not necessarily linear. Different parts of your business may achieve maturity at different rates, driven by the unique risks and op- portunities of the information they possess.

Challenging the Culture

The best models for calculating the total cost of owning unstructured are those that information professionals can use to challenge and change organizational culture. Much of the unstructured information that represents the greatest cost and risk to organizations is created, communicated, and managed directly by employees—that is, by human beings. As such, better IG relies in part on improving the way those human beings use and manage information.

New Information Models

The “information calorie” and “information cap-and-trade,” explored next, are two new models designed to help with the challenge of governing information.

Table 7.1 Key Steps in the IG Process

1. Clean 2. Build and Maintain 3. Monetize

Information inventory IG policies and procedures Create value through information, e.g., drive sales and improve customer satisfaction

Defensible deletion Corporate governance, compliance and audit

Business insights

Records retention and legal hold Technology Increase margins

Source: Barclay T. Blair

108 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Information Calorie

The Western world is suffering from an embarrassment of riches when it comes to calories. The calorie has been weaponized in the form of tasty, cheap, and fast food loaded with sugar and fat. Even a cup of “coffee” can contain as much as 800 calories.19 We have gotten very, very good at maximizing available calories, at a staggering cost: $190 billion per year in additional medical spending as a result of obesity in the United States, greater than the cost of smoking. 20

Governments are taking action. A new national health care law in the United States requires restaurant chains to disclose calorie counts for the food they sell by 2013, building on similar state laws.21 Calories are not inherently bad. We would liter- ally die without them. But too many calories make us sick.

The analogy to information is clear. Information is the “lifeblood” of our organi- zations and is central to our survival. But too much unmanaged unstructured informa- tion leaves us fat, slow, and coughing and wheezing at the back of the pack.

In 2012, New York City initially passed a controversial law limiting the size of soft drinks that can be sold at movie theaters and convenience stores (later chal- lenged in court). The “Bloomberg soda ban” was based on the premise that humans need help making good choices. There is some basis for this approach, with studies showing that, for example, the size of the candy scoop determines how much free candy we eat.22 Under the new law, it was still possible in New York to buy two smaller cups of soda, but it was hoped that inconvenience (and cost) will reduce overconsumption.

A new study . . . examined consumer behavior before and after calorie counts were posted, and determined that when restaurants post calories on menu boards, there is a reduction in calories per transaction.

—Bryan Bollinger, Phillip Leslie, Alan Sorensen, “Calorie Posting in Chain Restaurants,” Stanford University, January 2010

Thinking about information as calories at your organization can improve aware- ness of its costs and drive change. The goal is not to add friction to desirable behaviors, like collaboration and mobile work, but rather to make it more diffi cult to create and consume empty information calories.

Here are some tips to get started:

■ Educate executives and employees about the cost of information mismanagement s through anecdotes, case studies, and facts.

■ Show employees their information footprint by regularly exposing them to the t amount of data storage they are using in e-mail, shared drives, content man- agement systems, and other environments they work with. With a little creative programming, you can post “information calories” on your menus.

■ Design systems to minimize information calories. Examples include: preventing employees from exporting e-mail to .pst fi les; turning off the ability to store documents on desktop hard drives to encourage the use of managed collabo- ration environment; and requiring employees to send links to shared content rather than creating yet another e-mail attachment. Clever technology and social engineering, like the soda ban, can drive healthy information behavior.

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 109

Information Cap-and-Trade

Originally designed as a regulatory approach for fi ghting acid rain in the 1980s, cap-and-trade has gained new attention as a method of curbing carbon emissions. Cap-and-trade systems differ from command-and-control regulatory approaches that mandate, rather than economically encourage, a course of action. In other words, rather than forcing companies to install scrubbers on power plant exhausts (command and control), cap-and-trade provides companies with an emissions quota, which they can hit as they see fi t, and even profi t from. Companies with unused room on their quota can sell those “credits” on specialized markets.

Consider a cap-and-trade system for information. Do not limit the creation and storage of useful information—that defeats the purpose of investing in IT in the fi rst l place. Rather, design a cap-and-trade system that controls the amount of information pollution and rewards innovation and management discipline.

While there is no objective “right amount” of information for every organization or department, we can certainly do better than “as much as you want, junk or not.” After all, “nearly all sectors in the US economy had at least an average of 200 terabytes of stored data . . . and many sectors had more than 1 petabyte in mean stored data per company.” 23 Moreover, up to 50 percent of that information is easily identifi able as data pollution. 24 So, we have a reasonable starting point.

Here are some tips for creating an information cap-and-trade system:

■ Baseline the desired amount of information per system, department, and/or type t of user. How much information do you currently have? How much has value? How much should you have? These are not easy questions to answer, but even rough calculations can make a big difference.

■ Create information volume targets or quotas, and allocate them by business unit, system, or user. This is the “cap” part of the system.

■ Calculate the fully loaded cost of a unit of information , and adopt it as a baseline metric for the “trade” part of the system. Consider whether annual e-discovery costs can be allocated to this unit in a reasonable way.

■ Create an internal accounting system for tracking and trading information units, s or credits within the organization. Innovative departments will be rewarded, laggards will be motivated.

■ Get creative in what the credits can purchase. New revenue-generating software? Headcount?

“There’s not a person in a business anywhere who gets up in the morning and says, ‘Gee, I want to race into the offi ce to follow some regulation.’ On the other hand, if you say, ‘There’s an upside potential here, you’re going to make money,’ people do get up early and do drive hard around the possibility of fi nding themselves winners on this.”

—Dan Etsy, environmental policy professor at Yale University, quoted in Richard Conniff, “The Political History of Cap and Trade,”

Smithsonian Magazine (August 2009)

110 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Future State: What Will the IG-Enabled Organization Look Like?

When an organization is IG enabled, or “IG mature”—meaning IG is infused into op- erations throughout the enterprise and coordinated on an organization-wide level—it will look signifi cantly different from most organizations today. Not only will the or- ganization have a solid handle on the total cost of information; not only will it have shifted resources to capitalize on the opportunities of Big Data; not only will it be managing the deluge in a systematic, business-oriented way by cutting out data debris and leveraging information value; it will also look signifi cantly different in key opera- tional areas including legal, records and information management (RIM), and IT.

In legal matters, the mature IG-enabled organization will be better suited to ad- dress litigation in a more effi cient way through a standardized legal hold notifi cation (LHN) process. Legal risk is reduced through improved IG, which will manage infor- mation privacy in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. During litigation, your legal team will be able to sort through information more rapidly and effi ciently, improving your legal posture, cutting e-discovery costs, and allowing for attorney time to be focused on strategy and to zero in on key issues. This means attorneys should have the technology tools to be more effective. Adherence to retention schedules means that records and documents can be discarded at the earliest possible time, which reduces the chances that some information could pose a legal risk. Hard costs can be saved by eliminating that approximately 69 percent of stored information that no lon- ger has business value. That cost savings may be the primary rationale for the initial IG program effort. By leveraging advanced technologies such as predictive coding, the organization can reduce the costs of e-discovery and better utilize attorney time.

Your RIM functions will operate with more effi ciency and in compliance with laws and regulations. Appropriate retention periods will be applied and enforced, and authentic, original copies of business records will be easily identifi able, so that manag- ers are using current and accurate information on which to base their decisions. Over the long term, valuable information from projects, product development, marketing programs, and strategic initiatives will be retained in corporate memory, reducing the impact of turnover and providing distilled information and knowledge to contribute to a knowledge management (KM) program. KM programs can facilitate innovation int organizations, as a knowledge base is built, retained, expanded, and leveraged.

In your IT operations, a focus on how IT can contribute to business objectives will bring about a new perspective. Using more of a business lens to view IT projects will help IT to contribute toward the achievement of business objectives. IT will be work- ing more closely with legal, RIM, risk, and other business units, which should help these groups to have their needs and issues better addressed by IT solutions. Having a standardized data governance program in place means cleaning up corrupted or dupli- cated data and providing users with clean, accurate data as a basis for line-of-business software applications and for decision support analytics in business intelligence (BI) applications. Better data is the basis for improved insights, which can be gained by leveraging BI and will improve management decision-making capabilities and help to provide better customer service, which can impact customer retention. It costs a lot more to gain a new customer than to retain an existing one, and with better data quality, the opportunities to cross-sell and upsell customers are improved. This can provide a sustainable competitive advantage. Standardizing the use of business terms will facilitate improved communications between IT and other business units, which

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 111

should lead to improved software applications that address user needs. Adhering to information life cycle management principles will help the organization to apply the proper level of IT resources to its high-value information while decreasing costs by managing information of declining value appropriately. IT effectiveness and effi ciency will be improved by using IT frameworks and standards, such as CobiT 5 and ISO/ IEC 38500:2008, the international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors, and those advising them, for the effec- tive and effi cient governance of IT. 25 Implementing a master data management pro- gram will help larger organizations with complex IT operations to ensure that they are working with consistent data from a single source. Improved database security through data masking, database activity monitoring, database auditing, and other tools will help guard the organization’s critical databases against the risk of rogue attacks by hackers. Deploying document life cycle security tools such as data loss prevention and informa- tion rights management will help secure your confi dential information assets and keep them from prying eyes. This helps to secure the organization’s competitive position and protect its valuable intellectual property.

By securing your electronic documents and data, not only within the organization but also for mobile use, and by monitoring and complying with applicable privacy laws, your confi dential information assets will be safeguarded, your brand will be bet- ter protected, and your employees will be able to be productive without sacrifi cing the security of your information assets.

Moving Forward

We are not very good at fi guring out what unstructured information costs. The Big Data deluge is upon us. If we hope to manage—and, more important, to monetize— this deluge, we must form cross-functional teams and challenge the way our organi- zations think about unstructured information. The fi rst and most important step is developing the ability to convincingly calculate what unstructured information really costs and then to discover ways we can recue those costs and drive value. These are foundational skills for information professionals in the new era of Big Data. In this era, information is currency—but a currency that has value only when IG professionals drive innovation and management rigor in the unstructured information environment.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ The business case for IG programs has historically been diffi cult to justify.

■ It takes a commitment to the long view to develop a successful IG program.

■ The problem of unstructured IG is growing faster than the problem of data volume itself.

■ IG professionals must be ready with new models that calculate the risks of storing too much of the wrong information and also the benefi ts of clean, reliable, accessible information.

(continued)dd

112 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

■ Key steps in driving information value are: (1) clean; (2) build and maintain; and (3) monetize.

■ The information calorie approach and information cap-and-trade are two new models for assisting in IG.

■ Legal risk is reduced through improved IG, and legal costs are reduced.

■ Leveraging newer technologies like predictive coding can improve the ef- fi ciency of legal teams.

■ Adherence to retention schedules means that records and documents can be discarded at the earliest possible time, which reduces costs by eliminating unneeded information that no longer has business value.

■ RIM functions will operate with more effi ciency and in compliance with laws and regulations under a successful IG program.

■ A compliant RIM program helps to build the organization’s corporate memo- ry of essential “lessons learned,” which can foster a KM program.

■ KM programs can facilitate innovation in organizations.

■ Focusing on business impact and customizing your IG approach to meet business objectives are key best practices for IG in the IT department.

■ Effective data governance can yield bottom-line benefi ts derived from new insights, especially with the use of business intelligence software.

■ IT governance seeks to align business objectives with IT strategy to deliver business value.

■ Using IT frameworks like CobiT 5 can improve the ability of senior manage- ment to monitor IT value and processes.

■ Identifying sensitive information in your databases and implementing data- base security best practices help reduce organizational risk and the cost of compliance.

■ By securing your electronic documents and data, your information assets will be safeguarded and your organization can more easily comply with privacy laws and regulations.

■ We are not very good at fi guring out what unstructured information costs. To thrive in the era of Big Data requires challenging the way we think about the cost of managing unstructured information.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL IG PROGRAM 113

Notes

1. International Data Corporation, “The 2011 Digital Universe Study,” June 2011. www.emc.com/ leadership/programs/digital-universe.htm (accessed November 25, 2013).

2. Richard B. Schmidt, “The Cyber Suit: How Computers Aided Lawyers In Diet-Pill Case,” Wall Street Journal , October 8, 1999. http://webreprints.djreprints.com/00000000000000000012559001.htmll

3. Nick Bilton, “At Davos, Discussions of a Global Data Deluge,” New York Times , January 25, 2012,s http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/at-davos-discussions-of-a-global-data-deluge/; Alex Pent- land, quoted by Edge.org in “Reinventing Society in the Wake of Big Data,” August 8, 2012, www .edge.org/conversation/reinventing-society-in-the-wake-of-big-data; World Economic Forum, “Per- sonal Data: The Emergence of a New Asset Class” (January 2011), http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF_ITTC_PersonalDataNewAsset_Report_2011.pdf

4. James Manyika et al., “Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competitions, and Productivity,” McKinsey Global Institute, May 2011, www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/big_data_ the_next_frontier_for_innovation

5. Janna Quitney Anderson and Lee Ranie, “Future of the Internet: Big Data,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, July 20, 2012, http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Future_of_ Internet_2012_Big_Data.pdf

6. Louis Columbus, “Roundup of Big Data Forecasts and Market Estimates, 2012,” Forbes , August 16, s 2012, www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2012/08/16/roundup-of-big-data-forecasts-and-market- estimates-2012/

7. McKinsey Global Institute, “Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competitions, and produc- tivity,” May 2011.

8. U.S. EPA, “Making Solid Waste Decisions with Full Cost Accounting,” n.d., www.epa.gov/osw/ conserve/tools/fca/docs/primer.pdf (accessed November 25, 2013).

9. Nicholas M. Pace and Laura Zakaras, “Where the Money Goes: Understanding Litigant Expenditures for Producing Electronic Discovery,” RAND Institute for Civil Justice, 2012. www.rand.org/content/ dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2012/RAND_MG1208.pdf (accessed November 25, 2013).

10. Accounts Payable Network, “A Detailed Guide to Imaging and Workfl ow ROI,” 2010. 11. Various sources. See, for example: Barclay T. Blair, “Today’s PowerPoint Slide: The Origins of Informa-

tion Governance by the Numbers,” October 28, 2010. http://barclaytblair.com/origins-of-information- governance-powerpoint/ (accessed November 25, 2013).

12. Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, “The History of Brooklyn Navy Yard,” www .brooklynnavyyard.org/history.html (accessed November 25, 2013).

13. James Manyika et al., “Big Data.” 14. Barclay Blair and Barry Murphy, “Defi ning Information Governance: Theory or Action? Results of the

2011 Information Governance Survey,” ViaLumina, eDiscovery Journal (September 2011).l 15. Jaikumar Vijayan, “Finding the Business Value in Big Data Is a Big Problem,” Computerworld , Septemberd

12, 2012, www.computerworld.com/s/article/9231224/Finding_the_business_value_in_big_data_is_a_ big_problem

16. James Manyika et al., “Big Data.” 17. Economist Intelligence Unit, “Leveling the Playing Field: How Companies Use Data to Create

Advantage” (January 2011), http://blogs.sap.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/15/fi les/2012/02/EIU_ Levelling_The_Playing_Field_1.pdf

18. Genevieve Shaw Brown, “Mac Users My See Pricier Options on Orbitz,” ABC Good Morn- ing America , June 25, 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/mac-users-higher-hotel-prices-orbitz/ story?id=16650014#.UDlkVBqe7oV

19. “Health Care Bill Requires Calories on Menus at Chain Restaurants,” USA Today , March 23, 2010, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2010-03-23-calories-menus_N.htm

20. Sharon Beley, “As America’s Waistline Expands, Cost Soar,” Reuters, April 30, 2012, www.reuters .com/article/2012/04/30/us-obesity-idUSBRE83T0C820120430

21. Stephanie Rosenbloom, “Calorie Data to Be Posted at Most Chains,” New York Times , March 23, 2010,s www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/business/24menu.html

22. James Surowiecki, “Downsizing Supersize,” New Yorker , August 13, 2012, www.newyorker.com/talk/r fi nancial/2012/08/13/120813ta_talk_surowiecki

23. Manyika et al., “Big Data.” 24. Blair and Murphy, “Defi ning Information Governance.” 25. International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 38500:2008, Corporate governance of infor-

mation technology. www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51639 (accessed November 25, 2013).

115

By Robert Smallwood with Randy Kahn, Esq. , and Barry Murphy

Information Governance and Legal Functions

C H A P T E R 8

Perhaps the key functional area that information governance (IG) impacts most islegal functions, since legal requirements are paramount. Failure to meet them can literally put an organization out of business or land executives in prison. Privacy, security, records management, information technology (IT), and business manage- ment functions are important—very important—but the most signifi cant aspect of all of these functions relates to legality and regulatory compliance.

Key legal processes include electronic discovery (e-discovery) readiness and as- sociated business processes, information and record retention policies, the legal hold notifi cation (LHN) process, and legally defensible disposition practices.

Some newer technologies have become viable to assist organizations in imple- menting their IG efforts, namely, predictive coding and g technology-assisted review (TAR; also known as computer-assisted review ). In this chapter we explore the need ww for leveraging IT in IG efforts aimed at defensible disposition, the intersection be- tween IG processes and legal functions, policy implications, and some key enabling technologies.

Introduction to e-Discovery: The Revised 2006 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Changed Everything

Since 1938, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) “have governed the discovery of evidence in lawsuits and other civil cases.” 1 In law, discovery is an early y phase of civil litigation where plaintiffs and defendants investigate and exchange evidence and testimony to better understand the facts of a case and to make early determinations of the strength of arguments on either side. Each side must produce evidence requested by the opposition or show the court why it is unreasonable to pro- duce the information.

The FRCP apply to U.S. district courts, which are the trial courts of the fed- eral court system. The district courts have jurisdiction (within limits set by Congress and the Constitution) to hear nearly all categories of federal cases, including civil and criminal matters. 2

116 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

The FRCP were amended in 2006, and some of the revisions apply specifi cally to the preservation and discovery of electronic records in the litigation process. 3 These changes were a long time coming, refl ecting the lag between the state of technology and the courts’ ability to catch up to the realities of electronically generated and stored information.

After years of applying traditional paper-based discovery rules to e-discovery, amendments to the FRCP were made to accommodate the modern practice of discov- ery of electronically stored information (ESI). ESI is any information that is created or stored in electronic format. The goal of the 2006 FRCP amendments was to recog- nize the importance of ESI and to respond to the increasingly prohibitive costs of document review and protection of privileged documents. These amendments rein- forced the importance of IG policies, processes, and controls in the handling of ESI. 4 Organizations must produce requested ESI reasonably quickly, and failure to do so, or failure to do so within the prescribed time frame, can result in sanctions. This require- ment dictates that organizations put in place IG policies and procedures to be able to produce ESI accurately and in a timely fashion. 5

All types of litigation are covered under the FRCP, and all types of e-documents— most especially e-mail—are included, which can be created, accessed, or stored in a wide variety of methods, and on a wide variety of devices beyond hard drives. The FRCP apply to ESI held on all types of storage and communications devices: thumb drives, CDs/DVDs, smartphones, tablets, personal digital assistants (PDAs), personal computers, servers, zip drives, fl oppy disks, backup tapes, and other storage media. ESI content can include information from e-mail, reports, blogs, social media posts (e.g., Twitter posts), voicemails, wikis, websites (internal and external), word processing documents, and spreadsheets, and includes the metadata associated with the content itself, which provides descriptive information. 6

Under the FRCP amendments, corporations must proactively manage the e-discovery process to avoid sanctions, unfavorable rulings, and a loss of public trust. Corporations must be prepared for early discussions on e-discovery with all depart- ments. Topics should include the form of production of ESI and the methods for pres- ervation of information. Records management and IT departments must have made available all relevant ESI for attorney review. 7

This new era of ESI preservation and production demands the need for cross- functional collaboration: records management, IT, and legal teams particularly need to work closely together. Legal teams, with assistance and input of records management staff, must identify relevant ESI, and IT teams must be mindful of preserving and pro- tecting the ESI to maintain its legal integrity and prove its authenticity.

Legal functions are the most important area of IG impact.

ESI is any information that is created or stored in electronic format.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 117

Big Data Impact

Now throw in the Big Data effect: The average employee creates roughly one giga- byte of data annually (and growing), and data volumes are expected to increase over the next decade not 10-fold, or even 20-fold, but as much as 40 to 50 times what it is today! 8 This underscores the fact that organizations must meet legal requirements while paring down the mountain of data debris they are holding to reduce costs and potential liabilities hidden in that monstrous amount of information. There are also costs associated with dark data— unknown or useless data, such as old log fi les, that takes up space and continues to grow and needs to be cleaned up.

Some data is important and relevant, but distinctions must be made by IG policy to classify, prioritize, and schedule data for disposition and to dispose of the majority of it in a systematic, legally defensible way. If organizations do not accomplish these critical IG tasks they will be overburdened with storage and data handling costs and will be unable to meet legal obligations.

According to a recent survey, approximately 25 percent of information stored in organizations has real business value, while 5 percent must be kept as business records and about 1 percent is retained due to a litigation hold. 9 “This means that [about] 69 per- cent of information in most companies has no business, legal, or regulatory value. Companies that are able to [identify and] dispose of this debris return more profi t to sharehold- ers, can use more of their IT budgets for strategic investments, and can avoid excess expense in legal and regulatory response” (emphasis added).

If organizations are not able to draw clear distinctions between that roughly 30 percent of “high-value” business data, records, and that which is on legal hold, their IT department are tasked with the impossible job of managing all data as if it is high value. This “overmanaging” of information is a signifi cant waste of IT resources. 10

More Details on the Revised FRCP Rules

Here we present a synopsis of the key points in FRCP rules that apply to e-discovery.

FRCP 1—Scope and Purpose. This rule is simple and clear; its aim is to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action.”11 Your discovery effort and responses must be executed in a timely manner.

The amended FRCP reinforce the importance of IG. Only about 25 percent of business information has real value, and 5 percent are business records.

The goal of the FRCP amendments is to recognize the importance of ESI and to respond to the increasingly prohibitive costs of document review and pro- tection of privileged documents.

118 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

FRCP 16—Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management . This rule provides guide-t lines for preparing for and managing the e-discovery process; the court expects IT and network literacy on both sides, so that pretrial conferences regarding discoverable evidence are productive.

FRCP 26—Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery. This rule pro- tects litigants from costly and burdensome discovery requests, given certain guidelines.

FRCP 26(a)(1)(C): Requires that you make initial disclosures no later than 14 days after the Rule 26(f) meet and confer, unless an objection or another time is set by stipulation or court order. If you have an objection, now is the time to voice it.

Rule 26(b)(2)(B): Introduced the concept of not reasonably accessible ESI. The concept of not reasonably accessible paper had not existed. This rule pro-r vides procedures for shifting the cost of accessing not reasonably accessible ESI to the requesting party.

FRCP 26(b)(5)(B): Gives courts a clear procedure for settling claims when you hand over ESI to the requesting party that you shouldn’t have.

Rule 26(f): This is the meet and confer rule. This rule requires all par- ties to meet within 99 days of the lawsuit’s fi ling and at least 21 days before a scheduled conference.

Rule 26(g): Requires an attorney to sign every e-discovery request, re- sponse, or objection.

FRCP 33—Interrogatories to Parties . This rule provides a defi nition of business e-s records that are discoverable and the right of opposing parties to request and access them.

FRCP 34—Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things, or Entering onto Land, for Inspection and Other Purposes . In disputes overs document production, this rule outlines ways to resolve and move forward. Specifi cally, FRCP 34(b) addresses the format for requests and requires that e-records be accessible without undue diffi culty (i.e., the records must be orga- nized and identifi ed). The requesting party chooses the preferred format, which are usually native fi les (which also should contain metadata). The key point is that electronic fi les must be accessible, readable, and in a standard format.

FRCP 37—Sanctions . Rule 37(e) is known as the safe harbor rule. In principle, it s keeps the court from imposing sanctions when ESI is damaged or lost through routine, “good faith” operations, although this has proven to be a high standard to meet. This rule underscores the need for a legally defensible document man- agement program under the umbrella of clear IG policies.

The Big Data trend underscores the need for defensible deletion of data debris.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 119

Landmark E-Discovery Case: Zubulake v. UBS Warburg

A landmark case in e-discovery arose from the opinions rendered in Zubulake v. U.B.S. Warburg , an employment discrimination case where the plaintiff, Laura Zubulake, g sought access to e-mail messages involving or naming her. Although UBS produced over 100 pages of evidence, it was shown that employees intentionally deleted some relevant e-mail messages. 12 The plaintiffs requested copies of e-mail from backup tapes, and the defendants refused to provide them, claiming it would be too expensive and burdensome to do so.

The judge ruled that U.B.S. had not taken proper care in preserving the e-mail evidence, and the judge ordered an adverse inference (assumption that the evidence was damaging) instruction against U.B.S. Ultimately, the jury awarded Zubulake over $29 million in total compensatory and punitive damages. “The court looked at the proportionality test of Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applied it to the electronic communication at issue. Any electronic data that is as ac- cessible as other documentation should have traditional discovery rules applied.” 13 Although Zubulake’s award was later overturned on appeal, it is clear the stakes are huge in e-discovery and preservation of ESI.

E-Discovery Techniques

Current e-discovery techniques include online review, e-mail message archive review, and cyberforensics. Any and all other methods of seeking or searching for ESI may be employed in e-discovery. Expect capabilities for searching, retrieving, and translating ESI to improve, expanding the types of ESI that are discoverable. Consider this potential when evaluating and developing ESI management practices and policies.14

E-Discovery Reference Model

The E-Discovery Reference Model is a visual planning tool created by EDRM.net to assist in identifying and clarifying the stages of the e-discovery process. Figure 8.1 is the graphic depiction with accompanying detail on the process steps.

Information Management. Getting your electronic house in order to miti- gate risk and expenses should e-discovery become an issue, from initial cre- ation of electronically stored information through its fi nal disposition

Identifi cation. Locating potential sources of ESI and determining their scope, breadth, and depth

In the landmark case Zubulake v. U.B.S. Warburg , the defendants were severelyg punished by an adverse inference for deleting key e-mails and not producing copies on backup tapes.

120 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Preservation. Ensuring that ESI is protected against inappropriate altera- tion or destruction

Collection. Gathering ESI for further use in the e-discovery process (pro- cessing, review, etc.)

Processing. Reducing the volume of ESI and converting it, if necessary, to forms more suitable for review and analysis

Review. Evaluating ESI for relevance and privilege Analysis. Evaluating ESI for content and context, including key patterns,

topics, people, and discussion Production. Delivering ESI to others in appropriate forms, and using ap-

propriate delivery mechanisms

SEVEN STEPS OF THE E-DISCOVERY PROCESS

In the e-discovery process, you must perform certain functions for identifying and preserving electronically stored (ESI), and meet requirements regarding conditions such as relevancy and privilege. Typically, you follow this e-disco- very process:

1. Create and retain ESI according to an enforceable electronic records reten- tion policy and electronic records management (ERM) program. Enforce the policy, and monitor compliance with it and the ERM program.

2. Identify the relevant ESI, preserve any so it cannot be altered or destroyed, and collect all ESI for further review.

3. Process and fi lter the ESI to remove the excess and duplicates. You reduce costs by reducing the volume of ESI that moves to the next stage in the e-discovery process.

4. Review and analyze the fi ltered ESI for privilege because privileged ESI is not discoverable, unless some exception kicks in.

5. Produce the remaining ESI, after fi ltering out what’s irrelevant, duplicated, or privileged. Producing ESI in native format is common.

6. Clawback the ESI that you disclosed to the opposing party that you should have fi ltered out, but did not. Clawback is not unusual, but you have to work at getting clawback approved, and the court may deny it.

7. Present at trial if your case hasn’t settled. Judges have little to no patience with lawyers who appear before them not understanding e-discovery and the ESI of their clients or the opposing side.

Source: Linda Volonino and Ian Redpath, e -Discovery for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley s & Sons, 2010), http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ediscovery-for-dummies-cheat- sheet.html (accessed May 22, 2013). Used with permission.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 121

Presentation. Displaying ESI before audiences (at depositions, hearings, trials, etc.), especially in native and near-native forms, to elicit further infor- mation, validate existing facts or positions, or persuade an audience15

The Electronic Discovery Reference Model can assist organizations in focusing and segmenting their efforts when planning e-discovery initiatives.

Guidelines for E-Discovery Planning 1. Implement an IG program. The highest impact area to focus are your legal

processes, particularly e-discovery. From risk assessment to processes, com- munications, training, controls, and auditing, fully implement IG to improve and measure compliance capabilities.

2. Inventory your ESI. File scanning and e-mail archiving software can assist you. You also will want to observe fi les and data fl ows by doing a walk-through beginning with centralized servers in the computer room and moving out into business areas. Then, using a prepared inventory form, you should interview users to fi nd out more detail. Be sure to inventory ESI based on computer systems or applications, and diagram it out.

3. Create and implement a comprehensive records retention policy, and also include an e-mail retention policy and retention schedules for major ESI areas. This is required since all things are potentially discoverable. You must devise a comprehensive retention and disposition policy that is legally defensible.

Figure 8.1 Electronic Discovery Reference Model Source: EDRM (edrm.net)

Information Management

VOLUME RELEVANCE

Identification

Preservation

Processing

Review Production Presentation

Analysis

Electronic Discovery Reference Model/©2009/v2.0/edrm.net

Collection

The E-Discovery Reference Model is in a planning tool that presents key e-discovery process steps.

122 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

So, for instance, if your policy is to destroy all e-mail messages that do not have a legal hold (or are expected to) after 90 days and you apply that policy uniformly, you will be able to defend the practice in court. Also, implementing the retention policy reduces your storage burden and costs while cutting the risk of liability that might be buried in obscure e-mail messages.

4. As an extension of your retention policy, implement a legal hold policy that is enforceable, auditable, and legally defensible. Be sure to include all potentially discoverable ESI XE “litigation:e-discovery”. We discuss legal holds in more depth later in this chapter, but be sure to cast a wide net when developing retention policies so that you include all relevant electronic records, such as e-mail, e-documents and scanned documents, storage discs, and backup tapes.

5. Leverage technology. Bolster your e-discovery planning and execution efforts by deploying enabling technologies, such as e-mail archiving, advanced enter- prise search, TAR, and predictive coding.

6. Develop and execute your e-discovery plan. You may want to begin from this point forward with new cases, and bear in mind that starting small and piloting is usually the best course of action.

The Intersection of IG and E-Discovery

By Barry Murphy

Effective IG programs can alleviate e-discovery headaches by reducing the amount of information to process and review, allowing legal teams to get to the facts of a case quickly and effi ciently, and can even result in better case outcomes. Table 8.1 shows the impact of IG on e-discovery, by function.

Legal Hold Process

The legal hold process is a foundational element of IG.16 The way the legal hold process is supposed to work is that a formal system of polices, processes, and controls is put in place to notify key employees of a civil lawsuit (or impending one) and the set of documents that must put on legal hold. These documents, e-mail messages, and other relevant ESI must be preserved in place and no longer edited or altered so that they may be reviewed by attorneys during the discovery phase of the litigation. But, in prac- tice, this is not always what takes place. In fact, the opposite can take place —employees can quickly edit or even delete relevant e-documents that may raise questions or even

Implementing IG, inventorying ESI, and leveraging technology to implement records retention and LHN policies are key steps in e-discovery planning.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 123

implicate them. This is possible only if proper IG controls are not in place, monitored, enforced, and audited.

Many organizations start with Legal Hold Notifi cation (LHN) management as a very discrete IG project. LHN management is arguably the absolute minimum an orga- nization should be doing in order to meet the guidelines provided by court rules, com-g mon law, and case law precedent. It is worth noting, though, that the expectation is that organizations should connect the notifi cation process to the actual collection and preservation of information in the long term.

Table 8.1 IG Impact on E-Discovery

Impact Function

Cost reduction Reduce downstream costs of processing and review by defensibly disposing of data according to corporate retention policies

Reduce cost of collection by centralizing collection interface to save time

Keep review costs down by prioritizing documents and assigning to the right level associates (better resource utilization)

Reduce cost of review by culling information with advanced analytics

Risk management Reduce risk of sanctions by managing the process of LHN and the collection and preservation of potentially responsive information

Better litigation win rates Optimize decision making (e.g., settling cases that can’t be won) quickly with advanced analytics that prioritize hot documents

Quickly fi nd the necessary information to win cases with advanced searches and prioritized review

Strategic planning for matters based on merit

Determine the merits of a matter quickly and decide if it is a winnable case

Quickly route prioritized documents to the right reviewers via advanced analytics (e.g., clustering)

Strategic planning for matters based on cost

Quickly determine how much litigation will cost via early access to amount of potentially responsive information and prioritized review to make decisions based on the economics of the matter (e.g., settle for less than the cost of litigation)

Litigation budget optimization Minimize litigation budget by only pursuing winnable cases

Minimize litigation budget by utilizing the lowest cost resources possible while putting high-cost resource on only the necessary documents

Source: Barry Murphy, eDiscovery Journal http://ediscoveryjournal.com/l

LHN management is the absolute minimum an organization should imple- ment to meet the guidelines, rules, and precedents.

124 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

How to Kick-Start Legal Hold Notifi cation

Implementing an LHN program attacks some of the lower-hanging fruit within an or- ganization’s overall IG position. This part of the e-discovery life cycle must not be outsourced. d Retained counsel provides input, but the mechanics of LHN are managed and owned by internal corporate resources.

In preparing for a LHN implementation project, it is important to fi rst lose the perception that LHN tools are expensive and diffi cult to deploy. It is true that some of these tools cost considerably more than others and can be complex to deploy; however, that is because the tools in question go far beyond simple LHN and reach into enter- prise systems and also handle data mapping, collection, and workfl ow processes. Other options include Web-based hosted solutions, custom-developed solutions, or process- es using tools already in the toolbox (e.g., e-mail, spreadsheets, word processing).

The most effective approach involves three basic steps:

1. Defi ne requirements. 2. Defi ne the ideal process. 3. Select the technology.

Defi ning both LHN requirements and processes should include input from key stakeholders—at a minimum—in legal, records management, and IT. Be sure to take into consideration the organization’s litigation profi le, corporate culture, and available resources as part of the requirements and process defi ning exercise. Managing steps 1 and 2 thoroughly makes tool selection easier because defi ning requirements and processes creates the confi dence of knowing exactly what the tool must accomplish.

IG and E-Discovery Readiness

Having a solid IG underpinning means that your organization will be better prepared to respond and execute key tasks when litigation and the e-discovery process proceed. Your policies will have supporting business processes, and clear lines of responsibility and accountability are drawn. The policies must be reviewed and fi ne-tuned periodically, and business processes must be streamlined and continue to aim for improvement over time.

In order for legal hold or defensible deletion (discussed in detail in the next section—disposing of unneeded data, e-documents, and reports based on set policy) projects to deliver the promised benefi t to e-discovery, it is important to avoid the very real roadblocks that exist in most organization. To get the light to turn green at the intersection of e-discovery and IG, it is critical to:

■ Establish a culture that both values information and recognizes the risks inherent in it. Every organization must evolve its culture from one of keeping everything to one of information compliance. This kind of change requires high-level ex- ecutive support. It also requires constant training of employees about how to create, classify, and store information. While this advice may seem trite, many managers in leading organizations say that without this kind of culture change, IG projects tend to be dead on arrival.

■ Create a truly cross-functional IG team. Culture change is not easy, but it can be even harder if the organization does not bring all stakeholders together when setting requirements for IG. Stakeholders include: legal; security and ethics; IT;

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 125

records management; internal audit; corporate governance; human resources; compliance; and business units and employees. That is a lot of stakeholders. In organizations that are successfully launching and executing IG projects, many have dedicated IG teams. Some of those IG teams are the next generation of records management departments, while others are newly formed. The stake- holders can be categorized into three areas: legal/risk, IT, and the business. The IG team can bring those areas together to ensure that any projects meet requirements of all stakeholders.

■ Use e-discovery as an IG proof of concept . Targeted programs like e-discovery,t compliance, and archiving have a history of return on investment (ROI) and an ability to get budget. These projects are also challenging, but more straightforward to implement and can address sub-sets of information in ear- ly phases (e.g., only those information assets that are reasonable to account for). The lessons learned from these targeted projects can then be applied to other IG initiatives.

■ Measure ROI on more than just cost savings . Yes, one of the primary benefi ts of ad-s dressing e-discovery via IG is cost reduction, but it is wise to begin measuring all e-discovery initiatives on how they impact the life cycle of legal matters. The effi ciencies gained in collecting information, for example, have benefi ts that go way beyond reduced cost; the IT time not wasted on reactive collection is more time available for innovative projects that drive revenue for companies. And a better litigation win rate will make any legal team happier.

Building on Legal Hold Programs to Launch Defensible Disposition

By Barry Murphy

Defensible deletion programs can build on legal hold programs, because legal hold management is a necessary fi rst step before defensibly deleting anything. The standard is “reasonable effort” rather than “perfection.” Third-party consultants or auditors can support the diligence and reasonableness of these efforts.

Next, prioritize what information to delete and what information the organiza- tion is capably able to delete in a defensible manner. Very few organizations are deleting information across all systems. It can be overly daunting to try to apply deletion to all en- terprise information. Choosing the most important information sources—e-mail, for example—and attacking those fi rst may make for a reasonable and tenable approach. For most organizations, e-mail is the most common information source to begin deleting. Why e-mail? It is fairly easy for companies to put systematic rules on e-mail because the technology is already available to manage e-mail in a sophisticated manner. Because e-mail is such a critical data system, e-mail providers and e-mail archiving providers early on provided for systematic deletion or application of retention rules. However, in

IG serves as the underpinning for effi cient e-discovery processes.

126 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

non–e-mail systems, the retention and deletion features are less sophisticated; there- fore, organizations do not systematically delete across all systems.

Once e-mail is under control, the organization can begin to apply lessons learned to other information sources and eventually have better IG policies and processes that treat information consistently based on content rather than on the repository.

Destructive Retention of E-mail

A destructive retention program is an approach to e-mail archiving where e-mail messages are retained for a limited time (say, 90 days), followed by the permanent manual or automatic deletion of the messages from the organization network, so long as there is no litigation hold or the e-mail has not been declared a record.

E-mail retention periods can vary from 90 days to as long as seven years:

■ Osterman Research reports that “nearly one-quarter of companies delete e- mail after 90 days.” 17

■ Heavily regulated industries, including energy, technology, communications, and real estate, favor archiving for one year or more, according to Fulbright and Jaworski research.

■ The most common e-mail retention period traditionally has been seven years; however, some organizations are taking a hard-line approach and stating that e-mails will be kept for only 90 days or six months, unless it is declared as a record, classifi ed, and identifi ed with a classifi cation/retention category and tagged or moved to a repository where the integrity of the record is protected (i.e., the record cannot be altered and an audit trail on the history of the re- cord’s usage is maintained).

Newer Technologies That Can Assist in E-Discovery

Few newer technologies are viable for speeding the document review process and im- proving the ability to be responsive to court-mandated requests. Here we introduce pre- dictive coding and technology-assisted review (also known as computer-assisted review), the most signifi cant of new technology developments that can assist in e-discovery.

For most organizations, e-mail is the most common information source to begin deleting according to established retention policies.

Destructive retention of e-mail is a method whereby e-mail messages are re- tained for a limited period and then destroyed.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 127

Predictive Coding

During the early case assessment (ECA) phase of e-discovery, t predictive coding is ag “court-endorsed process” 18 utilized to perform document review. It uses human exper- tise and IT to facilitate analysis and sorting of documents. Predictive coding software leverages human analysis when experts review a subset of documents to “teach” the software what to look for, so it can apply this logic to the full set of documents, 19 mak- ing the sorting and culling process faster and more accurate than solely using human review or automated review.

Predictive coding uses a blend of several technologies that work in concert:20 soft- ware that performs machine learning (a type of g artifi cial intelligence software that “learns” and improves its accuracy, fostered by guidance from human input and pro- gressive ingestion of data sets—in this case documents); 21 workfl ow software, which w routes the documents through a series of work steps to be processed; and text analyt- ics software, used to perform functions such as searching for keywords (e.g., “asbestos” in a case involving asbestos exposure). Then using keyword search capabilities, or con- cepts using s pattern search or meaning-based search, and sifting through and sorting documents into basic groups using fi ltering technologies, based on document content,g and sampling a portion of documents to fi nd patterns and to review the accuracy of g fi ltering and keyword search functions.

The goal of using predictive coding technology is to reduce the total group of documents a legal team needs to review manually (viewing and analyzing them one by one) by fi nding that gross set of documents that is most likely to be relevant or responsive (in legalese) to the case at hand. It does this by automating, speeding up, and improving the accuracy of the document review process to locate and “digitally categorize” documents that are responsive to a discovery request. 22 Predictive coding, when deployed properly, also reduces billable attorney and paralegal time and there- fore the costs of ECA. Faster and more accurate completion of ECA can provide valu- able time for legal teams to develop insights and strategies, improving their odds for success. Skeptics claim that the technology is not yet mature enough to render more accurate results than human review.

The fi rst state court ruling allowing the use of predictive coding technology in- stead of human review to cull through approximately 2 million documents to “execute a fi rst-pass review” was made in April 2012 by a Virginia state judge.23 This was the fi rst time a judge was asked to grant permission without the two opposing sides fi rst coming to an agreement. The case, Global Aerospace, Inc., et al. v. Landow Aviation, LP, et al., stemmed from an accident at Dulles Jet Center.

In an exhaustive 156-page memorandum, which included dozens of pages of legal analysis, the defendants made their case for the reliability, cost- effectiveness, and legal merits of predictive coding. At the core of the memo

Predictive coding software leverages human analysis when experts review a subset of documents to “teach” the software what to look for, so it can apply this logic to the full set of documents.

128 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

was the argument that predictive coding “is capable of locating upwards of seventy-fi ve percent of the potentially relevant documents and can be effec- tively implemented at a fraction of the cost and in a fraction of the time of linear review and keyword searching.”24

This was the fi rst big legal win for predictive coding use in e-discovery.

Basic Components of Predictive Coding Here is a summary of the main foundational components of predictive coding.

■ Human review. Human review is used to determine which types of document content will be legally responsive based on a case expert’s review of a sampling of documents. These sample documents are fed into the system to provide a seed set of examples. 25

■ Text analytics. This involves the ability to apply “keyword-agnostic” (through a thesaurus capability based on contextual meaning, not just keywords) to locate responsive documents and build create seed document sets.

■ Workfl ow. Software to route e-documents through the processing steps auto- matically to improve statistical reliability and streamlined processing.

■ Machine learning. The software “learns” what it is looking for and improves its capabilities along the way through multiple, iterative passes.

■ Sampling. Sampling is best applied if it is integrated so that testing for accuracy is an ongoing process. This improves statistical reliability and therefore defen- sibility of the process in court.

Predictive Coding Is the Engine; Humans Are the Fuel Predictive coding sounds wonderful, but it does not replace the expertise of an attorney; it merely helps leverage that knowledge and speed the review process. It “takes all the documents related to an issue, ranks and tags them so that a human reviewer can look over the documents to confi rm relevance.” So it cannot work without human input to let the software know what documents to keep and which ones to discard, but it is an emerging technology tool that will play an increasingly important role in e-discovery.26

Technology-Assisted Review

TAR, also known as computer-assisted review, is not predictive coding. TAR includest aspects of the nonlinear review process, such as culling, clustering and de-duplication, but it does not meet the requirements for comprehensive predictive coding.

Many technologies can help in making incremental reductions in e-discovery costs. Only fully integrated predictive coding, however, can completely transform the economics of e-discovery .

Mechanisms of Technology-Assisted Review There are three main mechanisms, or methods, for using technology to make legal review faster, less costly, and generally smarter. 27

1. Rules driven. “I know what I am looking for and how to profi le it.” In this sce- nario, a case team creates a set of criteria, or rules, for document review and

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 129

builds what is essentially a coding manual. The rules are fed into the tool for execution on the document set. For example, one rule might be to “redact for privilege any time XYZ term appears and add the term ‘redacted’ where the data was removed.” This rule-driven approach requires iteration to truly be effective. The case team will likely have rules changes and improvements as the case goes on and more is learned about strategy and merit. This approach assumes that the case team knows the document set well and can apply very specifi c rules to the corpus in a reasonable fashion.

2. Facet driven. “I let the system show me the profi le groups fi rst.” In this sce- nario, a tool analyzes documents for potential items of interest or groups potentially similar items together so that reviewers can begin applying decisions. Reviewers typically utilize visual analytics that guide them through the process and take them to prioritized documents. This mechanism can also be called present and direct.

3. Propagation based. “I start making decisions and the system looks for similar- related items.” This type of TAR is about passing along, or propagating, what is known based on a sample set of documents to the rest of the documents in a corpus. In the market, this is often referred to as predictive coding because the system predicts whether documents will be responsive or privileged based on how other documents were coded by the review team. Propagation-based TAR comes in different fl avors, but all involve an element of machine learning. In some scenarios, a review team will have access to a seed set of documents that the team codes and then feeds into the system. The system then mimics the action of the review team as it codes the remainder of the corpus. In other scenarios, there is not a seed set; rather, the systems give reviewers random documents for coding and then create a model for relevance and nonrelevance. It is important to note that propagation-based TAR goes beyond simple mimicry; it is about creating a linguistic mathematical model for what relevance looks like.

These TAR mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. In fact, combining the mecha- nisms can help overcome the limitations of individual approaches. For example, if a doc- ument corpus is not rich (e.g., does not have a high enough percentage of relevant documents), it can be hard to create a seed set that will be a good training set for the propagation-based system. However, it is possible to use facet-based TAR—for example, concept searching—to more quickly fi nd the documents that are relevant so as to create a model for relevance that the propagation-based system can leverage. 28

It is important to be aware that these approaches require more than just technology. It is critical to have the right people in place to support the technology and the work- fl ow required to conduct TAR. Organizations looking to exercise these mechanisms of TAR will need:

■ Experts in the right tools and information retrieval. Software is an important part of TAR. The team executing TAR will need someone that can program the tool set with the rules necessary for the system to intelligently mark documents. Furthermore, information retrieval is a science unto itself, blending linguistics, statistics, and computer science. Anyone practicing TAR will need the right team of experts to ensure a defensible and measurable process.

130 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

■ Legal review team . While much of the chatter around TAR centers on its ability to cut lawyers out of the review process, the reality is that the legal review team will become more important than ever. The quality and consistency of the deci- sions this team makes will determine the effectiveness that any tool can have in applying those decisions to a document set.

■ Auditor. Much of the defensibility and acceptability of TAR mechanisms will rely on the statistics behind how certain the organization can be that the out- put of the TAR system matches the input specifi cation. Accurate measures of performance are important not only at the end of the TAR process, but also throughout the process in order to understand where efforts need to be focused in the next cycle or iteration. Anyone involved in setting or performing mea- surements should be trained in statistics.

For an organization to use a propagated approach, in addition to people it may need a “seed” set of known documents. Some systems use random samples to create seed sets while others enable users to supply small sets from the early case investigations. These documents are reviewed by the legal review team and marked as relevant, privi- leged, and the like. Then, the solution can learn from the seed set and apply what it learns to a larger collection of documents. Often this seed set is not available, or the seed set does not have enough positive data to be statistically useful.

Professionals using TAR state that the practice has value, but it requires a sophisticated team of users (with expertise in information retrieval, statistics, and law) who understand the potential limitations and danger of false confi dence that can arise from improper use. For example, using a propagation-based approach with a seed set of documents can have issues when less than 10 percent of the seed set documents are positive for relevance. In contrast, rules driven and other systems can result in false negative decisions when based on narrow custodian example sets.

However TAR approaches and tools are used, they will only be effective if usage is anchored in a thought out, methodically sound process. This requires a defi nition of what to look for, searching for items that meet that defi nition, measuring results, and then refi ning those results on the basis of the measured results. Such an end-to-end plan will help to decide what methods and tools should be used in a given case. 29

Defensible Disposal: The Only Real Way To Manage Terabytes TT and Petabytes

By Randy Kahn, Esq. Records and information management (RIM) is not working. At least, it is not working well. Information growth and management complexity has meant that the old records l retention rules and the ways businesses apply them are no longer able to address the lifecycle of information. So the mountains of information grow and grow and grow, often unfettered.

Too much data has outlived its usefulness, and no one seems to know how or is willing to get rid of it. While most organizations need to right-size their information footprint by cleaning out the digital data debris, they are stymied by the complexity and enormity of the challenge.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 131

Growth of Information

According to International Data Corporation (IDC), from now until 2020, the digital universe is expected by expand to more than 14 times its current size. 30 One exabyte is the data equivalent of about 50,000 years of DVD movies running continuously. With about 1,800 exabytes of new data created in 2011, 2840 exabytes in 2012, and a predicted 6,120 exabytes in 2014, the volumes are truly staggering. While the data footprint grows signifi cantly each year, that says nothing of what has already been cre- ated and stored.

Contrary to what many say (especially hardware salespeople) storage is not cheap.t In fact, it is really becomes quite expensive when you add up not only the hard- ware costs but also maintenance, air conditioning and space overhead, and the highly skilled labor needed to keep it running. Many large companies spend tens if not hun- dreds of millions of dollars per year just to store data. This is money that could go straight to the bottom line if the unneeded data could be discarded. When you con- sider that most organizations’ information footprints are growing at between 20 and 50 percent per year and the cost of storage is declining by a few percentage points per year, in real terms they are spending way more this year than last to simply house information.

Volumes Now Impact Effectiveness

The law of diminishing returns applies to information growth. Assuming information is an asset, at some point when there is so much data, its value starts to decline. That is not because the intrinsic value goes down (although many would argue there is a lot of idle chatter in the various communications technologies). Rather the decline is related to the inability to expeditiously fi nd or have access to needed business information. According the Council of Information Auto-Classifi cation “Information Explosion” Survey, there is now so much information that nearly 50 percent of companies need to re-create business records to run their business and protect their legal interests because they cannot fi nd the original retained record.31 It is a poor business practice to spend resources to retain information and then, when it cannot be found, to spend more to reconstitute it.

There is increasing regulatory pressure, enforcement, and public scrutiny on all of an organization’s data storage activities. Record sanctions and fi nes, new regula- tions, and stunning court decisions have converged to mandate heightened controls and accountability from government regulators, industry and standards groups as well as the public. When combined with the volume of data, information privacy, security, protection of trade secrets, and records compliance become complex and critical, high- risk business issues that only executive management can truly fi x. However, executives typical view records and information management (RIM) as a low-importance cost center activity, which means that the real problem does not get solved.

In most companies, there is no clear path to classify electronic records, to for- mally manage offi cial records, or to ensure the ultimate destruction of these records. Vast stores of legacy data are unclassifi ed, and most data is never touched again shortly after creation. Further, traditional records retention rules are too voluminous, too complex, and too granular and do not work well with the technology needed to manage records.

132 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Finally, it is clear that employees can no longer be expected to pull the oars to cut through the information ocean, let alone boil it down into meaningful chunks of good information. Increasingly, technology has to play a more central role in manag- ing information. Better use of technology will create business value by reducing risk, driving improvements in productivity, and facilitating the exploitation and protection of ungoverned corporate knowledge.

How Did This Happen?

Over the past several years, organizations have come to realize that the exposure posed by uncontrolled data growth requires emergency, reactive action, as seemingly no oth- er viable approach exists. Faced with massive amounts of unknown unstructured data, many organizations have chosen to adopt a risk-averse save-everything policy. This approach has brought with it immediate repercussions:

■ Inability to quickly locate needed business content buried in ill-managed fi le systems.

■ Sharply increased storage costs, with some companies refusing to allocate any more storage to the business. The users’ reaction, out of necessity, is to store data wherever they can fi nd a place for it. (Do not buy the argument that stor-t age is cheap—everyone is spending more on storing unnecessary data, even if the per-gigabyte media cost has gone down).

■ Soaring litigation and discovery costs, as organizations have lost track of what is where, who owns it, and how to collect, sort, and process it.

■ Buried intellectual property, trade secrets, personally identifi able information, and regulated content, which are subject to leakage and unauthorized deletion, and are a clear target for opposing counsel—or anyone who can access them.

■ Lack of centralized policies and systems for the storage of records, which re- sults in hard-to-manage record sites spread throughout the organization.

■ The lack of a clear strategy for managing records that have long-term, rather than short-term, business, legal, and research value.

Information Glut in Organizations ■ 71 percent of organizations surveyed have no idea of the content in their stored

data. ■ 58 percent of organizations are keeping information indefi nitely. ■ 79 percent of organizations say too much time and effort is spent manually

searching and disposing information. ■ 58 percent of organizations still rely on employees to decide how to apply cor-

porate policies. 32

What Is Defensible Disposition, and How Will It Help?

A solution to the unmitigated data sprawl is to defensibly dispose of the business con- tent that no longer has business or legal value to the organization. In the old days of records management, it was clear that courts and regulators alike understood that records came into being and eventually were destroyed in the ordinary course of business. It is good business practice to destroy unneeded content, provided that the

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 133

rules on which those decisions are made consider legal requirements and business needs. Today, however, the good business practice of cleaning house of old records has somehow become taboo for some businesses. Now it needs to start again.

An understanding of how technology can help defensibly dispose and how meth- odology and process help an organization achieve a thinner information footprint is critical for all companies overrun with outdated records that do not know where to start to address the issue. While no single approach is right for every organization, re- cords and legal teams need to take an informed approach, looking at corporate culture, risk tolerance, and litigation profi le.

A defensible disposition framework is an ecosystem of technology, policies, proce- dures, and management controls designed to ensure that records are created, managed, and disposed at the end of their life cycle.

New Technologies—New Information Custodians

Responsibility for records management and IG have changed dramatically over time. In the past, the responsibility rested primarily with the records manager. However, the nature of electronic information is such that its governance today requires the partici- pation of IT, which frequently has custody, control, or access to such data, along with guidance from the legal department. As a result, IT personnel with no real connection or ownership of the data may be responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the business-critical information being managed. See the problem?

For many organizations, advances in technology mixed with an explosive growth of data forced a reevaluation of core records management processes. Many organi- zations have deployed archiving, litigation, and e-discovery point solutions with the intent of providing record retention compliance and responsiveness to litigation. Such systems may be tactically useful but fail to strategically address the heart of the matter: too much information, poorly managed over years and years—if not decades.

A better approach is for organizations to move away from a reactive keep- everything strategy to a proactive strategy that allows the reasonable and reliable identifi cation and deletion of records when retention requirements are reached, absent a preservation obligation. Companies develop retention schedules and processes pre- cisely for this reason; it is not misguided to apply them.

Why Users Cannot, Will Not—and Should Not—Make the Hard Choices

Employees usually are not suffi ciently trained on records management principles and methods and have little incentive (or downside) to properly manage or dispose of records. Further, many companies today see that requiring users to properly declare or man- age records places an undue burden on them. The employees not only do not provide a

A defensible disposition framework is an ecosystem of technology, policies, procedures, and management controls designed to ensure that records are created, managed, and disposed at the end of their life cycle.

134 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

reasonable solution to the huge data pile (which for some companies may be petabytes of data) but contribute to its growth by using more unsanctioned technologies and parking company information in unsanctioned locations. So the digital landfi ll continues to grow.

Most organizations have programs that address paper records, but these same organizations commonly fail to develop similar programs for electronic records and other digital content.

Technology Is Essential to Manage Digital Records Properly

Having it all—but not being able to fi nd it—is like not having it at all. t While the content of a paper document is obvious, viewing the content of an electron-

ic document depends on software and hardware. Further, the content of electronic storage media cannot be easily accessed without some clue as to its structure and format. Conse- quently, the proper indexing of digital content is fundamental to its utility. Without an index, retrieving electronic content is expensive and time consuming, if it can be retrieved at all.

Search tools have become more robust, but they do not provide a panacea for fi nding electronic records when needed because there is too much information spread out across way too many information parking lots. Without taxonomies and common business terminology, accessing the one needed business record may be akin to fi nding the needle in a stadium-size haystack.

Technological advances can help solve the challenges corporations face and ad- dress the issues and burdens for legal, compliance, and information governance. When faced with hundreds of terabytes to petabytes of information, no amount of user inter- vention will begin to make sense of the information tsunami.

Auto-Classifi cation and Analytics Technologies

Increasingly companies are turning to new analytics and classifi cation technologies that can analyze information faster, better, and cheaper. These technologies should be considered essential for helping with defensible disposition, but do not make the mistake of underestimating their expense or complexity.

As discussed in the previous section by Barry Murphy, machine learning tech- nologies mean that software can “learn” and improve at the tasks of clustering fi les and assigning information (e.g., records, documents) to different preselected topical categories based on a statistical analysis of the data characteristics. In essence, classifi cation technology evaluates a set of data with known classifi cation mappings and attempts to map newly encountered data within the existing classifi cations. This type of technology should be on the list of considerations when approaching defen- sible disposition in large, uncontrolled data environments.

Can Technology Classify Information?

What is clear is that IT is better and faster than people in classifying information. Period.

A better approach is for organizations to move away from a reactive keep- everything strategy to a proactive strategy of defensible deletion.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 135

Increasingly studies and court decisions make clear that, when appropriate, com- panies should not fear using enabling technologies to help manage information.

For example, in the recent Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe case, Judge Andrew Peck stated:

Computer-assisted review appears to be better than the available alternatives, and thus should be used in appropriate cases. While this Court recognizes that computer-assisted review is not perfect, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require perfection. . . . Counsel no longer have to worry about being the “fi rst” or “guinea pig” for judicial acceptance of computer assisted review.

This work presents evidence supporting the contrary position: that a technology-assisted process, in which only a small fraction of the document collection is ever examined by humans, can yield higher recall and/or preci- sion than an exhaustive manual review process, in which the entire document collection is examined and coded by humans. 33

Moving Ahead by Cleaning Up the Past

Organizations can improve disposition and IG programs with a systemized, repeatable, and defensible approach that enables them to retain and dispose of all data types in compliance with the business and statutory rules governing the business’s operations.

Generally, an organization is under no legal obligation to retain every piece of in- formation it generates in the course of its business. Its records management process is there to clean up the information junk in a consistent, reasonable way. That said, what should companies do if they have not been following disposal rules, so information has piled up and continues unabated? They need to clean up old data. But how?

Manual intervention (by employees) will likely not work, due to the sheer volumes of data involved. Executives will not and should not have employees abdicate their regular jobs in favor of classifying and disposing of hundreds of millions of old stored fi les. (Many companies have billions of old fi les.) This buildup necessitates leveraging tech- nology, specifi cally, technologies that can discern the meaning of stored unstructured content, in a variety of formats, regardless of where it is stored.

Here is a starting point: Most likely, fi le shares, legacy e-mail systems, and other large repositories will prove the most target-rich environments, while better-managed document management, records management, or archival systems will be in less need of remediation. A good time to undertake a cleanup exercise is when litigation will not prevent action or when migrating to a new IT platform. (Trying to conduct a compre- hensive, document-level inventory and disposition is neither reasonable nor practical. In most cases, it will create limited results and even further frustration.)

Technology choices should be able to withstand legal challenges in court. Sophisticated technologies available today should also look beyond mere keyword searches (as their defensibility may be called into question) and should look to

Organizations can improve disposition and IG programs with a systemized, repeatable, and defensible approach.

136 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

advanced techniques such as automatic text classifi cation (auto-classifi cation), concept search, contextual analysis, and automated clustering. While technology is imperfect, it is better than what employees can do and will never be able to accomplish—to man- age terabytes of stored information and clean up big piles of dead data.

Defensibility Is the Desired End State; Perfection Is Not

Defensible disposition is a way to take on huge piles of information without personally cracking each one open and evaluating it. Perhaps it is, in essence, operationalizing a retention schedule that is no longer viable in the electronic age. Defensible disposition is a must because most big companies have hundreds of millions or billions of fi les, which makes their individualized management all but impossible.

As the list of eight steps to defensible disposition makes clear, different chunks of data will require different diligence and analysis levels. If you have 100,000 backup tapes from 20 years ago, minimal or cursory review may be required before the whole lot of tapes can be comfortably discarded. If, however, you have an active shared drive with records and information that is needed for ongoing litigation, there will need to be deeper analysis with analytics and/or classifi cation technologies that have become much more powerful and useful. In other words, the facts surrounding the information will help inform if the information can be properly disposed with minimal analysis or if it requires deep diligence.

Kahn’s Eight Essential Steps to Defensible Disposition 1. Defi ne a reasonable diligence process to assess the business needs and legal

requirements for continued information retention and/or preservation, based on the information at issue.

2. Select a practical information assessment and/or classifi cation approach, given information volumes, available resources, and risk profi le.

3. Develop and document the essential aspects of the disposition program to ensure quality, effi cacy, repeatability, auditability, and integrity.

4. Develop a mechanism to modify, alter, or terminate components of the dispo- sition process when required for business or legal reasons.

5. Assess content for eligibility for disposition, based on business need, record retention requirements, and/or legal preservation obligations.

6. Test, validate, and refi ne as necessary the effi cacy of content assessment and disposition capability methods with actual data until desired results have been attained.

7. Apply disposition methodology to content as necessary, understanding that some content can be disposed with suffi cient diligence without classifi cation.

8. On an ongoing basis, verify and document the effi cacy and results of the dis- position program and modify and/or augment the process as necessary.

Source: “Chucking Daises: Ten Rules for Taking Control of Your Organization’s Digital Debris,” Randy Kahn, Esq., and Galena Datskovsky Ph.D., CRM (ARMA International, 2013), Overland Park, KS.

Business Case around Defensible Disposition

What is clear is that defensible disposition can have signifi cant ROI impact to a com- pany’s fi nancial picture. This author has clients for whom we have built the defensible

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 137

disposition business case, which saves them tens of millions of dollars on a net basis but also makes them a more effi cient business, reduces litigation cost and risks, mitigates the information security and privacy risk profi les, and makes their work force more productive, and so on.

However, remember auto-classifi cation technology is neither simple nor inexpen- sive, so be realistic and conservative when building the business case. Often it is easiest to simply use only hardware storage cost savings to make the case because it is a hard number and provides a conservative approach to justifying the activities. Then you can add on the additional benefi ts, which are more diffi cult to calculate, and also the intangible benefi ts of giving your employees a cleaner information stack to search and base decisions on.

Defensible Disposition Summary

Defensible disposition is a way to bring your records management program into to- day’s business reality—information growth makes management at the record level all but impossible. Defensible disposition should be about taking simplifi ed retention rules and applying them to both structured and unstructured content with the least amount of human involvement possible. While it can be a daunting challenge, it is also an opportunity to establish and promote operational excellence through better IG and to signifi cantly enhance an organization’s business performance and competitive advantage.

Retention Policies and Schedules

By Robert Smallwood, edited by Paula Lederman, MLS

With limited resources, today’s legal counsel, compliance managers, and records man- ager are faced with an onslaught of increasingly pressing and complex compliance and legal demands. At the core of these demands is the ability of the organization to demonstrate that it has legally defensible records management practices that can hold up in court.

Organizations can legally destroy records—but will have a greater legal defensi- bility if:

■ The authority to destroy the records is identifi ed on a retention schedule. ■ The retention requirements have been met. ■ The records are slated for destruction in the normal course of business. ■ There are no existing legal or fi nancial holds. ■ Al records of the same type are treated consistently and systematically.

The foundation of legally defensible records management practices is a solid IG underpinning, where policies and processes, supported and enforced by IT, help the organization meet its externally mandated legal requirements and internally mandated IG requirements for handling and controlling information.

A complete, current, and documented records retention program reduces stor- age and handling costs and improves searchability for records by making records

138 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

easier and faster to fi nd. This reduced search time and more complete search capability improves knowledge worker productivity. It also reduces legal risk by improving the ability to meet compliance demands while also reducing e-discovery costs and improving the ability to more effi ciently respond to discovery requests during litigation.

Most large organizations maintain records retention schedules by business unit, department, or functional area. Some organizations, particularly smaller ones, may establish organization-wide IG programs that call for the developing, updating, and improvement of an enterprise or master retention schedule. This is a tall order and is almost never accomplished—but it is possible with a determined, sustained effort. Developing enterprise-wide records retention schedules requires consultation with stakeholder groups that have valuable input to contribute to the overall development of the IG effort and to specifi c schedules for retaining record collections and their planned disposition. Consultation by the records manage- ment department, senior records offi cer , or records team must take place with representatives from the business units that create and own the records as well as with legal, compliance, risk management, IT, and other relevant stakeholder groups.

Meeting Legal Limitation Periods

A key consideration in developing retention schedules is researching and determin- ing the minimum time required to keep records that may be demanded in legal actions. “A limitation period is the length of time after which a legal action cannot be brought before the courts. Limitation periods are important because they de- termine the length of time records must be kept to support court action [including subsequent appeal periods]. It is important to be familiar with the purpose, prin- ciples, and special circumstances that affect limitation periods and therefore records retention.”34

Legal Requirements and Compliance Research

As stated at the beginning of this chapter, legal requirements trump all others. The reten- tion period for a particular records series must meet minimum retention requirements as mandated by law. Business needs and other considerations are secondary. So, legal research is required before determining retention periods. Legally required retention periods must be researched for each jurisdiction (state, country) in which the business operates, so that it complies with all applicable laws.

A limitation period is the length of time after which a legal action cannot be brought before the courts. Such a period must be factored into retention policies.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 139

In order to locate the regulations and citations relating to retention of records, there are two basic approaches. The fi rst approach is to use a records retention citation service, which publishes in electronic form all of the retention-related citations. These services usually are bought on a subscription basis, as citations are updated on an an- nual or more frequent basis as legislation and regulations change.

Another approach is to search the laws and regulations directly using online or print resources. Records retention requirements for corporations operating in the United States may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the annual edition of which:

is the codifi cation of the general and permanent rules published in the Fed- eral Register by the departments and agencies of the federal government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis. The annual update cycle is as follows: titles 1 to 16 are revised as of January 1; titles 17 to 27 are revised as of April 1; titles 28 to 41 are revised as of July 1, and titles 42 to 50 are revised as of October 1. Each title is divided into chapters, which usually bear the name of the issuing agency. Each chapter is further subdivided into parts that cover specifi c regulatory areas. Large parts may be subdivided into subparts. All parts are organized in sections, and most citations to the CFR refer to material at the section level. 35

There is an up-to-date version that is not yet a part of the offi cial CFR but is updated daily, the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) . “It is not an offi cial legal edition of the CFR. The e-CFR is an editorial compilation of CFR mate- rial and Federal Register amendments produced by the National Archives and Records Administration’s Offi ce of the Federal Register (OFR) and the Government Printing Offi ce.”36 According to the gpoaccess.gov Web site:

The Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) has authorized the National Archives and Records Administration’s (NARA) Offi ce of the Fed- eral Register (OFR) and the Government Printing Offi ce (GPO) to develop and maintain the e-CFR as an informational resource pending ACFR action to grant the e-CFR offi cial legal status. The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information in the e-CFR edito- rial compilation with the objective of establishing it as an ACFR sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the e-CFR on GPO Access is accurate, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against the offi cial editions of the CFR, Federal Register and List of CFR Sections Affected (LSA), all available online at www.gpoaccess.gov. Until the ACFR grants it offi cial status, the e-CFR editorial compilation does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

The OFR updates the material in the e-CFR on a daily basis. Generally, the e-CFR is current within two business days. The current update status is displayed at the top of all e-CFR web pages.

140 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

What Is a Records Retention Schedule?

A records retention schedule delineates how long a (business) record series is to be retained, and its disposition after its life cycle is complete (e.g., destruc- tion, transfer, archiving); the schedule also contains “lists of records by name or type that authorize the disposition of records.”37 Retention schedules apply to all records regardless of their format or media (e.g., physical or electronic). Retention schedules are developed for records not individually but rather by records series, categories, functions, or systems. Ideally, they include all of the record series in an organization, although they may be broken down into smaller subset schedules, such as by busi- ness unit.

Retention schedules may be maintained separately for electronic records, or they may be included in a combined schedule that includes both e-records and paper or other physical records.

Corporate records retention schedules are increasingly being maintained online, where users and also IT, legal, risk, and records management personnel can view and reference them. Electronic data and documents can easily reference these schedules and initiate a process based on a trigger event so that the life cycle of the electronic document can be automated and managed in a consistent manner. Retention schedules are basic tools that allow an organization to prove that it has a legally defensible basis on which to dispose records.

Retention schedules in large organizations typically are broken down and by business function. A functional retention schedule groups record series based on business functions, such as fi nancial, legal, product management, or sales. Each func- tion or grouping also is used for classifi cation. Rather than detail every sequence of records, these larger functional groups are less numerous and are easier for users to understand.

Some organizations are able to reach the ultimate retention goal: to keep an enterprise-wide master retention schedule, which includes the retention and

Retention schedules are developed by records series, category, function, or system—not for individual records.

Retention schedules are basic tools that allow an organization to prove that it has a legally defensible basis on which to dispose records.

A complete, current, and documented records retention program reduces storage and handling costs and improves searchability for records by making records easier and faster to fi nd.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 141

disposition requirements for records series that cross business unit boundaries. The master retention schedule contains all records series in the entire enterprise. An enterprise-wide retention schedule is preferable because it eliminates the possibility that different business units will follow confl icting records retention periods. For example, if one business unit is discarding a group of records after 5 years, it would not make sense for another business unit to keep the same records for 10 years.

Benefi ts of a Retention Schedule

According to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, developing and maintaining a records retention schedule provides the following benefi ts. The reten- tion schedule: 38

1. Reduces legal risk and legal liability exposure. 2. Supports a legally defensible records management program. 3. Improves IG by enforcing uniformity and standardization. 4. Improves search quality and reduces search time. 5. Provides higher-quality records information to improve decision support for

knowledge workers. 6. Prevents inadvertent, malicious, or premature destruction of records. 7. Improves accountability for life cycle management of records on an enter-

prise-wide basis. 8. Improves security for confi dential records assets. 39 9. Reduces and minimizes costs for maintaining records. 10. Determines which records have historic value. 11. Saves hardware, utility, and labor costs by deleting records after their life

span. 12. Optimizes use of online storage and access resources.

A formal approach to records management has been around since the mid-1900s, so a great deal of guidance is available before embarking on developing or updating your records retention program. Models and guides can be used to assist in the devel- opment of records retention schedules for your organization, including the interna- tional standard for records management, ISO 15489—Part 1 and 2:2001, “Information and Documentation—Records Management”; the ISO 15489 standard was written to address all kinds of records. Additional guidance may be obtained by referencing national standards, such as those in Canada, Europe, Australia, and other countries. 40 Often, in the public sector, retention guidelines are published by an authority such as the offi ce of the national, state, or provincial archivist. Some additional insights may be gleaned from ISO 16175–1:2010, “Information and Documentation—Principles and Functional Requirements for Records in Electronic Offi ce Environments—Part 1: Overview and Statement of Principles,” which establishes fundamental principles and functional requirements for software used to create and manage digital records in offi ce environments. 41

A records retention schedule is an essential part of an overall IG program. Due to the fact that a concerted IG program standardizes and enforces uniformity and

142 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

control, the entire organization benefi ts in terms of productivity, reduced risk, and improved compliance and e-discovery processes. These overarching goals and benefi ts should be championed by senior management in words and deeds. This means making the IG effort visible and providing the proper budgetary resources in terms of money and employee time to achieve its aims.

More detail on retention schedules can be found in Chapter 9 on IG and RIM functions.

The master retention schedule contains all records series in the entire enterprise.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ Legal functions are the most important area of IG impact.

■ IG serves as the underpinning for effi cient e-discovery processes.

■ ESI is any information that is created or stored in electronic format.

■ The goal of the FRCP amendments is to recognize the importance of ESI and to respond to the increasingly prohibitive costs of document review and pro- tection of privileged documents.

■ The amended FRCP reinforce the importance of IG. Only about 25 percent of business information has real value and 5 percent are business records.

■ The Big Data trend underscores the need for defensible deletion of data debris.

■ In the landmark case Zubulake v. U.B.S. Warburg, the defendants were se-g verely punished by an adverse inference for deleting key e-mails and not producing copies on backup tapes.

■ The E-Discovery Reference Model is a planning tool that depicts key e-discovery process steps.

■ Implementing IG, inventorying ESI, and leveraging technology to implement records retention and LHN policies are key steps in e-discovery planning.

■ LHN management is the absolute minimum an organization should imple- ment to meet the guidelines, rules, and precedents.

■ Predictive coding software leverages human analysis when experts review a subset of documents to “teach” the software what to look for, so it can apply this logic to the full set of documents.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 143

■ Many technologies assist in making incremental reductions in e-discovery costs, but only fully integrated predictive coding is able to completely trans- form the economics of e-discovery.

■ TAR, also known as computer-assisted review, speeds the review process by leveraging IT tools.

■ In TAR, there are three main ways to use technology to make legal review faster, less costly, and generally smarter: rules driven, facet driven, and propa- gation based.

■ It is important to have the right people in place to support the technology and the work fl ow required to conduct TAR.

■ A defensible disposition framework is an ecosystem of technology, policies, procedures, and management controls designed to ensure that records are created, managed, and disposed of at the end of their life cycle.

■ A better approach is for organizations to move away from a reactive “keep- everything” strategy to a proactive strategy of defensible deletion.y

■ Organizations can improve disposition and IG programs with a systemized, repeatable, and defensible approach.

■ A limitation period—the length of time after which a legal action cannot be brought before the courts—must be factored into retention policies.

■ A complete, current, and documented records retention program reduces storage and handling costs and improves searchability for records by making records easier and faster to fi nd.

■ Retention schedules are developed by records series, not for individual records.

■ Retention schedules are basic tools that allow an organization to prove that it has a legally defensible basis on which to dispose of records.

■ The master retention schedule contains all records series in the entire enterprise.

■ “Records retention” defi nes the length of time that records are to be kept and considers legal, regulatory, operational, and historical requirements.

■ Disposition means not just destruction but can also mean archiving and a change in ownership and responsibility for the records.

■ For most organizations, e-mail is the most common information source to begin deleting according to established retention policies.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

144 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Notes

1. Linda Volonino and Ian Redpath, e-Discovery for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010),s p. 9. This material is reproduced with permission from John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

2. “New Fed. Rules to Civil Procedure,” www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/ DistrictCourts.aspx; (accessed November 26, 2013).

3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Volonino and Redpath, e-Discovery for Dummies, p. 13.s 6. Ibid., p. 11. 7. “New Fed. Rules to Civil Procedure.” www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/

DistrictCourts.aspx; (accessed November 26, 2013). 8. “The Digital Universe Decade—Are You Ready?” IDC iView (May 2010). 9. Deidra Paknad, “Defensible Disposal: You Can’t Keep All Your Data Forever,” July 17, 2012, www.forbes

.com/sites/ciocentral/2012/07/17/defensible-disposal-you-cant-keep-all-your-data-forever/ 10. Sunil Soares, Selling Information Governance to the Business (MC Press Online, Ketchum, ID, 2011), p. 229. s 11. All quotations from the FRCP are from Volonino and Redpath, e-Discovery for Dummies , www.dummiess

.com/how-to/content/ediscovery-for-dummies-cheat-sheet.html (accessed May 22, 2013). 12. Linda Volonino and Ian Redpath, e-Discovery for Dummies (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010), p. 13. s 13. Case Briefs, LLC, “Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,” www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/civil-procedure/

civil-procedure-keyed-to-friedenthal/pretrial-devices-of-obtaining-information-depositions-and-dis- covery-civil-procedure-keyed-to-friedenthal-civil-procedure-law/zubulake-v-ubs-warburg-llc/2/ (ac- cessed May 21, 2013).

14. Amy Girst, “E-discovery for Lawyers,” IMERGE Consulting Report, 2008. 15. ECM2, “15-Minute Guide to eDiscovery and Early Case Assessment,” www.emc.com/collateral/

15-min-guide/h9781-15-min-guide-ediscovery-eca-gde.pdf (accessed May 21, 2013 16. Barry Murphy, telephone interview with author, April 12, 2013. 17. Email to author August 16, 2012. 18. Recommind, “What Is Predictive Coding?” www.recommind.com/predictive-coding (accessed

May 7, 2013). 19. Michael LoPresti, “What Is Predictive Coding?: Including eDiscovery Applications,” KMWorld,

January 14, 2013, www.kmworld.com/Articles/Editorial/What-Is-…/What-is-Predictive-Coding-Including- eDiscovery-Applications-87108.aspx

20. “Predictive Coding,” TechTarget.com, http://searchcompliance.techtarget.com/defi nition/predictive- coding, August 31, 2012 (accessed May 7, 2013).

21. “Machine Learning,” TechTarget.com http://whatis.techtarget.com/defi nition/machine-learning, accessed May 7, 2013.

22. “Predictive Coding.” 23. LoPresti, “What Is Predictive Coding?” 24. Ibid. 25. “What Does Predictive Coding Require?” Recommind Corp., www.recommind.com/predictive-coding

(accessed May 24, 2013). 26. Ibid. 27. Barry Murphy, e-mail to author, May 10, 2013. 28. Ibid. 29. Ibid. 30. “The digital universe in 2020: Big Data, Bigger Digital Shadows, and Biggest Grow in the Far East,”

www.emc.com/collateral/analyst-reports/idc-the-digital-universe-in-2020.pdf (accessed November 26, 2013).

31. Council of Information Auto-Classifi cation, “Information Explosion” survey, http://infoautoclassifi cation .org/survey.php (accessed November 26, 2013).

32. Ibid. 33. Maura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack, “Technology-Assisted Review in E-Discovery Can Be

More Effective and More Effi cient Than Exhaustive Manual Review.” http://delve.us/downloads/Tech- nology-Assisted-Review-In-Ediscovery.pdf (accesssed November 26, 2013).

34. Government of Alberta, “Developing Retention and Disposition Schedules,” July 2004, p. 122, www .rimp.gov.ab.ca/publications/pdf/SchedulingGuide.pdf

35. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce (GPO), “Code of Federal Regulations,” www.gpo.gov/help/index .html#about_code_of_federal_regulations.htm (accessed April 22, 2012).

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND LEGAL FUNCTIONS 145

36. National Archives and Records Administration, “Electronic Code of Federal Regulations,” October 2, 2012 http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl

37. U.S. Department of Energy, Records Retention Schedule Defi nition, https://commons.lbl.gov/display/ aro/Records+Retention+Schedule+Defi nition (accessed July 30, 2012).

38. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Scheduling and Disposition,” updated June 6, 2005, www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/scheduling.html#whysched

39. Government of Alberta, “Developing Retention and Disposition Schedules.” 40. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Scheduling and Disposition.” 41. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 16175-1:2010, “Information and Documentation—

Principles and Functional Requirements for Records in Electronic Offi ce Environments—Part 1: Overview and Statement of Principles,” www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=55790 (accessed July 30, 2012).

147

Records management (RM) is a key impact area of t information governance(IG)—so much so that in the RM space, IG is often thought of as synonymous with or a simple superset of RM. But IG is much more than that. We delve into the details of RM here—a sort of crash course on how to identify and inventory re- cords, conduct the necessary legal research, develop retention and disposition sched- ules, and more. Also, we identify the relationship and impact of IG on the RM function in an organization in this chapter.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defi nes (business) records as “information created, received, and maintained as evidence and informa- tion by an organization or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transac- tion of business.” 1 It further defi nes RM as “[the] fi eld of management responsible for the effi cient and systematic control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use, and disposition of records, including the processes for capturing and maintaining evidence of and information about business activities and transactions in the form of records.” 2

The U.S.-based Association of Records Managers and Administrators (ARMA) defi nes records as “evidence of what an organization does. They capture its business activities and transactions, such as contract negotiations, business correspondence, personnel fi les, and fi nancial statements.” 3

Records and information management (RIM) extends beyond RM (although t the terms are often used interchangeably) to include information—that is, information such as data, electronic documents, and reports. For this reason, RIM professionals must expand their reach and responsibilities to include policies for retention and dis- position of all legally discoverable forms of information, such as e-mail, social media posts, mobile data and documents held on portable devices, cloud storage and applica- tions, and other enterprise data and information.

Electronic records management (ERM) has moved to the forefront of busi-t ness issues with the increasing automation of business processes and the vast growth in the volume of electronic documents and records that organizations create. These

Portions of this chapter are adapted from Chapters 1 , 5 , and 7 of Robert F. Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices, and Technologies , © John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley s & Sons, Inc.

C H A P T E R 9 Information Governance and Records and Information Management Functions

148 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

factors, coupled with expanded and tightened reporting laws and compliance regula- tions, have made ERM essential for most enterprises—especially highly regulated and public ones.

ERM follows generally the same principles as traditional paper-based records management: There are classifi cation and taxonomy needs to group and organize y the records, and there are retention and disposition schedules to govern the length of time a record is kept and its ultimate disposition (destruction, transfer, or long-term archiving) destruction or long-term archiving. Yet e-records must be handled differ- ently, and they contain more detailed data about their contents and characteristics, known as metadata. (For more detail on these topics see Appendix A. )

E-records are also subject to changes in information technology (IT) that may y make them diffi cult to retrieve and view and therefore render them obsolete. These is- sues can be addressed through a sound ERM program that includes long-term digital preservation (LTDP) methods and technologies.

ERM is primarily the organization, management, control, monitoring, and auditing of formal business records that exist in electronic form. But automated ERM systems also track paper-based and other physical records. So ERM goes beyond simply managing elec- tronic records; it is the management of electronic records and the electronic management of non- electronic records (e.g., paper, CD/DVDs, magnetic tape, audio-visual, and other physical records).

Most electronic records, or e-records, originally had an equivalent in paper form, such as memos (now e-mail), accounting documents (e.g., purchase orders, invoices), personnel documents (e.g., job applications, resumes, tax documents), contractual documents, line-of-business documents (e.g., loan applications, insurance claim forms, health records), and required regulatory documents (e.g., material safety data sheets). Before e-document and e-record software began to mature in the 1990s, many of these documents were fi rst archived to microfi lm or microform/microfi che.

Not all documents rise to the level of being declared a formal business record that needs to be retained; that defi nition depends on the specifi c regulatory and legal re- quirements imposed on the organization and the internal defi nitions and requirements the organization imposes on itself, through internal IG measures and business policies. IG is the policies, processes, and technologies used to manage and control information through- out the enterprise to meet internal business requirements and external legal and compliance demands.

  E-records management has become much more critical to enterprises with in- creased compliance legislation and massively increasing volumes of electronic information.

ERM follows the same basic principles as paper-based records management.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 149

ERM is a component of enterprise content management (ECM), just as document management, Web content management, digital asset management, enterprise report management, and several other technology sets are components. ECM encompasses all an organization’s unstructured digital content, which means it excludes structured l data (i.e., databases). ECM includes the vast majority—over 90 percent—of an organi- zation’s overall information that must be governed and managed.

ERM extends ECM to provide control and to manage records through their life cycle—from creation to destruction. ERM is used to complete the life cycle manage- ment of information, documents, and records.

ERM adds the functionality to complete the management of information and records by applying business rules to manage the maintenance, preservation, and disposition of records. Both ERM and ECM systems aid in locating and managing the records and infor- mation needed to conduct business effi ciently, to comply with legal and regulatory requirements, and to effectively destroy (paper) and delete (digital) records that have met their retention policy time frame requirement, freeing up valuable physical and digital space and eliminating records that could be a liability if kept.

Records Management Business Rationale

Historically, highly regulated industries, such as banking, energy, and pharmaceuticals, have had the greatest need to implement RM programs, due to their compliance and reporting requirements. 4 However, over the past decade or so, increased regulation and changes to legal statutes and rules have made RM a business necessity for nearly every enterprise (beyond very small businesses).

Notable industry drivers include:

■ Increased government oversight and industry regulation. Government regulations that require enhanced reporting and accountability were early business drivers that fueled the implementation of formal RM programs. This is true at the federal and state or provincial level. In the United States, the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) created and enhanced standards of fi nancial reporting and transparency for the boards and executive management of public corporations and accounting fi rms. It also addressed auditor independence and corporate governance concerns. SOX imposes fi nes or imprisonment penalties for non- compliance and requires that senior offi cers sign off on the veracity of fi nancial statements. It states clearly that pertinent business records cannot be destroyed during litigation or compliance investigations. Since SOX was enacted, Japan, Australia, Germany, France, and India also have adopted stricter “SOX-like” governance and fi nancial reporting standards.

ERM includes the management of electronic and nonelectronic records, such as paper and other physical records.

150 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

■ Changes in legal procedures and requirements during civil litigation. In 2006, the need to amend the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) to contain specifi c rules for handling electronically generated evidence was addressed. The changes included processes and requirements for legal discovery of elec- tronically stored information (ESI) during civil litigation. Today, e-mail is the leading form of evidence requested in civil trials. The changes to the U.S. FRCP had a pervasive impact on American enterprises and required them to gain control over their ESI and implement formal RM and electronic discovery (e-discovery) programs to meet new requirements. Although they have been ahead of the United States in their development and maturity of RM practic- es, Canadian, British, and Australian law is closely tracking that of the United States in legal discovery. The United States is a more litigious society, so this is not unexpected.

■ IG awareness. IG, in short, is the set of rules, policies, and business process- es used to manage and control the totality of an organization’s information. Monitoring technologies are required to enforce and audit IG compliance. Beginning with SOX in 2002 and continuing with the massive U.S. FRCP changes in 2006, enterprises have become more IG aware and have ramped up efforts to control, manage, and secure their information. A signifi cant component of any IG program is implementing an RM program that specifi es the retention periods and disposition (e.g., destruction, transfer, archive) of formal business records. This program, for instance, allows enterprises to destroy records once their required retention period (based on external regulations, legal requirements, and inter- nal IG policies) has been met and allows them to legally destroy records with no negative impact or lingering liability.

■ Business continuity concerns. In the face of real disasters, such as the 9/11 terror- ist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy, executives now realize that disaster recovery and business resumption must be planned and prepared for. Disasters really happen, and businesses that are not well prepared really go under. The focus is on vital records that are necessary to resume operations in the event of a disaster, and managing those records is part of an overall RM program.

Why Is Records Management So Challenging?

With these changes in the business environment and in regulatory, legal, and IG infl u- ences comes increased attention to RM as a driver for corporate compliance. For most organizations, a lack of defi ned policies and the enormous and growing volumes

A number of factors provide the business rationale for ERM, including facilitating compliance, supporting IG, and providing backup capabilities in the event of a disaster.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 151

of documents (e.g., e-mail messages) make implementing a formal RM program chal- lenging and costly. Some reasons for this include:

■ Changing and increasing regulations. Just when records and compliance managers have sorted through the compliance requirements of federal regulations, new ones at the state or provincial level are created or tightened down.

■ Maturing IG requirements within the organization. As senior managers become increasingly aware of IG—the rules, policies, and processes that control and manage information—they promulgate more reporting and auditing require- ments for the management of formal business records.

■ Managing multiple retention and disposition schedules. Depending on the type of record, retention requirements vary, and they may vary for the same type of record based on state and federal regulations. Further, internal information governance policies may extend retention periods and may fl uctuate with management changes.5

■ Compliance costs and requirements with limited staff. RM and compliance depart- ments are notoriously understaffed, since they do not generate revenue. De- partments responsible for executing and proving compliance with new and increasing regulatory requirements must do so expediently, often with only skeletal staffs. This leads to expensive outsourcing solutions or staff increases. The cost of compliance must be balanced with the risk of maintaining a mini- mum level of compliance.

■ Changing information delivery platforms. With cloud computing, mobile com- puting, Web 2.0, social media, and other changes to information delivery and storage platforms, records and compliance managers must stay apprised of the latest IT trends and provide records on multiple platforms all while maintain- ing the security and integrity of organizational records.

■ Security concerns. Protecting and preserving corporate records is of paramount importance, yet users must have reasonable access to offi cial records to conduct everyday business. “Organizations are struggling to balance the need to provide accessibility to critical corporate information with the need to protect the in- tegrity of corporate records.” 6

■ Dependence on the IT department or provider. Since tracking and auditing use of formal business records requires IT, and records and compliance departments typically are understaffed, those departments must rely on assistance from the IT department or outsourced IT provider—which often does not have the same perspective and priorities as the departments they serve.

■ User assistance and compliance. Users often go their own way with regard to records, ignoring directives from records managers to stop storing shadow fi les of records on their desktop (for their own convenience) and inconsistently following directives to classify records as they are created. Getting users across a range of departments in the enterprise to adhere uniformly with records and compliance requirements is a daunting and unending task that requires constant attention and reinforcement. 7

Implementing ERM is challenging because it requires user support and com- pliance, adherence to changing laws, and support for new information deliv- ery platforms, such as mobile and cloud computing.

152 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Benefi ts of Electronic Records Management

A number of business drivers and benefi ts combine to create a strong case for imple- menting an enterprise ERM program. Most are tactical, such as cost savings, time savings, and building space savings. But some drivers can be thought of as strategic , in that c they proactively give the enterprise an advantage. One example may be the advantages gained in litigation by having more control and ready access to complete business records, which yields more accurate results and more time for corporate attorneys to develop strategies while the opposition is wading through reams of information, never knowing if it has found the complete set of records it needs. Another example is more complete and better information for managers to base decisions on.

Implementing ERM represents a signifi cant investment. An investment in ERM is an investment in business process automation and yields document control, document integrity, and security benefi ts. The volume of records in organizations often exceeds employees’ ability to manage them. ERM systems do for the information age what the assembly line did for the industrial age. The cost/benefi t justifi cation for ERM is sometimes diffi cult to determine, although there are real labor and cost savings. Also, many of the benefi ts are intangible or diffi cult to calculate but help to justify the capital investment. There are many ways in which an organization can gain signifi cant business benefi ts with ERM.

More detail on business benefi ts is provided in Chapter 7 , but hard, calculable benefi ts (when compared to storing paper fi les) include offi ce space savings, offi ce supplies savings, cutting wasted search time, and reduced offi ce automation costs (e.g., fewer printers, copiers, cutting automated fi ling cabinets).

In addition, implementing ERM will provide the organization with:

■ Improved capabilities for enforcing IG over business documents and records ■ Improved, more complete, and more accurate searches ■ Improved knowledge worker productivity ■ Reduced risk of compliance actions or legal consequences ■ Improved records security ■ Improved ability to demonstrate legally defensible RM practices ■ Increased working confi dence in making searches, which should improve deci-

sion making

An investment in ERM is an investment in business process automation and yields document control, document integrity, and security benefi ts.

ERM benefi ts are both tangible and intangible or diffi cult to calculate.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 153

Additional Intangible Benefi ts

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a pioneer and leader in e-records im- plementation in the federal sector, lists some additional benefi ts of implementing ERM:

1. To control the creation and growth of records. Despite decades of using vari- ous nonpaper storage media, the amount of paper in our offi ces continues to escalate. An effective records management program addresses both cre- ation control (limits the generation of records or copies not required to operate the business) and records retention (a system for destroying useless records or retiring inactive records), thus stabilizing the growth of records in all formats.

2. To assimilate new records management technologies. A good records manage- ment program provides an organization with the capability to assimilate new technologies and take advantage of their many benefi ts. Investments in new computer systems don’t solve fi ling problems unless current manual record-keeping systems are analyzed (and occasionally, overhauled) before automation is applied.

3. To safeguard vital information. Every organization, public or private, needs a comprehensive program for protecting its vital records and information from catastrophe or disaster, because every organization is vulnerable to loss. Operated as part of the overall records management program, vital records programs preserve the integrity and confi dentiality of the most important records and safeguard the vital information assets according to a “plan” to protect the records.

4. To preserve the corporate memory. An organization’s fi les contain its institu- tional memory, an irreplaceable asset that is often overlooked. Every busi- ness day, you create the records that could become background data for future management decisions and planning. These records document the activities of the agency that future scholars may use to research the work- ings of the Environmental Protection Agency.

5. To foster professionalism in running the business. A business offi ce with fi les askew, stacked on top of fi le cabinets and in boxes everywhere, creates a poor working environment. The perceptions of customers and the public, and “image” and “morale” of the staff, though hard to quantify in cost-benefi t terms, may be among the best reasons to establish a good records management program.8

Thus, there are a variety of tangible and intangible benefi ts derived from ERM programs, and the business rationale that fi ts for your organization depends on its specifi c needs and business objectives.

Improved professionalism, preserving corporate memory, and support for bet- ter decision making are key intangible benefi ts of ERM.

154 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Inventorying E-Records

According to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), “In records management, an t inventory is a descriptive listing of each record series ory system, together with an indication of location and other pertinent data. It is not a list of each document or each folder but rather of each series or system ”9 (emphasis added).

Conducting an inventory of electronic records is more challenging than perform- ing a physical records inventory, but the purposes are the same: to ferret out RM problems and to use the inventory as the basis for developing the retention schedule. Some of the RM problems that may be uncovered

include inadequate documentation of offi cial actions, improper applications of record-keeping technology, defi cient fi ling systems and maintenance prac- tices, poor management of nonrecord materials, insuffi cient identifi cation of vital records, and inadequate records security practices. When completed, the inventory should include all offi ces, all records, and all nonrecord materials. An inventory that is incomplete or haphazard can only result in an inadequate schedule and loss of control over records. 10

The fi rst step in gaining control over an organization’s records and imple- menting IG measures to control and manage them is to complete an inventory of all groupings of business records, including electronic records, 11 at the system or fi le series level.

The focus of this book is on IG and more granually e-records, and when it comes to e-records, NARA has a specifi c recommendation: Inventory at the computer systems level. This differs from advice given by experts in the past.

The records inventory is the basis for developing a records retention schedule that spells out how long different types of records are to be held and how they will be archived or disposed of at the end of their life cycle. But fi rst you must determine where business records reside, how they are stored, how many exist, and how they are used in the normal course of business.

There are a few things to keep in mind when approaching the e-records invento- rying process:

■ Those who create and work with the records themselves are the best source of information about how the records are used. They are your most critical resource in the inventorying process.

■ RM is something that everyone wants done but no one wants to do (although everyone will have an opinion on how to do it).

■ The people working in business units are touchy about their records. It will take some work to get them to trust a new RM approach. 12

NARA recommends that electronic records are inventoried by information sys- tem, not by record series.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 155

These knowledge workers are your best resource and can be your greatest allies or worst enemies when it comes to gathering accurate inventory data; developing a workable fi le plan; and keeping the records declaration, retention, and disposition process operating effi ciently. A sound RM program will keep the records inventory accurate and up to date.

Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles®

See Chapter 3 for more detail on applicable principles in IG. To summarize: It may be useful to use a model or framework to guide your records inventorying efforts. Such frameworks could be the D.I.R.K.S. (Designing and Implementing Recordkeeping Systems) used in Australia or the Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® (or “the Principles”) that originated in the United States at ARMA International. The Principles are a “framework for managing records in a way that supports an organization’s immediate and future regulatory, legal, risk mitigation, environmental, and operational requirements. ” 13

Special attention should be given to creating an accountable, open inventorying process that can demonstrate integrity. The result of the inventory should help the or- ganization adhere to records retention, disposition, availability, protection, and com- pliance aspects of The Principles.

The Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles were created with the as- sistance of ARMA International and legal and IT professionals who reviewed and distilled global best practice resources. These included the international records management standard ISO15489–1 from the American National Standards Institute and court case law. The principles were vetted through a public call-for-comment process involving the professional records informa- tion management . . . community. 14

E-Records Inventory Challenges

If your organization has received a legal summons for e-records, and you do not have an accurate inventory, the organization is already in a compromising position: You do not know where the requested records might be, how many copies there might be, or the process and cost of producing them. Inventorying must be done sooner rather than later and proactively rather than reactively.

E-records present challenges beyond those of paper of microfi lmed records due to their (elec- tronic) nature :

1. You cannot see or touch them without searching online, as opposed to simply thumbing through a fi ling cabinet or scrolling through a roll of microfi lm.

What are The Principles? They are guidelines for information management and governance of record creation, organization, security, maintenance, and other activities used to effectively support the recordkeeping of an organization.

156 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

2. They are not sitting in a central fi le room but rather may be scattered about on servers, shared network drives, or on storage attached to mainframe or minicomputers.

3. They have metadata attached to them that may distinguish very similar- looking records.

4. Additional “shadow” copies of the e-records may exist, and it is diffi cult to determine the true or original copy.15

Records Inventory Purposes

The completed records inventory contributes toward the pursuit of an organization’s IG ob- jectives in a number of ways : It supports the ownership, management, and control of s records; helps to organize and prepare for the discovery process in litigation; reduces exposure to business risk; and provides the foundation for a disaster recovery/business continuity plan.

Completing the records inventory offers at least eight additional benefi ts:

1. It identifi es records ownership and sharing relationships, both internal and external.

2. It determines which records are physical, electronic, or a combination of both. 3. It provides the basis for retention and disposition schedule development. 4. It improves compliance capabilities. 5. It supports training objectives for those handling records. 6. It identifi es vital and sensitive records needing added security and backup

measures. 7. It assesses the state of records storage, its quality and appropriateness. 8. It supports the release of information for Freedom of Information Act (FOIA),

Data Protection Act, and other mandated information release requirements for governmental agencies. 16

With respect to e-records, the purpose of the records inventory should include the following objectives:

■ Provide a survey of the existing electronic records situation. ■ Locate and describe the organization’s electronic record holdings. ■ Identify obsolete electronic records. ■ Determine storage needs for active and inactive electronic records. ■ Identify vital and archival electronic records, indicating need for their on-

going care. ■ Raise awareness within the organization of the importance of electronic

records management. ■ Lead to electronic record keeping improvements that increase effi ciency. ■ Lead to the development of a needs assessment for future actions. ■ Provide the foundation of a written records management plan with a de-

termination of priorities and stages of actions, ensuring the continuing im- provement of records management practices. 17

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 157

Records Inventorying Steps

NARA’s guidance on how to approach a records inventory applies to both physical and e-records.

The steps in the records inventory process are:

1. Defi ne the inventory’s goals. While the main goal is gathering information for scheduling purposes, other goals may include preparing for conversion to other media, or identifying particular records management problems.

2. Defi ne the scope of the inventory; it should include all records and other materials.

3. Obtain top management’s support , preferably in the form of a directive, and t keep management and staff informed at every stage of the inventory.

4. Decide on the information to be collected (the elements of the inventory). Ma-d terials should be located, described, and evaluated in terms of use.

5. Prepare an inventory form , or use an existing one. 6. Decide who will conduct the inventory, and train them properly. 7. Learn where the agency’s [or business’s] s fi les are located , both physically and d

organizationally. 8. Conduct the inventory. 9. Verify and analyze the results. s 18

Goals of the Inventory Project

The goals of the inventorying project must be set and conveyed to all stakeholders. At a basic level, the primary goal can be simply to generate a complete inventory for compli- ance and reporting purposes. It may focus on a certain business area or functional group or on the enterprise as a whole. An enterprise approach requires segmenting the effort into smaller, logically sequenced work efforts, such as by business unit. Perhaps the organization has a handle on its paper and microfi lmed records but e-records have been growing exponentially and spiraling out of control, without good policy guidelines or IG controls. So a complete inventory of records and e-records by system is needed, which may include e-records generated by application systems, residing in e-mail, created in offi ce documents and spreadsheets, or other potential business records. This is a tactical approach that is limited in scope.

The goal of the inventorying process may be more ambitious: to lay the ground- work for the acquisition and implementation of an ERM system that will manage the retention, disposition, search, and retrieval of records. It requires more business

The completed records inventory contributes toward the pursuit of an organi- zation’s IG objectives in a number of ways.

158 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

process analysis and redesign, some rethinking of business classifi cation schemes or fi le plans, and development of an enterprise-wide taxonomy. This redesign will allow for more sharing of information and records; faster, easier, and more complete retrievals; and a common language and approach for knowledge professionals across the enter- prise to declare, capture, and retrieve business records.

The plan may be still much greater in scope and involve more challenging goals: That is, the inventorying of records may be the fi rst step in the process of implementing an orga- nization-wide IG program to manage and control information by rolling out ERM and IG systems and new processes; to improve litigation readiness and stand ready for e-discovery requests; and to demonstrate compliance adherence with business agility and confi dence. Doing this involves an entire cultural shift in the organization and a long-term approach.

Whatever the business goals for the inventorying effort, they must be conveyed to all stake- holders, and that message must be reinforced periodically and consistently, and through multiple means. It must be clearly spelled out in communications and presented in meetings as the overarching goal that will help the organization meet its business objectives. The scope of the inventory must be appropriate for the business goals and objectives it targets.

Scoping the Inventory

“With senior-level support, the records manager must decide on the scope of the re- cords inventory. A single inventory could not describe every electronic record in an organization; an appropriate scope might enumerate the records of a single program or divi- sion, several functional series across divisions, or records that fall within a certain time frame. ” [emphasis added.] 19 Most organizations have not deployed an enterprise-wide records management system, which makes the e-records inventorying process arduous and time-consuming. It is not easy to fi nd where all the electronic records reside—they are scattered all over the place, and on different media. But impending (and inevitable) litigation and compliance demands require that it be done. And, again, sooner has been proven to be better than later. Since courts have ruled that if lawsuits have been fi led against your competitors over a certain (industry-specifi c) issue, your organiza- tion should anticipate and prepare for litigation—which means conducting records inventories and placing a litigation hold on documents that might be relevant. Simply doing nothing and waiting on a subpoena is an avoidable business risk.

Whatever the business goals for the inventorying effort are, they must be con- veyed to all stakeholders, and that message must be reinforced periodically and consistently, and through multiple means.

An appropriate scope might enumerate the records of a single program or division, several functional series across divisions, or records that fall within a certain time frame.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 159

A methodical, step-by-step approach must be taken—it is the only way to ac- complish the task. A plan that divides up the inventorying tasks into smaller, ac- complishable pieces is the only one that will work. It has been said, “How do you eat an elephant?” And the answer is “One bite at a time.” So scope the inventorying process into segments, such as a business unit, division, or information system/ application.

Management Support: Executive Sponsor

It is crucial to have management support to drive the inventory process to completion. There is no substitute for an executive sponsor. Asking employees to take time out for yet another survey or administrative task without having an executive sponsor will likely not work. Employees are more time-pressed than ever, and they will need a clear directive from above, along with an understanding of what role the inventorying pro- cess plays in achieving a business goal for the enterprise, if they are to take the time to properly participate and contribute meaningfully to the effort.

Information/Elements for Collection

During the inventory you should collect the following information at a minimum:

■ What kind of record it is—contracts, fi nancial reports, memoranda, etc. ■ What department owns it ■ What departments access it ■ What application created the record (e-mail, MS Word, Acrobat PDF) ■ Where it is stored, both physically (tape, server) and logically (network

share, folder) ■ Date created ■ Date last changed ■ Whether it is a vital record (mission-critical to the organization) ■ Whether there are other forms of the record (for example, a document

stored as a Word document, a PDF, and a paper copy) and which of them is considered the offi cial record

Removable media should have a unique identifi er and the inventory r should include a list of records on the particular volume as well as the characteristics of the volume, e.g., the brand, the recording format, the capacity and volume used, and the date of manufacture and date of last update.20 (Emphasis added.)

Additional information not included in inventories of physical records must be collected in any inventory of e-records.

160 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

IT Network Diagram Laying out the overall topology of the IT infrastructure in the form of a network diagram is an exercise that is helpful in understanding where to target efforts and to map information fl ows. Creating this map of the IT infrastructure is a crucial step in inventorying e-records. It graphically depicts how and where computers are connected to each other and the software operating environments of various applications that are in use. This high-level diagram does not need to include every device; rather, it should indicate each type of device and how it is used.

The IT staff usually has a network diagram that can be used as a reference; per- haps after some simplifi cation it can be put into use as the underpinning for inventory- ing e-records. It does not need great detail, such as where network bridges and routers are located, but it should show which applications are utilizing the cloud or hosted applications to store and/or process documents and records.

In diagramming the IT infrastructure for purposes of the inventory, it is easiest to start in the central computer room where any mainframe or other centralized servers are located and then follow the connections out into the departments and business unit areas, where there may be multiple shared servers and drives supported a network of desktop personal computers or workstations.

Microsoft’s SharePoint® is a prevalent document and RM portal platform, and many organizations have SharePoint servers to house and process e-documents and records. Some utilities and tools may be available to assist in the inventorying process on SharePoint systems.

Mobile devices (e.g., tablets, smartphones, and other portable devices) that are processing documents and records should also be represented. And any e-records re- siding in cloud storage should also be included.

Creating a Records Inventory Survey Form

The record inventory survey form must suit its purpose. Do not collect data that is ir- relevant, but, in conducting the survey, be sure to collect all the needed data elements. You can use a standard form, but some customization is recommended. The sample records survey form in Figure 9.1 is wide ranging yet succinct and has been used suc- cessfully in practice.

If conducting the e-records portion of the inventory, the sample form may be somewhat modifi ed, as shown in Figure 9.2 .

Who Should Conduct the Inventory?

Typically, a RM project team is formed to conduct the survey, often assisted by re- sources outside of the business units. These may be RM and IT staff members, business analysts, members of the legal staff, outside specialized consultants, or a combination of these groups. The greater the cross-section from the organization, the better, and the more expertise brought to bear on the project, the more likely it will be completed thoroughly and on time.

Critical to the effort is that those conducting the inventory are trained in the survey methods and analysis, so that when challenging issues arise, they will have the resources and know-how to continue the effort and get the job done.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 161

Department Information

1. What is the reporting structure of the department?

2. Who is the department liaison for the records inventory?

3. Who is the IT or business analyst liaison?

Record Requirements

4. Are there any external agencies that impose guidelines, standards or other requirements?

5. Are there specifi c legislative requirements for creating or maintaining records? Please provide a copy.

6. Is there a departmental records retention schedule?

7. What are the business considerations that drive recordkeeping? Regulatory requirements? Legal requirements?

8. Does the department have an existing records management policy? Guidelines? Procedures? Please provide a copy.

9. Does the department provide guidance to employees on what records are to be created?

10. How are policies, procedures and guidance disseminated to the employees?

11. What is the current level of employees’ awareness of their responsibilities for records management?

12. How are nonrecords managed?

13. What is the process for ensuring compliance with policies, procedures, and guidelines?

When an employee changes jobs/roles or is terminated?

14. Does the department have a classifi cation or fi le plans?

15. Are any records in the department confi dential or sensitive?

16. What information security controls does the department have for confi dential or sensitive records?

17. Does the department have records in sizes other than letter (8½×11)?

18. What is the cutoff date for the records?

Fiscal Year Calendar Year Other

19. Have department vital records been identifi ed?

20. Is there an existing business or disaster recovery policy?

21. Is the department subject to audits? Internal? External? Who conducts the audits?

22. Where and how are records stored?

Online? Near Line? Offl ine? On-site? Off-site? One location? Multiple locations?

23. How does the department ensure that records will remain accessible, readable, and useable throughout their scheduled retention period?

Technology and Tools

24. Are any tools used to track active records? Spreadsheets, word documents, databases, and so forth?

25. Are any tools used to track inactive records? Spreadsheets, word documents, databases, and so forth?

26. Does the department use imaging, document management, and so forth?

Disposition

27. Are there guidelines for destroying obsolete records?

Figure 9.1 Records Inventory Survey Form

(continued )

162 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Identifying Information

1. Name of system.

2. Program or legal authority for system.

3. System identifi cation or control number.

4. Person responsible for administering the system. Include e-mail, offi ce address, and phone contact info.

5. Date system put in service.

6. Business unit or agency supported by system.

7. Description of system (what does the application software do?).

8. Purpose of system.

System Inputs/Outputs

9. Primary sources of data inputs.

10. Major outputs of system (e.g., specifi c reports).

11. Informational content (all applicable): Description of data; applicability of data (people, places, things); geographic information; time span; update cycle; applications the system supports; how data are manipulated; key unit analysis for each fi le; public use or not?

12. Hardware confi guration.

13. Software environment, including revision levels, operating system, database, and so forth.

14. Indices or any classifi cation scheme/fi le plan that is in place?

15. Duplicate records? Location and volume of any other records containing the same information.

Record Requirements

16. Are there any external agencies that impose guidelines, standards, or other requirements?

17. Are their specifi c legislative requirements for creating or maintaining records? Please provide a copy.

18. Is there a departmental records retention schedule?

19. What are the business considerations that drive recordkeeping? Regulatory requirements? Legal requirements?

20. Does the department have an existing records management policy? Guidelines? Procedures? If so, please provide a copy.

28. What disposition methods are authorized or required?

29. How does disposition occur? Paper? Electronic? Other?

30. What extent does the department rely on each individual to destroy records? Paper? Electronic? Other?

Records Holds

31. What principles govern decisions for determining the scope of records that must be held or frozen for an audit or investigations?

32. How is the hold or freeze communicated to employees?

33. How are records placed on hold protected?

Figure 9.2 Electronic Records Inventory Survey Form

Figure 9.1 (continued )

Source: Charmain Brooks, IMERGE Consulting, e-mail to author, March 20, 2012.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 163

Determine Where Records Are Located

The inventory process is, in fact, a surveying process, and it involves going physically out into the units where the records are created, used, and stored. Mapping out where the records are geographically is a basic necessity. Which buildings are they located in? Which offi ce locations? Computer rooms?

Also, the inventory team must look organizationally at where the records reside (i.e., de-y termine which departments and business units to target and prioritize in the survey process).

Conduct the Inventory

Several approaches can be taken to conduct the inventory, including three basic methods:

1. Distributing and collecting surveys 2. Conducting in-person interviews 3. Direct observation

21. How are nonrecords managed?

22. Are any records in the department confi dential or sensitive? How are they indicated or set apart?

23. What information security controls does the department have for confi dential or sensitive records?

24. What is the cutoff date for the records?

Fiscal Year Calendar Year Other

25. Have department vital records been identifi ed?

26. Is there an existing business or disaster recovery policy?

27. Is the department subject to audits? Internal? External? Who conducts the audits?

28. Where and how are records stored?

Online? Near line? Offl ine? On-site? Off-site? One location? Multiple locations?

29. How does the department ensure that records will remain accessible, readable, and useable throughout their scheduled retention period?

Disposition

30. Are there guidelines for destroying obsolete records?

31. What disposition methods are authorized or required?

32. How does disposition occur? Are electronic deletions verifi ed?

33. What extent does the department rely on each individual to destroy e-records?

Records Holds

34. What principles govern decisions for determining the scope of records that must be held or frozen for an audit or investigations?

35. How is the hold or freeze communicated to employees?

36. How are records placed on hold protected?

Figure 9.2 (continued )

Source: Adapted from: www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/inventories.html and Charmaine Brooks, IMERGE Consulting.

164 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Creating and distributing a survey form is traditional and proven way to collect e-records inventory data. This is a relatively fast and inexpensive way to gather the inventory data. The challenge is getting the surveys completed in a consistent fashion. This is where a strong executive sponsor can assist. The sponsor can make the survey a priority and tie it to business objectives, making the survey completion compulsory. The survey is a good tool, and it can be used to cover more ground in the data collection pro- cess. If following up with interviews, the survey form is a good starting point; responses can be verifi ed and clarifi ed, and more detail can be gathered.

Some issues may not be entirely clear initially, so following up with scheduled in- person interviews can dig deeper into the business processes where formal records are create and used. A good approach is to have users walk you through their typical day and how they access, use, and create records—but be sure to interview managers too, as managers and users have differing needs and uses for records. 21

You will need some direction to conduct formal observation, likely from IT staff or business analysts familiar with the recordkeeping systems and associated business processes. They will need to show you where business documents and records are created and stored. If there is an existing ERM system or other automated search and retrieval tools available, you may use them to speed the inventorying process.

When observing and inventorying e-records, starting in the server room and working outward toward the end user is a logical approach. Begin by enumerating the e-records created by enterprise software applications (such as accounting, enterprise resource planning, or customer relationship management systems), and work your way to the departmental or business unit applications, on to shared network servers, then fi nally out to individual desktop and laptop PCs and other mobile devices. With to- day’s smartphones, this can be a tricky area, due to the variety of platforms, operating systems, and capabilities. In a bring-your-own-device environment, records should not be stored on personal devices, but if they must be, they should be protected with tech- nologies like encryption or information rights management.

There are always going to be thorny areas when attempting to inventory e-records to determine what fi les series exist in the organization. Mobile devices and removable media may contain business records. These must be identifi ed and isolated, and any records on these media must be recorded for the inventory. Particularly troublesome are thumb or fl ash drives, which are compact yet can store 20 gigabytes of data or more. If your IG measures call for excluding these types of media, the ports they use can be blocked on PCs, tablets, smartphones, and other mobile computing devices. A sound IG program will con- sider the proper use of removable media and the potential impact on your RM program.22

The best approach for conducting the inventory is to combine the available inventorying methods, where possible. Begin by observing, distribute surveys, collect and analyze them, and then target key personnel for follow-up interviews and walk-throughs. Utilize whatever automated tools are available along the way. This approach is the most com- plete. Bear in mind that the focus is not on individual electronic fi les but rather, the fi le series level for physical records and the fi le series or system level for e-records (preferably the latter).

There are three ways to conduct the inventory: surveys, interviews, and observation. Combining these methods yields the best results.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 165

Interviewing Programs/Service Staff Interviews are a very good source of records inventory information. Talking with actual users will help the records lead or inventory team to better understand how documents and records are created and used in everyday operations. Users can also report why they are needed—an exercise that can uncover some obsolete or unnecessary processes and practices. This is helpful in determining where e-records reside and how they are grouped in records series or by system and ultimately, the proper length of their retention period and whether they should be archived or destroyed at the end of their useful life. 23

Since interviewing is a time-intensive task, it is crucial that some time is spent in determining the key people to interview: Interviews not only take your time but oth- ers’ as well, and the surest way to lose momentum on an inventorying project is to have stakeholders believe you are wasting their time.

You need to interview representatives from all functional areas and levels of the program or service, including:

■ managers ■ supervisors ■ professional/technical staff ■ clerical/support staff

The people who work with the records can best describe to you their use. They will likely know where the records came from, whether copies exist, who needs the records, any computer systems that are used, how long the records are needed and other important information that you need to know to schedule the records.

Selecting Interviewees As stated earlier, it is wise to include a cross-section of staff, managers and frontline employees to get a rounded view of how records are created and used. Managers have a different perspective and may not know how workers utilize electronic records in their everyday operations.

A good lens to use is to focus on those who make decisions based on informa- tion contained in the electronic records and to follow those decision-based processes through to completion, observing and interviewing at each level.

For example, an application is received (mail room logs date and time), checked (clerk checks the application for completeness and enters into a computer sys- tem), verifi ed (clerk verifi es that the information on the application is correct), and approved (supervisor makes the decision to accept the application). These staff members may only be looking at specifi c pieces of the record and making decisions on those pieces.

Interview Scheduling and Tips One rule to consider is this: Be considerate of other people’s work time. Since they are probably not getting compensated for participating in the records inventory, the time you take to interview them is time taken away from compensated tasks they are

166 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

evaluated on. So, once the interviewees are identifi ed, provide as much advance notice as possible, follow up to confi rm appointments, and stay within the scheduled time. Interviews should be kept to 20 to 60 minutes. Most of all—never be late!

Before starting any interviews, be sure to restate the goals and objectives of the inventorying process and how the resulting output will benefi t people in their jobs.

In some cases, it may be advisable to conduct interviews in small groups, not only to save time but to generate a discussion of how records are created, used, and stored. Some new insights may be gained.

Try to schedule interviews that are as convenient as possible for participants. That means providing participants with questions in advance and holding the interviews as close to their work area as possible. Do not schedule interviews back to back with no time for a break between. You will need time to consolidate your thoughts and notes, and, at times, interviews may exceed their planned time if a particularly enlightening line of questioning takes place.

If you have some analysis from the initial collection of surveys, share that with the interviewees so they can validate or help clarify the preliminary results. Provide it in advance, so they have some time to think about it and discuss it with their peers.

Sample Interview Questionnaire You’ll need a guide to structure the interview process. A good starting point is the sample questions presented in the questionnaire shown in Figure 9.3 . It is a useful tool that has been used successfully in actual records inventory projects.

Analyze and Verify the Results

Once collected, some follow-up will be required to verify and clarify responses. Often this can be done over the telephone. For particularly complex and important areas, a follow-up in person visit can clarify the responses and gather insights.

Once the inventory draft is completed, a good practice is to go out into the business units and/or system areas and verify what the fi ndings of the survey are. Once presented with fi ndings in black and white, key stakeholders may have ad- ditional insights that are relevant to consider before fi nalizing the report. Do not miss out on the opportunity to allow power users and other key parties to provide valuable input.

Be sure to tie the fi ndings in the fi nal report of the records inventory to the business goals that launched the effort. This helps to underscore the purpose and importance of the effort, and will help in getting that fi nal signoff from the executive sponsor that states the project is complete and there is no more work to do.

Depending on the magnitude of the project, it may (and should ) turn into a dd formal IG program that methodically manages records in a consistent fashion in accordance with internal governance guidelines and external compliance and legal demands.

Be sure to tie the fi ndings in the fi nal report of the records inventory to the business goals that launched the effort.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 167

What is the mandate of the offi ce?

What is the reporting structure of the department?

Who is the department liaison for the records inventory?

Are there any external agencies that impose guidelines, standards, or other requirements?

Is there a departmental records retention schedule?

Are there specifi c legislative requirements for creating or maintaining records? Please provide a copy.

What are the business considerations that drives record keeping? Regulatory requirements? Legal requirements?

Does the department have an existing records management policy? Guidelines? Procedures?

Please provide a copy.

Does the department provide guidance to employees on what records are to be created?

What is the current level of awareness of employees their responsibilities for records management?

How are nonrecords managed?

Does the department have a classifi cation or fi le plans?

What are the business drivers for creating and maintaining records?

Where are records stored? Onsite? Offsite? One location? Multiple locations?

Does the department have records in sizes other than letter (8 ½×11)?

What is the cutoff date for the records?

Fiscal Year Calendar Year Other

Are any tools used to track active records? Excel, Access, and so forth?

Does the department use imaging, document management, and so forth?

Is the department subject to audits? Internal? External? Who conducts the audits?

Are any records in the department confi dential or sensitive?

Are their guidelines for destroying obsolete records?

What disposition methods are authorized or required?

How does disposition occur? Paper? Electronic? Other?

What extent does the department rely on each individual to destroy records?

Paper Electronic Other

What principles govern decisions for determining the scope of records that must be held or frozen for an audit or investigations?

How is the hold or freeze communicated to employees?

Figure 9.3 Sample Interview Questionnaire

Appraising the Value of Records Part of the process of determining the retention and disposition schedule of records is to appraise their value. Records can have value in different ways, which affects retention decisions.

Records appraisal is an analysis of all records within an agency [or business] to determine their administrative, fi scal, historical, legal, or other archival value. The purpose of this process is to determine for how long, in what format, and

Source: Charmaine Brooks, IMERGE Consulting, e-mail to author, March 20, 2012.

168 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

under what conditions a record series ought to be preserved. Records appraisal is based upon the information contained in the records inventory. Records series shall be either preserved permanently or disposed of when no longer required for the current operations of an agency or department, depending upon:

■ Historical value or the usefulness of the records for historical research, in- cluding records that show an agency [or business] origin, administrative development, and present organizational structure.

■ Administrative value or the usefulness of the records for carrying on [a busi- ness or] an agency’s current and future work, and to document the develop- ment and operation of that agency over time.

■ Regulatory and statutory [value to meet] requirements. ■ Legal value or the usefulness of the records to document and defi ne legally

enforceable rights or obligations of [business owners, shareholders, or a] government and/or citizens.

■ Fiscal value or the usefulness of the records to the administration of [a busi- ness or] an agency’s current fi nancial obligations, and to document the de- velopment and operation of that agency over time

■ Other archival value as determined by the State [or corporate] Archivist. 24 (Emphasis added.)

Ensuring Adoption and Compliance of RM Policy

The inventorying process in not a one-shot deal: It is useful only if the records inven- tory is kept up to date, so it should be reviewed, at least annually. A process should be put in place so that business unit or agency heads notify the RM head/lead if a new fi le series or system has been put in place and new records collections are created. 25

[Five] tips can help ensure that a records management program achieves its goals:

1. Records management is everyone’s role. The volume and diversity of business records, from e-mails to reports to tweets, means that the person who cre- ates or receives a record is in the best [position] to classify it. Everyone in the organization needs to adopt the records management program.

2. Don’t micro-classify. Having hundreds, or possibly thousands, of records clas- sifi cation categories may seem like a logical way to organize the multitude of different records in a company. However, the average information worker, whose available resources are already under pressure, does not want to spend any more time than necessary classifying records. Having a few broad classifi cations makes the decision process simpler and faster.

Records appraisal is based on the information contained in the records inventory.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 169

3. Talk the talk from the top on down. A culture of compliance starts at the top. Businesses should establish a senior-level steering committee comprised of executives from legal, compliance, and information technology (IT). A committee like this signals the company’s commitment to compliant re- cords management and ensures enterprise adoption.

4. Walk the walk, consistently. For compliance to become second nature, it needs to be clearly communicated to everyone in the organization, and policies and procedures must be accessible. Training should be rigorous and easily available, and organizations may consider rewarding compliance through fi nancial incentives, promotions and corporate-wide recognition.

5. Measure the measurable. The ability to measure adherence to policy and adoption of procedures should be included in core business operations and audits. Conduct a compliance assessment, including a gap analysis, at least once a year, and prepare an action plan to close any identifi ed holes.

The growth of data challenges a company’s ability to use and store its records in a compliant and cost-effective manner. Contrary to current practices, the solution is not to hire more vendors or to adopt multiple technologies. The key to compliance is consistency, with a unifi ed enterprise-wide approach for managing all records, regardless of their format or location. 26

So a steady and consistent IG approach that includes controls, audits, and clear communication is key to maintaining an accurate and current records inventory.

General Principles of a Retention Scheduling

We discussed records retention briefl y in Chapter 8 , mostly as it relates to legal research and determining retention and limitation periods. In this section we go more in depth.

A series of principles is common to all retention schedules: 27

■ The retention schedule must include all records. ■ Records scheduling includes all records, regardless of media or location.28 ■ All legal and regulatory requirements for records must be refl ected in the records

scheduling process. For public entities, retention scheduling fosters and enables the agency to comply with information requests (e.g., FOIA in the United States, Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the United Kingdom, Freedom of Informa- tion and Protection of Privacy Act and the Health Information Act in Canada, and Freedom of Information Amendment [Reform] Act 2010 in Australia).

■ Records scheduling is a “proactive” planning process, where schedules are set in place and standardized in advance.

■ Periodic review of the retention schedule must take place when signifi cant leg- islation, technology acquisitions, or other changes are being considered; but in any case this should be at least annually or biannually.

■ Records scheduling is a continuous process that needs updating and amending, based on legal, technology, or business changes over time.

■ Classifi cation and records scheduling are inextricably linked.

170 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Records retention defi nes the length of time that records are to be kept and considers legal, regulatory, operational, and historical requirements. 31

■ File series with similar characteristics or value should be assigned consistent and appropriate retention periods.

■ Records of historical value must be preserved. ■ Records retention periods should refl ect the business needs of users, the value

of the records, and any legal or compliance requirements. The best way to make these determinations is with a team that includes cross-functional rep- resentatives from RM, legal, risk, compliance, IT and business unit representa- tives, headed by an executive sponsor.

■ RM resource use is optimized, and costs are minimized by keeping records a minimum amount of time under a planned and controlled set of processes.

■ Records must be retained in a repository (fi le room or software system) where the record is protected (e.g., made read-only and monitored with an audit trail) so that the integrity of the record is maintained in a manner that meets all evidence and legal admissibility standards if or when litigation is encountered.

■ Senior management must approve of and sign off on the retention schedule and will be legally accountable for compliance with the schedule.

■ Senior management must be able to readily review retention schedules, policy documentation, and audit information to ensure users are in compliance with the retention schedule.

■ Complete documentation of scheduling requirements and activities must take place so that future users and archivists can view and track changes to the reten- tion schedule. 29

Developing a Records Retention Schedule

A records retention schedule defi nes the length of time that records are to be kept and considers legal, regulatory, operational, and historical requirements. 30 The retention schedule also includes direction as to how the length of time is calculated (i.e., the event or trigger that starts the clock [e.g., two years from completion of contract]). Legal re- search and opinions are required, along with consultation with owners and users of the records. Users typically overestimate the time they need to keep records, as they confuse the legal requirements with their own personal wishes. Some hard question- ing has to take place, since having these records or copies of records lying around the organization on hard drives, thumb drives, or in fi le cabinets may create liabilities for the organization.

Disposition means not just destruction but also can mean archiving and trans- fer and a change in ownership and responsibility for the records. The processes of archiving and preserving are an example where records may be handed over to a his- torical recordkeeping unit. At this time, the records may be sampled and only selective parts of the group of records may be retained.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 171

A retention schedule allows for uniformity in the retention and disposition process, regardless of the media or location of the records.

Disposition means not just destruction but can also mean archiving and a change in ownership and responsibility for the records.

Why Are Retention Schedules Needed?

A retention schedule allows for uniformity in the retention and disposition process, regardless of the media or location of the records. Further, it tracks, enforces, and audits the retention and disposition of records while optimizing the amount of records kept to legal minimums, which saves on capital and labor costs, and reduces liability (by discarding unneeded re- cords that carry legal risk). 32 The Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® state the critical importance of having a retention schedule (see the section “Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles” in Chapter 3 for more details) and provide guidelines for open collaboration in developing one. In the public sector, holding records that have passed their legally required retention period also can have negative ramifi cations and liabilities in meeting information service requests made during litigation, compliance actions, or, for example, under the U.S. FOIA, or similar acts in other countries.

Information Included on Retention Schedules

A retention schedule consists of these components:

■ Title of the record series ■ Descriptions of the records seriess ■ Offi ce responsible for the retention of the record (default is usually the offi ce of origin)e ■ Disposal decision —destroy, transfer to the archives, or, in exceptional circum-

stances, reconsider at a later (specifi ed) date ■ Timing of disposal —a minimum period for which the records should be retainedll

in the offi ce or in an off-site store before disposal action is undertaken ■ Event that triggers the disposal actions ■ Dates on which the schedule was agreed , signed, or modifi ed d ■ Legal citations or a link to a citation that reference the retention requirements of

that group of records

A sample of a simple records retention schedule is shown in Figure 9.4 .

Steps in Developing a Records Retention Schedule

If you already have existing retention schedules but are revising and updating them, there may be useful information in those schedules that can serve as a good reference

172 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

point—but be wary, as they may be out of date and may not consider current legal requirements and business needs.

According to the U.S. National Archives, some key steps are involved in develop- ing retention schedules:

1. Review the functions and recordkeeping requirements for the [business unit or] agency or the organizational component of the agency whose records will be included on the schedule

2. Inventory the records. 3. Determine the period of time the records are needed for conducting [business

or] agency operations and meeting legal obligations 4. Draft disposition instructions including:

■ File cutoffs or fi le breaks (convenient points within a fi ling plan/system (end of a letter of the alphabet, end of year or month, etc.) at which fi les are separated for purposes of storage and/or disposition)

■ Retention periods for temporary records ■ Instructions for transferring permanent records to the National Archives

of the United States [or corporate archive for businesses] ■ Instructions for sending inactive records to off-site storage ■ Organize the schedule and clear it internally ■ Obtain approval from [your corporate archivist or] NARA [for federal

agencies], as well as from GAO if required by Title 8 of the GAO, “Policy and Procedures Manual for the Guidance of Federal Agencies.” 33

Records Retention Schedule ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

December 10, 2015

Record Type Responsible Department

Event Retention Period

Accident/Injury Reports

Employee Medical Files

Includes: Accidents Diagnosis (Accident or Injury) First aid reports Injuries Medical reviews Occupational Health Incident Treatment and Progress (Accident or Injury) Work related accidents Workers health information Workers Compensation Claims

Includes: Audiology Lung Function Return to Work Authorization Related to: Employee Files (Active)

Health and Safety Programs Includes: Health and Safety Committee Health and Safety Reports

HR Date of Incident E+30

HR Termination E+30

Health and Safety

CY+10

Figure 9.4 Sample Records Retention Schedule Source: IMERGE Consulting, Inc.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 173

What Records Do You Have to Schedule? Inventory and Classifi cation

Inventory and classifi cation are prerequisites for compiling a retention schedule. Be- fore starting work, develop an information map that shows where information is cre- ated, where it resides, and the path it takes. What records are created, who uses them, and how is their disposition handled? Questions like these will provide key insights in the development of the retention schedule. 34 Confi rm that the information map covers all the uses of the records by all parts of the organization, including use for account- ability, audit, and reference purposes.

In the absence of a formal information map, at a minimum you must compile a list of all the different types of records in each business area. This list should include information about who created them and what they are used for (or record provenance ), which parts of the organization have used them subsequently and for what purpose (its us- age), and the actual content.t

In the absence of any existing documentation or records inventory, you will need to conduct a records inventory or survey to fi nd out what records the business unit (or organization) holds. Tools are available to scan e-records folders to expedite the inventory process. A retention schedule developed in this way will have a shorter serviceable life than one based on an information map because it will be based on existing structures rather than functions and will remain usable only as long as the organizational structure remains unchanged.

Once a records inventory or survey is complete, building a records retention schedule begins with classifi cation of records. 35

This basic classifi cation can be grouped into three areas:

1. Business functions and activities 2. Records series 3. Document types

Business functions are basic business units such as accounting, legal, human re- sources, and purchasing. (See Appendix A, Information Organization and Classifi cation: Taxonomies and Metadata, for details on the process of developing classifi cations.) It basically answers this question: What were you doing when you created the record?

Tools are available to scan e-records folders to expedite the inventory process.

An information map is a critical fi rst step in developing a records retention schedule. It shows where information is created, where it resides, and who uses it.

174 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Business activities are the tasks performed to accomplish the business function. d Several activities may be associated with each function.

A records series is a group or unit of identical or related records that are normally used and fi led as a unit and that can be evaluated as a unit or business function for scheduling t purposes. 36

A document type is a term used by many software systems to refer to a group- ing of related records. When the records are all created by similar processes, then the document type is equivalent to the business functions or activities mentioned previously. However, “document type” often refers to the format of the record (e.g., presentation, meeting minutes). In this case, there is not enough information to determine a retention period because it is ambiguous regarding what type of work was being done when that document was created. Retention schedules require that record series be defi ned by business function and activity, not by record format or display type.

Rationale for Records Groupings

Records are grouped together for fundamental reasons to improve information orga- nization and access. These reasons include:

■ Grouping by “similar theme” for improved completeness ■ Improving information search speed and completeness ■ Increasing organizational knowledge and memory by providing the “context”

within which individual documents were grouped ■ Clearly identifying who the record owner or creator is and assigning and track-

ing responsibility for a group of records ■ Grouping records with the same retention requirements for consistent applica-

tion of disposition processes to records

Records Series Identifi cation and Classifi cation

After completing a records inventory including characterizing, descriptive informa- tion about the records such as their contents, use, fi le size, and projected growth vol- umes, you will need to interview staff in those target areas you are working with to determine more information about the specifi c organizational structure, its business functions, services, programs, and plans. 37

In the course of business, there are several different types of records series. There are case records , for example, which are characterized as having a beginning and

After completing an inventory, developing a retention schedule begins with records classifi cation.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 175

an end but are added to over time. Case records generally have titles that include names, dates, numbers, or places. These titles do not provide insight into the nature of the function of the record series. Examples of case records include personnel fi les, mortgage loan folders, contract and amendment/addendum records, accident reports, insurance claims, and other records that accumulate and expand over time. Although the contents of case fi les may be similar, you should break out each type of case record under a unique title.

Subject records (also referred to as topic or function records ) “contain infor- mation relating to specifi c or general topics and that are arranged according to their informational content or by the function/activity/transaction they pertain to.”38 These types of records accumulate information on a particular topic or function to be added to the organization’s memory and make it easier for knowledge workers to fi nd infor- mation based on subject matter, topics, or business functions. Records such as those on the progression of relevant laws and statutes, policies, standard operating procedures, education and training have long-term reference value and should be kept until they are no longer relevant or are displaced by more current and relevant records. In a record retention schedule, the trigger event often is defi ned as “superseded or obsolete.” Records of this type that relate to “routine operations of a [project], program or ser- vice” do not have as much enduring value and should be scheduled to be kept for a shorter period.

Retention of E-Mail Records

Are e-mail messages records? This question has been debated for years. The short an- swer is no, not all e-mail messages constitute a record. But how do you determine whether certain messages are a business record or not? The general answer is that a record documents a transaction or business-related event that may have legal ramifi cations or historic value. Most important are business activities that may relate to compliance requirements or those that could possibly come into dispute in litigation. Particular consideration should be given to fi nancial transactions of any type.

Certainly evidence that required governance oversight or compliance activities have been completed needs to be documented and becomes a business record. Also, business transactions, where there is an exchange of money or the equivalent in goods or services is documented are also business records. Today, these transactions are often documented by a quick e-mail. And, of course, any contracts (and any pro- gressively developed or edited versions) that are exchanged through e-mail become business records.

The form or format of a potential record is irrelevant in determining whether it should be classifi ed as a business record. For instance, if a meeting of the board of directors is recorded by a digital video recorder and saved to DVD, it constitutes a

Not all e-mail messages are records; those that document a business transac- tion or progress toward it are clearly records and require retention.

176 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

record. If photographs are taken of a ground-breaking ceremony for a new manufac- turing plant, the photos are records too. If the company’s founders tape-recorded a message to future generations of management on reel-to-reel tape, it is a record also, since it has historical value. But most records are going to be in the form of paper, microfi lm, or an electronic document.

Here are three guidelines for determining whether an e-mail message should be considered a business record:

1. The e-mail documents a transaction or the progress toward an ultimate transaction where anything of value is exchanged between two or more parties. All parts or char- acteristics of the transaction, including who (the parties to it), what, when, how much, and the composition of its components are parts of the transaction. Often seemingly minor parts of a transaction are found buried within an e-mail mes- sage. One example would be a last-minute discount offered by a supplier based on an order being placed or delivery being made within a specifi ed time frame.

2. The e-mail documents or provides support of a business activity occurring that pertains to internal corporate governance policies or compliance to externally mandated regulations.

3. The e-mail message documents other business activities that may possibly be disputed in the future, whether it ultimately involves litigation or not. (Most business disputes actually are resolved without litigation, provided that proof of your organization’s position can be shown.) For instance, your supplier may dispute the discount you take that was offered in an e-mail message and, once you forward the e-mail thread to the supplier, it acquiesces.

Managing e-mail business records is challenging, even for technology professionals. According to an AIIM and ARMA survey, fully two-thirds of records managers doubt that their IT departments really understand the concept of electronic records life cycle management. That is despite the fact that 70 percent of companies rely on IT professionals alone to manage their electronic records.

Although the signifi cance of e-mail in civil litigation cannot be overstated (it is the leading piece of evidence requested at civil trials today), one-third of IT managers state that they would be incapable of locating and retrieving e-mails that are more than one year old, d according to Osterman Research. 39

How Long Should You Keep Old E-Mails?

There are different schools of thought on e-mail retention periods and retention schedules. The retention and deletion of your electronic business records may be governed by laws or regulations. Unless your organization’s e-mail and ESI records are governed by law or regulations,

E-mail messages that document business activities, especially those that may be disputed in the future, should be retained as records.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 177

your organization is free to determine the retention periods and deletion schedules that are most appropriate for your organization.40 If your organization’s e-mail retention periods are not specifi ed by law or regulation, consider keeping them for at least as long as you retain paper records. Many software providers provide automated software that allows e-mail messages to be moved to controlled repositories as they are declared to be records.

Destructive Retention of E-Mail

(We repeat this short section from Chapter 8 for those who are more focused on RIM than on legal functions.)

A destructive retention program is an approach to e-mail archiving where e-mail messages are retained for a limited time (say, 90 days), followed by the permanent manual or automatic deletion of the messages from the organization network, so long as there is no litigation hold or the e-mail has not been declared a record.

E-mail retention periods can vary from 90 days to as long as seven years:

■ Osterman Research reports that “nearly one-quarter of companies delete e- mail after 90 days.” 41

■ Heavily regulated industries, including energy, technology, communications, and real estate, favor archiving for one year or more, according to Fulbright and Jaworski research. 42

■ The most common e-mail retention period traditionally has been seven years; how- ever, some organizations are taking a hard-line approach and stating that e-mails will be kept for only 90 days or six months, unless it is declared as a record, classi- fi ed, and identifi ed with a classifi cation/retention category and tagged or moved to a repository where the integrity of the record is protected (i.e., the record cannot be altered and an audit trail on the history of the record’s usage is maintained)

Long-Term Archival Records

Inactive records that are have historical value or are essential for maintaining corporate memory must be kept the longest. Although they are not needed for present operations, they still have some value to the organization and must be preserved. When it comes to preserving electronic records, this process can be complex and technical. (See Chapter 17 for details.) If you have a corporate or agency archivist, his or her input is critical.43

Meeting Legal Limitation Periods

(This short section is repeated from Chapter 8 for those who are more focused on RIM than on legal functions.)

Destructive retention of e-mail is a method whereby e-mail messages are re- tained for a limited period and then destroyed.

178 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

A key consideration in developing retention schedules is researching and deter- mining the minimum time required to keep records that may be demanded in legal actions. “A limitation period is the length of time after which a legal action cannot be brought before the courts. Limitation periods are important because they determine the length of time records must be kept to support court action [including subsequent appeal periods]. It is important to be familiar with the purpose, principles, and special circumstances that affect limitation periods and therefore records retention.” 44

Legal Requirements and Compliance Research

(Note: This section also appears in Chapter 8 but is included here for completeness.) Legal requirements trump all others. The retention period for a particular records

series must meet minimum retention requirements as mandated by law. Business needs and other considerations are secondary. So, legal research is required before determin- ing retention periods. Legally required retention periods must be researched for each jurisdiction (state, country) in which the business operates, so that it complies with all applicable laws.

In order to locate the regulations and citations relating to retention of records, there are two basic approaches. The fi rst approach is to use a records retention citation service, which publishes in electronic form all of the retention-related citations. These services usually are bought on a subscription basis, as citations are updated on an an- nual or more frequent basis as legislation and regulations change.

Figure 9.5 is an excerpt from a Canadian records retention database product called FILELAW®. In this case, the act, citation, and retention periods are clearly identifi ed.

Another approach is to search the laws and regulations directly using online or print resources. Records retention requirements for corporations operating in the United States may be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), the annual RR edition of which

is the codifi cation of the general and permanent rules published in the Fed- eral Register by the departments and agencies of the federal government. It is divided into 50 titles that represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. The 50 subject matter titles contain one or more individual volumes, which are updated once each calendar year, on a staggered basis. The annual update cycle is as follows: titles 1 to 16 are revised as of January 1; titles 17 to 27 are revised as of April 1; titles 28 to 41 are revised as of July 1, and titles 42 to 50 are revised as of October 1. Each title is divided into chapters, which usually bear the name of the issuing agency. Each chapter is further subdivided into parts that cover specifi c regulatory areas. Large parts may be subdivided into subparts. All parts are organized in sections, and most citations to the CFR refer to material at the section level. 45

There is an up-to-date version that is not yet a part of the offi cial CFR but is up- dated daily, the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (e-CFR) . “It is not an offi cial legal edition of the CFR. The e-CFR is an editorial compilation of CFR material and Federal Register amendments produced by the National Archives and Records Admin- istration’s Offi ce of the Federal Register (OFR) and the Government Printing Offi ce.” 46

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 179

Event-Based Retention Scheduling for Disposition of E-Records

Event-based disposition is kicked off with the passage of an event, such as hiring or fi ring an employee, the end of a project, or the initiation of a lawsuit.

Event-based disposition can have an associated retention schedule, and the clock starts running once the event occurs. The required retention period begins only af- ter the triggering event occurs. The length of the retention period may be regulated by law, or it may be determined by IG guidelines set internally by the organization. So, when an employee is terminated, and personnel fi les are destroyed after (say) fi ve years, the retention schedule entry would be “Termination + 5 years.”

One other defi nition of event-based disposition comes from the U.S. e-records standard, Department of Defense 5015.2, which states that a disposition instruction in which a record is eligible for the specifi ed disposition (transfer or destroy) upon or immediately after the specifi ed event occurs. No retention period is applied and there is no fi xed waiting period, as with “timed” or combination “timed-event” dispositions. Example: “Destroy when no longer needed for current operations.” 47

Some hardware vendors, such as IBM and EMC, provide solutions that assist in executing event-based disposition with assistance from fi rmware (fi xed instructions on a microchip). The fi rmware-assisted solution should be considered if your RM or IG team aims to perform a complete and thorough retention solution analysis. These hardware-based solutions can potentially streamline the event-based disposi- tion process. 48

Event-based disposition begins with the passage of a triggering event.

Figure 9.5 Excerpt from Canadian Records Retention Database Source: Ontario, Electricity Act, FILELAW database, Thomson Publishers, May 2012.

180 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Triggering events may be record-related, “such as supersession or obsolescence.” This is common to a policy statement. For example, if a group of policies are to be destroyed fi ve years after superseded or obsolete, the old policy would be held for fi ve years after the new policy has been created.

Sounds simple. But in an attempt to meet retention requirements, organizations handle event-based triggers in different ways, ways that often are problematic. For in- stance, the trigger events often are not captured electronically and fed directly into the retention scheduling software or records repository to start the clock running, or the event itself is not well documented in the retention schedule so it is not consistently being applied and tracked. In other cases, the organization simply does not have the ERM functionality it needs to manage event-based triggers.

This causes many organizations to simply over-retain and keep the records indefi - nitely, or until disk storage is full, which means that those records are retained for an incorrect—and indefensible—time. The period is either too long or possibly too short, but it always is always inconsistent. s And inconsistent means legally indefensible.

The only prudent and defensible approach is to implement the proper IG policies to manage and control the implementation of event-based disposition.

Prerequisites for Event-Based Disposition

Three key prerequisite tasks must be completed before event-based disposition can be implemented:

1. Clarify trigger events. Not all of the events that can trigger the beginning of a retention period are as clear as the date an employee is terminated. For instance, “contract completion date” could be the day a vendor fi nishes work, when a fi nal invoice is rendered, when the invoice is paid, or some other period, such as 30 days following the payment of the fi nal invoice. These defi nitions, depending on the record series in question, may be regulated by law or governed by IG policies.

What is needed is an agreement as to what the defi nition is, so that the re- tention period will be uniform among the record series in question, providing a defensible policy.

To gain this agreement on these blurry areas, the RM lead/manager or team will need to work with the relevant business unit representatives, IT, compli- ance, risk management, and any other stakeholders.

The event triggers must be clear and agreed on so that they may kick off a retention period and disposition process.

In a number of cases, the answer to these questions will rely on trigger points, such as one year after completion or four months after the board of di- rectors’ meeting. It is important to choose a trigger point that you can implement. For example, there is no point in saying that records should be kept until an individual dies, if you have no reliable way of knowing the person is alive. Instead, choose a trigger point based on the information you have about the individual; in this case, the 100th birthday might be a suitable trigger point.

2. Automated capture of agreed-on trigger events must be performed and sent to the ERM. It is easy to know an employee’s termination date—most human re- sources management systems or payroll systems can supply it—but other

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 181

types of events are not so easily captured and may require some customiza- tion in order that this information is fed into an ERM. The metadata about the event must be seamlessly entered into the ERM so that it may launch the beginning of the retention period. If systems external to the ERM need to be interfaced, a common locator (e.g., contract number) can link the two.

3. The ERM systems must have complete retention and disposition capabilities. In order for the retention to start properly and run to fi nal disposition, this tracking ca- pability must be an inherent feature of the software. (In some cases, organiza- tions may use specialized retention and disposition software that can perform this task minimally without complete ERM functionality, but it falls short of the type of richness that a robust ERM system provides. What is needed is the ability to include the details or retention rules beyond simple date calculations (i.e., to store descriptive data or scope notes, and records series code in addi- tion to retention requirements, which are automatically associated with the retention rule, and to have a records hold and release capability). If destruc- tion is the fi nal disposition, then the system must be able to perform a deletion of the record (so long as there is no preservation or legal hold) with no traces that can allow reconstruction of it, and this process must be verifi able.

To accomplish clarity and agreement on event-based triggers requires close consultation and collaboration among RM staff, business units, IT, legal, com- pliance, risk management, and other stakeholders, as relevant.

Final Disposition and Closure Criteria

After completing the records values analysis and legislative and legal research, you must determine the closure criteria and fi nal disposition (e.g., destroy, transfer, archive) for each records series. To minimize costs and litigation risk, retention periods should be kept as short as possible while meeting all applicable regulatory, legal, and business requirements.49

Retention Periods: Online versus Offl ine

For e-records, retention periods may be segmented into active and inactive, or online and offl ine. Offl ine may be segmented further into on-site and off-site or archival storage.

Going back and combing through records retrieval requests and usage logs may provide helpful insights as to the needs of records users—but bear in mind that these logs may be misleading as users may have (in the past, before a formal IG program was implemented) kept shadow copies of fi les on their local hard drives or backed up to fl ash drives or other storage devices.

Closure Dates

A clear closure start date is required to kick off a retention period for any record, whether the retention is scheduled for on- or off-site. Calendar or fi scal year-ends are typical and practical closure dates for subject or topical records. The date used to indi- cate the start year is usually the date the fi le closed or the date of last use or update. In a university setting, school year-end may be more logical. Still, a reasoned analysis is re- quired to determine the best closure start date for subject records in your organization.

182 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Case records are different; logically, their closure date is set when a case record is completed (e.g., the date when an employee resigns, retires, or is terminated).

Future dates may be used, such as an employee promotion date, student gradua- tion, or project completion. After consulting those who create and handle the records series you are analyzing, apply good business judgment and common sense when de- termining closure dates. 50

Retaining Records Indefi nitely

There may be some vital, historical, or other critical records that, in the best interests of the organization, need to be retained permanently. This is rare, and storing records long term must be scrutinized heavily. If certain electronic records are to be retained indefi nitely or permanently, then LTDP policies and techniques must be used. (See Chapter 17 for more details.)

Retaining Transitory Records

Transitory documents usually do not rise to the level of becoming a record; they are temporary and are useful only in the short term, such as direct mail or e-mail adver- tising (brochures, price lists, etc.), draft documents (although not all are transitory, and some may need longer retention periods, such as draft contracts) and work in progress, duplicates, external publications (e.g., magazines, journals, newspapers, etc.), and temporary notices (e.g., company picnic, holiday party, or football pool). You must consider transitory records in your master records retention schedule.

Implementation of the Retention Schedule and Disposal of Records

Automated programs that interpret these retention periods are the best way to ensure that records are disposed of at the correct time and that an audit trail of the disposition is maintained.

Getting Acceptance and Formal Sign-off of the Retention Schedule

Upon completion of the records retention schedule, project management best prac- tices dictate that it be signed off by an executive or project sponsor, to indicate it has been completed and there is no more work to be done on that phase of the project. In addition, you may want to gain the sign-off and acceptance by other key stakehold- ers, such as senior representatives from legal, IT, the board of directors or executive committee, and perhaps audit and information governance. The schedule should be updated when new record types are introduced and, in any case, at least annually.

Disposition Timing: Records Disposal

It is much easier to time or schedule the disposal of e-records than of paper or physical records, but true and complete destruction of all traces of a record cannot be done

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 183

by hitting a simple “delete” key. There must be a process in place to verify the total destruction of all copies of the record. (See Chapter 17 for more details.) Records destruction can occur daily, routinely, or be scheduled at intervals (i.e., monthly or quarterly).

Automating Retention/Disposal Actions

ERM systems typically are capable of automatically executing a record deletion when a record has reached the end of its life cycle. Often these systems have a safety fea- ture that allows an operator who has the authority to review deletions before they are performed.

Disposal Date Changes

To make a retention schedule change, such as extending the life of a record series, IG controls must be in place. So, usually, ERM systems require that a person of higher authority than the system operator make these approvals. Every subsequent delay in destroying the records often requires an escalation in approval period to extend the time that records are kept past the destruction date.

Proving Record Destruction

In some environments, especially in the public sector, a certifi cate of destruction or other documentation is required to prove that a record and all its copies have been completely deleted (including its metadata—although at times it is benefi cial to retain metadata longer than the record itself; see Appendix A, “Information Organization and Classifi cation,” for more details). ERM systems can be confi gured to keep an audit trail and prove that destruction has occurred.

Ongoing Maintenance of the Retention Schedule

Records series are not static; they change, are added to, and are amended. New record functions emerge, based on changes in business, acquisitions, and divestitures. So it is necessary for organizations to review and update—at least annually—their records retention schedule.

In addition, retention requirements change as legislation changes, lawsuits are fi led, and the organization refi nes and improves its IG policies. Development of a re- cords retention schedule is not a one-time project; it requires attention, maintenance, and updating on a regular schedule, and using a controlled change process.

Audit to Manage Compliance with the Retention Schedule

Once your organization establishes records retention schedules for business units, or a master retention schedule, there must be IG policies in place to audit and ensure that policies are being followed. This is a key requirement of maintaining a legally defensible retention schedule that will hold up to legal challenges.

184 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ According to ISO, a record is “information created, received, and maintained as evidence and information by an organization or person, in pursuance of legal obligations or in the transaction of business.”

■ RM is “[the] fi eld of management responsible for the effi cient and system- atic control of the creation, receipt, maintenance, use, and disposition of records, including the processes for capturing and maintaining evidence of and information about business activities and transactions in the form of records.”

■ ERM includes the management of electronic and nonelectronic records, such as paper and other physical records.

■ ERM has become much more critical to enterprises with increased compli- ance legislation and massively increasing volumes of electronic information.

■ ERM follows the same basic principles as paper-based records management.

■ A number of factors provide the business rationale for ERM, including facilitat- ing compliance, supporting IG, and providing backup capabilities in the event of a disaster.

■ Implementing ERM is challenging since it requires user support and compli- ance, adherence to changing laws, and support for new information delivery platforms like mobile and cloud computing.

■ ERM benefi ts are both tangible and intangible or diffi cult to calculate.

■ Improved professionalism, preserving corporate memory, support for better decision making, and safeguarding vital records are key intangible benefi ts of ERM.

■ NARA recommends that e-records are inventoried by information system rather than fi le series, which is the traditional approach for physical records.

■ Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles® are “information management and governance of record creation, organization, security, maintenance and other activities used to effectively support recordkeeping of an organization.”

■ It may be helpful to use a record-keeping methodology such as the Principles or D.I.R.K.S. to guide inventorying efforts.

■ Perhaps the organization has a handle on their paper and microfi lmed records, but e-records have been growing exponentially and spiraling out of control.

■ Whatever the business goals for the inventorying effort are, they must be con- veyed to all stakeholders, and that message must be reinforced periodically and consistently, and through multiple means.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 185

■ An appropriate scope might enumerate the records of a single program or division, several functional series across divisions, or records that fall within a certain time frame versus an entire enterprise.

■ The completed records inventory contributes toward the pursuit of an orga- nization’s IG objectives in a number of ways.

■ There are basic three ways to conduct the inventory: surveys, interviews, and observation. Combining these methods yields the best results.

■ Additional information not included in inventories of physical records must be collected in any inventory of e-records.

■ Be sure to tie the fi ndings in the fi nal report of the records inventory to the business goals that launched the effort.

■ Records appraisal is based on the information contained in the records inventory.

■ Records can have different types of value to organizations: historical, ad- ministrative, regulatory and statutory, legal, fi scal, or other archival value as determined by an archivist.

■ Consistency in managing records across an enterprise, regardless of media, format, or location, is the key to compliance.

■ A complete, current, and documented records retention program reduces storage and handling costs and improves searchability for records by making records easier and faster to fi nd.

■ Retention schedules are developed by records series—not for individual records.

■ Retention schedules are basic tools that allow an organization to prove that it has a legally defensible basis on which to dispose records.

■ The master retention schedule contains all records series in the entire enterprise.

■ Records retention defi nes the length of time that records are to be kept and considers legal, regulatory, operational, and historical requirements.

■ “Disposition” means not just destruction but can also mean archiving and a change in ownership and responsibility for the records.

■ An information map is a critical fi rst step in developing a records retention sched- ule. It shows where information is created, where it resides, and who uses it.

■ After inventorying, developing a retention schedule begins with records classifi cation.

■ All e-mail messages are not records; those that document a business transac- tion, or progress toward it, are clearly records and require retention.

■ E-mail messages that document business activities, especially those that may be disputed in the future, should be retained as records.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

(continued)dd

186 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

■ Destructive retention of e-mail is a method whereby e-mail messages are retained for a limited period and then destroyed.

■ Tools are available to scan e-records folders to expedite the inventorying process.

■ Assessing the relative value of records is key to determining their retention periods and disposition path.

■ Records have different types of value, such as fi nancial, legal, technical, and administrative/operational.

■ Event-based disposition begins with a triggering event.

■ Retention schedules, once established, must be maintained and updated to add new records series, as appropriate, and to comply with new or changed legislation and regulatory requirements.

■ Auditing to ensure compliance with established retention policies is key to maintaining a legally defensible records retention program.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

Notes

1. International Organization for Standardization, ISO 15489-1: 2001 Information and Documentation— Records Management. Part 1: General (Geneva: ISO, 2001), section 3.15. l

2. Ibid., section 3.16 3. ARMA.org, “What Is Records Management?” 2009, www.arma.org/pdf/WhatIsRIM.pdf. (accessed

December 2, 2013). 4. Microsoft White Paper, “Records Management with Offi ce SharePoint Server,” 2007, www.microsoft

.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=15932, Used with permission from Microsoft. (accessed December 2, 2013).

5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Why Records Management? Ten Business Reasons,” updated

March 8, 2012, www.epa.gov/records/what/quest1.htm. 9. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration ,Disposition of Federal Records: A Records Management

Handbook , 2000, Web edition, www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/publications/disposition-of-federal- records/chapter-3.html.

10. Ibid. 11. State and Consumer Services Agency Department of General Services, Electronic Records Management

Handbook , State of California Records Management Program (February 2002), www.documents.dgs .ca.gov/osp/recs/ermhbkall.pdf .

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Six Steps to Better Files,” updated March 8, 2012, www.epa .gov/records/tools/toolkits/6step/6step-02.htm .

13. Margaret Rouse, “Generally Accepted Recordkeeping Principles,” updated March 2011, http:// searchcompliance.techtarget.com/defi nition/Generally-Accepted-Recordkeeping-Principles-GARP (accessed March 19, 2012).

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND RECORDS 187

14. Ibid. 15. Ibid. 16. Public Record Offi ce, “ Guidance for an Inventory of Electronic Record Collections: A Toolkit,”

September 2000, www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/ai/rti/implementation/general/guidance_ for_inventory_elect_rec_collection.pdf, pp. 5–6.

17. Ibid. (accessed December 2, 2013). 18. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Inventories,” updated October 27, 2000,

www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/inventories.html . 19. William Saffady, “Managing Electronic Records, 4th ed.,” Journal of the Medical Library Association , 2009,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2947138/ . 20. Jesse Wilkins, “The First Step: Inventory Your Electronic Records,” http://pr1vacy.blogspot

.mx/2005/11/fi rst-step-inventory-your-electronic.html (accessed October 11, 2012). 21. Ibid. 22. Ibid. 23. Quotes in this section are from Government of Alberta, Records and Information Management, www

.im.gov.ab.ca/index.cfm?page=imtopics/Records.html. (accessed December 2, 2013). 24. Maryland State Archives, “Retention Schedule Preparation,” June 1, 2012, www.msa.md.gov/msa/

intromsa/html/record_mgmt/retention_schedule.html . 25. National Health Service, “Connecting for Health,” www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/ (accessed

April 10, 2012). 26. Wortzman Nickle Professional Corporation, “Effective Records Management—Part 4—Ensuring

Adoption and Compliance of RM Policy,” 2009, www.wortzmannickle.com/ediscovery-blog/2011/12/14/ rmpart4/ (accessed April 12, 2012).

27. Government of Alberta, “Developing Retention and Disposition Schedules.” 28. National Archives, “Disposition of Federal Records.” 29. Government of Alberta, “Developing Retention and Disposition Schedules.” 30. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Scheduling and Disposition.” 31. Ibid. 32. University of Edinburgh, Records Management Section, July 5, 2012, www.recordsmanagement.ed.ac

.uk/InfoStaff/RMstaff/Retention/Retention.htm. 33. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Scheduling and Disposition.” http://

www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/faqs/scheduling.html#steps accessed December 2, 2013. 34. University of Edinburgh, Records Management Section. 35. National Archives, “Frequently Asked Questions about Records Scheduling and Disposition.” 36. University of Toronto Archives, “Glossary,” www.library.utoronto.ca/utarms/info/glossary.html

(accessed September 10, 2012). 37. Government of Alberta, “Developing Retention and Disposition Schedules.” 38. Ibid. 39. Marty Foltyn, “Getting Up to Speed on FRCP,” June 29, 2007, www.enterprisestorageforum.com/

continuity/features/article.php/3686491/Getting-Up-To-Speed-On-FRCP.htm. 40. Nancy Flynn, The E-Policy Handbook (New York: AMACOM, 2009), pp. 24–25. 41. ArcMail Blog http://arcmail.com/blog/archiving-rules-the-dangers-of-destructive-retention/ (accessed

Dec. 2, 2013). 42. Mary Flood, “Survey: They see a more litigious future,” October 18, 2010, http://blog.chron.com/

houstonlegal/2010/10/survey-they-see-a-more-litigious-future/ (accessed Dec. 2, 2013). 43. Ibid., pp. 127. 44. Government of Alberta, “Developing Retention and Disposition Schedules,” p. 122. 45. U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, Code of Federal Regulations , www.gpo.gov/help/index.html#about_s

code_of_federal_regulations.htm (accessed April 22, 2012). 46. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, “Electronic Code of Federal Regulations,”

October 2, 2012, http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl. 47. Department of Defense, “Design Criteria Standard for Electronic Records Management Software

Applications,” July 19, 2002, http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/cgi/rma/downloads/p50152s2.doc. 48. Craig Rhinehart, IBM, e-mail to author, July 30, 2012. 49. Government of Alberta, “Records and Information Management.” 50. Ibid., p. 125.

189

C H A P T E R 10 Information Governance and Information Technology Functions

Information technology (IT) is a core function impacted by information gover-ynance (IG) efforts. IT departments typically have been charged with keeping the “plumbing” of IT intact—the network, servers, applications, and data—but although the output of IT is in their custody, they have not been held to account for it; that is, the information, reports, and databases they generate have long been held to be owned by users in business units. This has left a gap of responsibility for governing the information that is being generated and managing it in accordance with legal and regulatory requirements, standards, and best practices.

Certainly, on the IT side, shared responsibility for IG means the IT department itself must take a closer look at IT processes and activities with an eye to IG. A focus on improving IT effi ciency, software development processes, and data quality will help contribute to the overall IG program effort. IT is an integral piece of the program.

Debra Logan, vice president and distinguished analyst at Gartner, states:

Information governance is the only way to comply with regulations, both cur- rent and future, and responsibility for it lies with the CIO and the chief legal offi cer. When organizations suffer high-profi le data losses, especially involv- ing violations of the privacy of citizens or consumers, they suffer serious repu- tational damage and often incur fi nes or other sanctions. IT leaders will have to take at least part of the blame for these incidents. 1

Gartner predicts that the need to implement IG is so critical that, by 2016, fully one in fi ve chief information offi cers (CIOs) will be terminated for their inability to implement IG successfully.

Aaron Zornes, chief research offi cer at the MDM (Master Data Management) Institute, stated: “While most organizations’ information governance efforts have fo- cused on IT metrics and mechanics such as duplicate merge/purge rates, they tend to ignore the industry- and business-metrics orientation that is required to ensure the economic success of their programs.” 2

190 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Four IG best practices in this area can help CIOs and IT leaders to be successful in delivering business value as a result of IG efforts:

1. Don’t focus on technology, focus on business impact Technology often enthralls those in IT—to the point of obfuscating the

reason that technologies are leveraged in the fi rst place: to deliver business benefi t. So IT needs to reorient its language, its vernacular, its very focus when implementing IG programs. IT needs to become more business savvy, more businesslike, more focused on delivering business benefi ts that can help the organization to meet its business goals and achieve its business objectives. “Business leaders want to know why they should invest in an information gov- ernance program based on the potential resulting business outcomes, which manifest as increased revenues, lower costs and reduced risk.” 3

2. Customize your IG approach for your specifi c business, folding in any industry-specifi c best practices possible.

You cannot simply take a boilerplate IG plan, implement it in your orga- nization, and expect it to be successful. Sure, there are components that are common to all industries, but tailoring your approach to your organization is the only way to deliver real business value and results. That means embarking on an earnest effort to develop and sharpen your business goals, establish- ing business objectives that consider your current state and capabilities and external business environment and legal factors unique to your organization. It also means developing a communications and training plan that fi ts with your corporate culture. And it means developing meaningful metrics to mea- sure your progress and the impact of the IG program, to allow for continued refi nement and improvement.

3. Make the business case for IG by tying it to business objectives To garner the resources and time needed to implement an IG program, you

must develop a business case in real, measureable terms. The business case must be presented in order to gain executive sponsorship, which is an essential component of any IG effort. Without executive sponsorship, the IG effort will fail. Making the business case and having metrics to measure progress and success toward meeting business objectives are absolute musts.

4. Standardize use of business terms IG requires a cross-functional effort, so you must be speaking the same

language, which means the business terms you use in your organization must be standardized. This is the very minimum to get the conversation started. But IG efforts will delve much more deeply into information organization and seek to standardize the taxonomy for organizing documents and records and even the metadata fi elds that describe in detail those document and records across the enterprise.

Overall, being able to articulate the business benefi ts of your planned IG program will help you recruit an executive sponsor, help the program gain traction and support, and help you implement the program successfully. 4

Several key foundational programs should support your IG effort in IT, includ- ing data governance, master data management (MDM), and implementing accepted IT standards and best practices. We will now delve into these concepts in more detail.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 191

Data Governance

We touched on data governance in Chapter 2 . Data is big, data is growing, data is valu- able, and the insights that can be gained by analyzing clean, reliable data with the latest analytic tools are a sort of new currency. There are nuggets of gold in those mountains of data. And leveraging those discoveries can provide a sustainable competitive advan- tage in areas such as customer acquisition, customer retention, and customer service.

The challenge is largely in garnering control over data and in cleaning, secur- ing and protecting it; doing so requires effective data governance strategies. But data governance is not only about cleaning and securing data; it is also about delivering it to the right people at the right time (sometimes this means in realtime) to provide strategic insights and opportunities. If a data governance program is successful, it can add profi ts directly to the bottom line. 5

Data governance involves processes and controls to ensure that information at the data level—raw data that the organization is gathering and inputting—is true and accurate, and unique (not redundant). It involves data cleansing ( or data scrubbing) gg to strip out corrupted, inaccurate, or extraneous data and de-duplication to eliminate redundant occurrences of data.

Data governance focuses on information quality from the ground up (at the low-y est or root level), so that subsequent reports, analyses and conclusions are based on clean, reliable, trusted data (or records) in database tables. Data governance is the most fundamental level at which to implement IG. Data governance efforts seek to ensure that formal management controls—systems, processes, and accountable employees who are stewards and custodians of the data—are implemented to govern critical data assets to improve data quality and to avoid negative downstream effects of poor data.

Data governance is a newer, hybrid quality control discipline that includes elements of data quality, data management, IG policy development, business process improve- ment, and compliance and risk management.

Good data governance programs should extend beyond the enterprise to include external stakeholders (suppliers, customers) so an organization has its fi nger on the pulse of its extended operations. In other words, enforcing data governance at the ear- liest possible point of entry—even external to the organization—can yield signifi cant effi ciencies and business benefi ts downstream. And combining data governance with real-time analytics and business intelligence (BI) software not only can yield insights into signifi cant and emerging trends but also can provide solid information for deci- sion makers to use in times of crisis—or opportunity.

Focusing on business impact and customizing your IG approach to meet business objectives are key best practices for IG in the IT department.

Effective data governance can yield bottom-line benefi ts derived from new insights.

192 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Steps to Governing Data Effectively

Nine key steps you can take to govern data effectively are listed next. The fi rst fi ve are based on recommendations by Steven Adler in CIO Magazine:

1. Recruit a strong executive sponsor. As in broader IG efforts, data governance re- quires cross-functional collaboration with a variety of stakeholders. To drive and facilitate this sometimes contentious conversation, a strong executive sponsor is required. This is not an easy task since executives generally do not want to deal with the minutia at the data level. You must focus on the realiz- able business benefi ts of improved data governance (i.e., specifi c applications that can assist in customer retention, revenue generation, and cost cutting).

2. Assess your current state. Survey the organization to see where the data reposi- tories or silos of data are, what problems related to data exist, and where some opportunities to improve lie. Document where your data governance program stands today and then map out your road to improvement in fundamental steps.

3. Set the ideal state vision and strategy. Create a realistic vision of where your organization wants to go in its data governance efforts, and clearly articulate the business benefi ts of getting there. Articulate a measureable impact. Track your progress with metrics and milestones.

4. Compute the value of your data. Try to put some hard numbers to it. Calculate some internal numbers on how much value data—good data—can add to specifi c business units. Data is unlike other assets that you can see or touch (cash, buildings, equipment, etc.), and it changes daily, but it has real value.

5. Assess risks. What is the likelihood and potential cost of a data breach? A major breach? What factors come into play and how might you combat these potential threats? Perform a risk assessment to rank and prioritize threats and assign probabilities to those threats so you may fashion appropriate strategies to counter them.

6. Implement a going-forward strategy. It is a signifi cantly greater task to try to improve data governance across the enterprise for existing data, versus a smaller business unit. 6 Remember, you may be trying to fi x years if not decades of bad behavior, mismanagement, and lack of governance. Taking an “incre- mental approach with an eye to the future” provides for a clean starting point and can substantially reduce the pain required to implement. A strategy where new data governance policies for handling data are implemented beginning on a certain future date is a proven best practice.

7. Assign accountability for data quality to business units, not IT. Typically, IT has had responsibility for data quality, yet the data generation is mostly not under that department’s control, since most is created out in the business units. A pointed effort must be made to push responsibility and ownership for data to the business units that create and use the data.

8. Manage the change. Educate, educate, educate. People must be trained to understand why the data governance program is being implemented and how it will benefi t the business. The new policies represent a cultural change, and supportive program messages and training are required to make the shift.

9. Monitor your data governance program. See where shortfalls might be, and con- tinue to fi ne-tune the program. 7

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 193

From a risk management perspective, data governance is a critical activity that supports decision makers and can mean the difference between retaining a customer and losing one. Protecting your data is protecting the lifeblood of your business, and improving the quality of the data will improve decision making, foster compliance efforts, and yield competitive advantages.

Data Governance Framework

The Data Governance Institute has created a data governance framework, a visualk model to help guide planning efforts and a “logical structure for classifying, organiz- ing, and communicating complex activities involved in making decisions about and taking action on enterprise data.” 8 (See Figure 10.1 .) The framework applies more to

Good data governance ensures that downstream negative effects of poor data are avoided and that subsequent reports, analyses, and conclusions are based on reliable, trusted data.

Figure 10.1 DGI Data Governance Framework™ Source: The Data Governance Institute (datagovernance.com).

194 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

larger organizations, which have greater complexity, greater internal requirements, and greater, more complex regulatory demands. It allows for a conceptual look at data governance processes, rules, and people requirements.

Information Management

Information management is a principal function of IT. It is complex and spans a t number of subdisciplines but can be defi ned as the “application of management tech- niques to collect information, communicate it within and outside the organization, and process it to enable managers to make quicker and better decisions.” 9 It is about managing information, which is more than just collecting and processing data from varying sources and distributing it to various user audiences. It includes a number of subcomponent tasks, including these four:

1. Master data management (MDM) is a key process for IG success in the IT de-t partment, which extends to involved business units. An emerging discipline, MDM came into prominence around 2010 to 2012, coinciding with the Big Data trend. The goal of MDM is to ensure that reliable, accurate data from a single source is leveraged across business units. That is, a key aim is to establish a “single version of the truth”10 and eliminate multiple, inconsistent versions of data sets, which are more common than most might think, especially in larger organizations with physically distributed operations and large numbers of servers and databases. 11 MDM gets to the core of data integrity issues, es-y sentially asking “Is this data true and accurate? Is this the best and only, fi nal version?” MDM grew from the need to create a standardized, “discrete disci- pline” to ensure there was a single version to base BI analyses on and to base decisions on. 12 According to Gartner, MDM is a technology-enabled disci- pline in which business and IT work together to ensure the uniformity, accu- racy, stewardship, semantic consistency and accountability of the enterprise’s offi cial shared master data assets. Master data is the consistent and uniform set of identifi ers and extended attributes that describes the core entities of the en- terprise, including customers, prospects, citizens, suppliers, sites, hierarchies and chart of accounts. 13

What is the business impact? How are operations enhanced and how does that contribute to business goals? One set of reliable, clean data is critical to delivering quality customer service, reducing redundant efforts and therefore operational costs, improving decision making, and even po- tentially lowering product and marketing costs. “A unifi ed view of custom- ers, products, or other data elements is critical to turning these business goals into reality.” 14

Again, the larger the organization, the greater the need for MDM.

Master data management is a key IG process in IT.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 195

2. Information lifecycle management (ILM) is managing information appropriately t and optimally at different stages of its useful life, from creation through distribution and use, including meeting legal and regulatory requirements, and through its fi nal disposition, which can be destruction, archiving, or transfer to another entity. Organizations historically over-retain informa- tion; however, studies show that information quickly loses its value and that once data has aged 10 to 15 days, the likelihood it will be used again is around 1 percent. 15 Based on its use characteristics, differing storage management strategies are appropriate. It defi es business logic to manage information that has little value with as much IT resource as information that is high value. Doing so is a misuse of resources . To execute ILM properly, the value of s certain data sets and records must be appraised and policies must be formed to manage it, recognizing that information value changes over the life cycle, which requires varying strategies and resource levels.16 ILM conceptually includes and can begin with MDM and is linked to compliance require- ments and capabilities.

3. Data architecture refers to the “design of structured and unstructured infor- mation systems” 17 in an effort to optimize data fl ow between applications and systems so that they are able to process data effi ciently. Further, data architecture uses data modeling, standards, IG policies, and rules for gov- erning data and how it populates databases and how those databases and applications are structured.18 Some key issues to uncover when researching data architecture and design include data structure, or schema , which da- tabases are used (e.g., Oracle Database 11g, DB2, SQL Server), methods of query and access (e.g., SQL), the operating systems the databases operate on, and even their hardware (which can affect data architecture features and capabilities).

4. Data modeling can be complex, yet it is an important step in overall IG for g the IT department. It “illustrates the relationships between data.” Data modeling is an application software design process whereby data processes and fl ows between applications are diagrammed graphically in a type of fl owchart that formally depicts where data is stored, which applications share it, where it moves, and the interactions regarding data movement between applications. “Data modeling techniques and tools capture and translate complex system designs into easily understood representations of the data fl ows and processes, creating a blueprint for construction and/ or re-engineering.” 19 Good data models allow for troubleshooting before applications are written and implemented.

The importance of data modeling as a foundation for the application devel- opment process is depicted in Figure 10.2 .

Once the data model is developed, business rules and logic can be applied through application development. A user interface is constructed for the appli- cation, followed by movement of data or e-documents through work steps us- ing work fl ow capabilities, and then integration with existing applications (e.g., enterprise resource planning or customer relationship management systems). Typically this is accomplished through an application programming inter- face, a sort of connector that allows interaction with other applications and databases.

196 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

There are six approaches to data modeling:

1. Conceptual. The conceptual approach merely diagrams data relationships at the “highest level” 20 showing the storage, warehousing, and movement of data between applications.

2. Enterprise. The enterprise approach is a more business-oriented version of conceptual data modeling that includes specifi c requirements for an enter- prise or business unit.

3. Logical. Pertinent to the design and architecture of physical storage, logical data modeling “illustrates the specifi c entities, attributes and relationships in- volved in a business function.”

4. Physical. The physical approach depicts the “implementation of a logical data model” relative to a specifi c application and database system.

5. Data integration. This approach is just what it says; it involves merging data from two or more sources, processing the data, and moving it into a database. “This category includes Extract, Transform, and Load (ETL) capabilities.” 21

6. Reference data management. This approach often is confused with MDM, although they do have interdependencies. Reference data is a way to refer to data in categories (e.g., having lookup tables— standard industry classifi cation or SIC codes) to insert values, 22 and is used only to “categorize other data found in a database, or solely for relating data in a database to information beyond the boundaries of the enterprise.” 23 So reference data is not your actual data itself but a reference to categorize data.

Figure 10.3 shows different categories of data.

IT Governance

As introduced in Chapter 2 , IT governance is about effi ciency and value creation. IT governance is the primary way that stakeholders can ensure that investments in IT create

Figure 10.2 Key Steps from Data Modeling to Integration Source: Reproduced from Orangescape.com ( www.orangescape.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ Application-Development-Lifecycle-OrangeScape.png ).

Data Model Business Logic

User Interface

Work Flows Integration

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 197

business value and contribute toward meeting business objectives.24 This strategic align- ment of IT with the business is challenging yet essential. IT governance programs go further and aim to “improve IT performance, deliver optimum business value and ensure regulatory compliance.” 25

Although the CIO typically has line responsibility for implementing IT gover- nance, the chief executive offi cer and board of directors must receive reports and up- dates to discharge their responsibilities for IT governance and to see that the program is functioning well and providing business benefi ts.

The focus of governance in IT is on the actual software development and mainte- nance activities of the IT department or function, and IT governance efforts focus on making IT effi cient and effective. That means minimizing costs by following proven software development methodologies and best practices, principles of data governance and information quality, and project management best practices while aligning IT efforts with the business objectives of the organization.

IT Governance Frameworks

Several IT governance frameworks can be used as a guide to implementing an IT governance program.

Although frameworks and guidance like CobiT® and T ITIL have been widely adopted, there is no absolute standard IT governance framework; the combination that works best for your organization depends on business factors, corporate culture, IT maturity, and staffi ng capability. The level of implementation of these frameworks will also vary by organization.

Figure 10.3 Categories of Data Source: http://www.information-management.com/issues/20060401/1051002-1.html?zkPrintable =1&nopagination=1

Increasing: DATABASE

Semantic content Metadata Most relevant to design

Most relevant to outside world

Most relevant to business

Most relevant to technology

Reference Data

Master Data

Enterprise Structure Data

Transaction Activity Data

Transaction Audit Data

Data quality importance

Volume of data Rates of update Population later in time Shorter life span

IT governance seeks to align business objectives with IT strategy to deliver business value.

198 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

CobiT®

CobiT (Control Objectives for Information and related Technology) is a process-T based IT governance framework that represents a consensus of experts worldwide. It was codeveloped by the IT Governance Institute and ISACA. CobiT addresses busi- ness risks, control requirements, compliance, and technical issues.26

CobiT offers IT controls that:

■ Cut IT risks while gaining business value from IT under an umbrella of a glob- ally accepted framework.

■ Assist in meeting regulatory compliance requirements. ■ Utilize a structured approach for improved reporting and management deci-

sion making. ■ Provide solutions to control assessments and project implementations to

improve IT and information asset control. 27

CobiT consists of detailed descriptions of processes required in IT and tools to measure progress toward maturity of the IT governance program. It is industry agnos- tic and can be applied across all vertical industry sectors, and it continues to be revised and refi ned. 28

CobiT is broken into three basic organizational levels and their responsibilities: (1) board of directors and executive management; (2) IT and business management; and (3) line-level governance, security, and control knowledge workers.29

The CobiT model draws on the traditional “plan, build, run, monitor” paradigm of traditional IT management, only with variations in semantics. There are four IT domains in the COBIT framework, which contain 34 IT processes and 210 control objectives that map to the four specifi c IT processes of:

1. Plan and organize. 2. Acquire and implement. 3. Deliver and support. 4. Monitor and evaluate.

Specifi c goals and metrics are assigned, and responsibilities and accountabilities are delineated.

The CobiT framework maps to ISO 17799 of the International Organization for Standardization and is compatible with Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL) and other accepted practices in IT development and operations. 30

COBIT 5

Released in 2012, CobiT 5 is the latest version of the business framework for the gov- ernance of IT from ISACA. CobiT 5

builds and expands on COBIT 4.1 by integrating other major frameworks, standards and resources, including ISACA’s Val IT and Risk IT, Information Technology Infrastructure Library (ITIL®) and related standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 31

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 199

Key Principles and Enablers “CobiT 5 is based on fi ve key principles for governance and management of enterprise IT:

■ Principle 1: Meeting Stakeholder Needs ■ Principle 2: Covering the Enterprise End-to- End ■ Principle 3: Applying a Single, Integrated Framework ■ Principle 4: Enabling a Holistic Approach ■ Principle 5: Separating Governance From Management

The CobiT 5 framework describes seven categories of enablers:

■ Principles, policies and frameworks are the vehicle to translate the desired behavior into practical guidance for day-to-day management.

■ Processes describe an organized set of practices and activities to achieve cer- tain objectives and produce a set of outputs in support of achieving overall IT-related goals.

■ Organizational structures are the key decision-making entities in an enterprise.

■ Culture, ethics and behavior of individuals and of the enterprise are very oftenr underestimated as a success factor in governance and management activities.

■ Information is required for keeping the organization running and well gov- erned, but at the operational level, information is very often the key product of the enterprise itself.

■ Services, infrastructure and applications include the infrastructure, technol- ogy and applications that provide the enterprise with information technology processing and services.

People, skills and competencies are required for successful completion of all activi- ties, and for making correct decisions and taking corrective actions.” 32

ValIT®

ValIT is a newer value-oriented framework that is compatible with and complemen- tary to CobiT. Its principles and best practices focus is on leveraging IT investments to gain maximum value. Forty key ValIT essential management practices (analogous to CobiT’s control objectives) support three main processes: value governance, port- folio management, and investment management. ValIT and CobiT “provide a full framework and supporting tool set to help managers develop policies to manage

CobiT 5 is the latest version of the business framework for the governance of IT. It has just fi ve principles and seven enablers.

200 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

business risks and deliver business value while addressing technical issues and meeting control objectives in a structured, methodic way.” 33

ValIT Integrated with CobiT 5

The ValIT framework has been folded into the CobiT 5 framework. 34 For more de- tails, you may download free or acquire publications and operational tools on this and related topics at isaca.org.

Key functions of ValIT include:

■ Defi ne the relationship between IT and the business and those functions in the organization with governance responsibilities;

■ Manage an organization’s portfolio of IT-enabled business investments; ■ Maximize the quality of business cases for IT-enabled business investments

with particular emphasis on the defi nition of key fi nancial indicators, the quantifi cation of “soft” benefi ts and the comprehensive appraisal of the downside risk.

Val IT addresses assumptions, costs, risks and outcomes related to a balanced portfolio of IT-enabled business investments. It also provides benchmarking capability and allows enterprises to exchange experiences on best practices for value management. 35

ITIL

ITIL is a set of process-oriented best practices and guidance originally developed in the United Kingdom to standardize delivery of IT service management. ITIL is applicable to both the private and public sectors and is the “most widely accepted ap- proach to IT service management in the world.” 36 As with other IT governance frame- works, ITIL provides essential guidance for delivering business value through IT, and it “provides guidance to organizations on how to use IT as a tool to facilitate business change, transformation and growth.” 37

ITIL best practices form the foundation for ISO/IEC 20000 (previously BS 15000), the International Service Management Standard for organizational certifi cation and compliance. 38 ITIL 2011 is the latest revision (as of this writing).

CobiT is process-oriented and has been widely adopted as an IT governance framework. ValIT is value-oriented and compatible and complementary with CobiT yet focuses on value delivery.

The Val IT framework has been folded into the COBIT 5 framework.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 201

It consists of fi ve core published volumes that map the IT service cycle in a systematic way:

1. ITIL Service Strategy 2. ITIL Service Design 3. ITIL Service Transition 4. ITIL Service Operation 5. ITIL Continual Service Improvement

ISO 38500

ISO/IEC 38500:2008 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors, and those advising them, for the effec- tive and effi cient use of IT. 39 Based primarily on AS 8015, the Australian IT governance standard, it “applies to the governance of management processes” performed at the IT service level, but the guidance assists executives in monitoring IT and ethically discharg- ing their duties with respect to legal and regulatory compliance of IT activities.

The ISO 38500 standard comprises three main sections:

1. Scope, Application and Objectives 2. Framework for Good Corporate Governance of IT 3. Guidance for Corporate Governance of IT

It is largely derived from AS 8015, the guiding principles of which were:

■ Establish responsibilities ■ Plan to best support the organization ■ Acquire validly ■ Ensure performance when required ■ Ensure conformance with rules ■ Ensure respect for human factors

The standard also has relationships with other major ISO standards, and em- braces the same methods and approaches.40

CobiT is process oriented and has been widely adopted as an IT governance framework. ValIT is value oriented and compatible and complementary with CobiT yet focuses on value delivery.

ITIL is the “most widely accepted approach to IT service management in the world.”

202 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

IG Best Practices for Database Security and Compliance

Although security is a topic primarily for Chapter 11 , it is a technical topic that we address here as well. Best practices have been developed over the past few years and can prevent leakage of structured data from databases and Web services due to SQL injections (where hackers attack SQL databases) and other types of attacks.

An organization and its data needs to be connected to its stakeholders—employees, customers, suppliers, and strategic partners. In this interconnected world that keeps ex- panding (e.g., cloud, mobile devices) proprietary data is exposed to a variety of threats. It is critical to protect the sensitive information assets that reside in your databases. 41

Perimeter security often is easily penetrated. Web apps are vulnerable to attacks such as SQL injection (a favorite among malicious approaches). Hackers also can gain access by spear phishing (very specifi c phishing attacks that include personal informa- tion) to glean employee login credentials in order to get access to databases.

Streamlining your approach to database security by implementing a uniform set of policies and processes helps in compliance efforts and reduces costs. Here are some proven database security best practices:

■ Inventory and document. You must fi rst identify where your sensitive data and databases reside in order to secure them. So a discovery and mapping process must take place. You can begin with staff interviews but also use tools such as data loss prevention to map out data fl ows. Include all locations, includ- ing legacy applications, and intellectual property such as price lists, marketing and strategic plans, product designs, and the like. This inventorying/discovery process must be done on a regular basis with the assistance of automated tools, since the location of data can migrate and change.

■ Assess exposure/weaknesses. Look for security holes, missing updates and patches, and any irregularities on a regular basis, using

standard checklists such as the CIS Database Server Benchmarks and the DISA Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs). Do not forget to check OS-level parameters such as fi le privileges for database confi guration fi les and database confi guration options such as roles and permissions, or how many failed logins result in a locked account (these types of database-specifi c checks are typically not performed by network vulnerability assessment scanners).

■ Shore up the database. Based on your evaluation of potential vulnerabilities, take proper steps and also be sure to that used database functions are disabled.

■ Monitor. On a regular basis, monitor and document any confi guration changes, and make sure the “gold” confi guration is stable and unchanged. “Use change auditing tools that compare confi guration snapshots and immediately alert whenever a change is made that affects your security posture.” 42

ISO 38500 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors responsible for IT governance.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 203

■ Deploy monitoring/auditing tools . Deploy these tools to immediately detect intrusions or suspicious activity, use your database’s database activity monitoring (DAM) and database auditing tools continuously and in real time. Note any anomalies, such as usually large numbers of records being downloaded even by authorized users—this could indicate, for instance, a rogue employee gathering information. But also higher-level “privileged users—such as database administrators (DBAs), developers and outsourced personnel” must be monitored to comply with certain regulations. Watch for attackers who have gained access through authorized credentials. DAM creates an audit trail generated in real time that can be the forensic smoking gun in investigations after attacks have occurred. Also, monitor the applica- tion layer, as

well-designed DAM solutions associate specifi c database transactions performed by the application with specifi c end-user IDs, in order to deterministically identify individuals violating corporate policies. In ad- dition, combining database auditing information with OS [operating system] and network logs via a security information and event manage- ment . . . system to see everything that a user has done can also provide critical information for forensic investigations.

■ Verify privileged access . In your audit process, periodically review the list of privi-s leged users and entitlement reports to ensure that superusers and those with access to sensitive information are still authorized.

■ Protect sensitive data . Known sensitive data should be encrypted, so that even if attackers gain access, it is unreadable. “File-level encryption at the OS lay- er, combined with granular real-time monitoring and access control at the database layer, is typically accepted as a practical alternative to column-level encryption and a compensating control for Requirement 3.3 of PCI-DSS.” 43

■ Deploy masking. Hide your live production data by masking test data. “Masking is a key database security technology that de-identifi es live production data, replacing it with realistic but fi ctional data that can then be used for testing, training and development purposes, because it is contextually appropriate to the production data it has replaced.”

■ Integrate and automate standardized security processes. To pass compliance audits, you need to show that processes and system are in place to reduce risks and detect potential intrusions, attacks, and unauthorized use. Standardizing and automating these tasks as much as possible helps minimize compliance costs while protecting the organization’s data.

Implementing these best practices will help keep sensitive data in your databases secure.

Identifying sensitive information in your databases and implementing database security best practices help reduce organizational risk and the cost of compliance.

204 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Tying It All Together

Multiple frameworks and standards can be applied to the IT process to more effectively govern it and focus the processes on business impact. Beginning with a robust data governance program, organizations can ensure, at the more fundamental level, that the information they are using to base decisions on is clean, reliable, and accurate. Implementing an MDM program will help larger organizations with complex IT operations ensure that they are working with consistent data from a single source. Implementing the CobiT 5 business framework for delivering IT results will help support a more effi cient IT operation and include other major frameworks, standards, and best practices. Leveraging the use of the ISO 38500 standard will help senior executives to better manage and govern IT operations, and employing database security best practices will help guard against outside threats.

■ Focusing on business impact and customizing your IG approach to meet business objectives are key best practices for IG in the IT department.

■ Effective data governance can yield bottom-line benefi ts derived from new insights.

■ Good data governance ensures that downstream negative effects of poor data are avoided and that subsequent reports, analyses, and conclusions are based on reliable, trusted data.

■ Master data management is a key IG process in IT.

■ IT governance seeks to align business objectives with IT strategy to deliver business value.

■ CobiT 5 is the latest version of the business framework for the governance of IT. It has just fi ve principles and seven enablers.

■ CobiT is process oriented and has been widely adopted as an IT governance framework. ValIT is value oriented and compatible and complementary with CobiT yet focuses on value delivery.

■ ValIT is a framework that focuses on delivering IT vale. It is folded into CobiT 5.

■ ITIL is the “most widely accepted approach to IT service management in the world.”

■ ISO 38500 is an international standard that provides high-level principles and guidance for senior executives and directors responsible for IT governance

■ Identifying sensitive information in your databases and implementing data- base security best practices help reduce organizational risk and the cost of compliance.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS 205

Notes

1. Ibid. Gartner Says Master Data Management Is Critical to Achieving Effective Information Gover- nance, www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/1898914 (accessed on January 19, 2012).

2. IBM, “Selling Information Governance to Business Leaders,” www.information-management.com/ newsletters/governance-ROI-BI-business-rules-GRC-10021663-1.html (accessed June 3, 2013).

3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Steven Adler, “Six Steps to Data Governance Success,” May 31, 2007, www.cio.com/article/114750/Six_

Steps_to_Data_Governance_Success . 6. “New Trends and Best Practices for Data Governance Success,” SeachDataManagement.com e-book,

http://viewer.media.bitpipe.com/1216309501_94/1288990195_946/Talend_sDM_SO_32247_EB- ook_1104.pdf (accessed March 11, 2013).

7. Ibid. 8. “The DGI Data Governance Framework,” DataGovernance.com, www.datagovernance.com/fw_the_

DGI_data_governance_framework.html (accessed June 4, 2013). 9. “Information Management,” BusinessDictionary.com, www.businessdictionary.com/definition/

information-management.html (accessed June 4, 2013). 10. Sunil Soares, Selling Information Governance to the Business (Ketcham, ID: MC Press, 2011), p. 4. s 11. Daniel Teachey, “The Year of Master Data Management,” May 1, 2012, http://tdwi.org/articles/2012/05/01/

lesson-2012-the-year-of-master-data-management.aspx . 12. Andrew White, “We Are Only Half Pregnant with MDM,” April 17, 2013, http://blogs.gartner.com/

andrew_white/2013/04/17/we-are-only-half-pregnant-with-master-data-management/ 13. Gartner IT Glossary, “Master Data Management,” www.gartner.com/it-glossary/master-data-management-

mdm/ (accessed June 11, 2013). 14. Teachey, “Year of Master Data Management.” 15. Bill Tolson, “Information Governance 101,” May 21, 2013, http://informationgovernance101.

com/2013/05/21/the-lifecycle-of-information/. 16. Gartner IT Glossary, “Information Lifecycle Management,” www.gartner.com/it-glossary/information-

life-cycle-management-ilm (accessed June 11, 2013). 17. Soares, Selling Information Governance to the Business. s 18. “Data Architecture,” BusinessDictionary.com, www.businessdictionary.com/defi nition/data-architecture

.html (accessed June 11, 2013). 19. “Data Modeling,” TechTarget, http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com/defi nition/data-model-

ing (accessed June 11, 2013).Ibid. 20. Ibid . 21. Soares, Selling Information Governance to the Business. s 22. Ibid. 23. Malcolm Chisholm, “Master Data Versus Reference Data,” Information Management , April 1, 2006, t

www.information-management.com/issues/20060401/1051002-1.html . 24. M. N. Kooper, R. Maes, and E.E.O. Roos Lindgreen, “On the Governance of Information: Introducing a

New Concept of Governance to Support the Management of Information,” International Journal of Information Management 31 (2011): 195–20, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268401210000708 .t

25. Nick Robinson, “The Many Faces of IT Governance: Crafting an IT Governance Architecture,” ISACA Journal 1 (2007), www.isaca.org/Journal/Past-Issues/2007/Volume-1/Pages/The-Many-Faces-l of-IT-Governance-Crafting-an-IT-Governance-Architecture.aspx.

26. Bryn Phillips, “IT Governance for CEOs and Members of the Board,” 2012, p. 26. 27. IBM Global Business Services—Public Sector, “Control Objectives for Information and related Technol-

ogy (CobiT®) Internationally Accepted Gold Standard for IT Controls and Governance,” 2008, http:// www-304.ibm.com/industries/publicsector/fi leserve?contentid=187551 (accessed March 11, 2013).

28. Phillips, “IT Governance for CEOs and Members of the Board.” 29. IBM Global Business Services—Public Sector, “CobiT®.” 30. Ibid. 31. “COBIT 5: A Business Framework for the Governance and Management of Enterprise IT,” www.isaca

.org/COBIT/Pages/default.aspx (accessed December 8, 2013). 32. Ibid. 33. IBM Global Business Services—Public Sector, “CobiT®.” 34. IASCA, “Val IT Framework for Business Technology Management,” www.isaca.org/Knowledge-Center/

Val-IT-IT-Value-Delivery-/Pages/Val-IT1.aspx?utm_source=multiple&utm_medium=multiple&utm_ content=friendly&utm_campaign=valit (accessed June 12, 2013).

206 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

35. Ibid. 36. ITIL, “Welcome to the Official ITIL® Website,” www.itil-officialsite.com/ (accessed

March 12, 2013). 37. ITIL, “What Is ITIL?” www.itil-offi cialsite.com/AboutITIL/WhatisITIL.aspx (accessed March 12,

2013). 38. Ibid. 39. ISO, “ISO/IEC 38500:2008: Corporate Governance of Information Technology,” www.iso.org/iso/

catalogue_detail?csnumber=51639 (accessed March 12, 2013). 40. “ISO 38500 IT Governance Standard” (2008), www.38500.org/ (accessed March 12, 2013). 41. The following discussion and quotes are from Phil Neray, “Beating the Breach: 10 Best Practices

for Database Security and Compliance,” November 3, 2011, http://datasafestorage.wordpress .com/2011/11/15/beating-the-breach-10-best-practices-for-database-security-and-compliance/.

42. Ibid 43. Ibid

207

Privacy and security go hand in hand. Privacy cannot be protected without imple-menting proper security controls and technologies. Organization must make not only reasonable efforts to protect privacy of data, but they must go much further as privacy breaches are damaging to its customers, reputation, and potentially, could put the company out of business.

Breaches are increasingly being carried out by malicious attacks, but also a sig- nifi cant source of breaches is internal mistakes caused by poor information gover- nance (IG) practices, software bugs, and carelessness. The average cost of a data breach in 2013 was over $5 million dollars, according to the Ponemon Institute, 1 but some spectacular breaches have occurred, such as the $45 million in fraudulent automated teller machine cash withdrawals in New York City within hours in early 2013, and the 110 million customer records breached at giant retailer Target in late 2013. Millions of breaches occur each year: There were an estimated 354 million privacy breaches between 2005 and 2010 in the United States alone.

Cyberattacks Proliferate

Online attacks and snooping continue at an increasing rate. Organizations must be vigilant about securing their internal, confi dential documents and e-mail messages. In 2011, security experts at Intel/McAfee “discovered an unprecedented series of cyber attacks on the networks of 72 organizations globally, including the United Nations, governments and corporations, over a fi ve-year period.” 2 Dmitri Alperovitch of McAfee described the incident as “ the biggest transfer of wealth in terms of intellectual“ property in history.”3 The level of intrusion is ominous.

The targeted victims included governments, including the United States, Canada, India, and others; corporations, including high-tech companies and defense contrac- tors; the International Olympic Committee; and the United Nations. “In the case of the United Nations, the hackers broke into the computer system of its secretariat in

Information Governance and Privacy and Security Functions

C H A P T E R 11

Portions of this chapter are adapted from Chapters 11 and 12, Robert F. Smallwood, Safeguarding Critical E-Documents: Implementing a Program for Securing Confi dential Information Assets , © John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. Reproduced with s permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

208 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Geneva in 2008, hid there for nearly two years, and quietly combed through reams of secret data, according to McAfee.” 4 Attacks can be occurring in organizations for years before they are uncovered—if they are discovered at all. This means that an organization may be covertly monitored by criminals or competitors for extended periods of time.

And they are not the only ones spying—look no further than the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) scandal of 2013. With Edward Snowden’s revelations, it is clear that governments are accessing, monitoring, and storing massive amounts of private data.

Where this stolen information is going and how it will be used is yet to be determined. But it is clear that possessing this competitive intelligence could give a government or company a huge advantage economically, competitively, diplomatically, and militarily.

The information assets of companies and government agencies are at risk globally. Some are invaded and eroded daily, without detection. The victims are losing economic advantage and national secrets to unscrupulous rivals, so it is imperative that IG policies are formed, followed, enforced, tested, and audited. It is also imperative to use the best available technology to counter or avoid such attacks. 5

Insider Threat: Malicious or Not

Ibas, a global supplier of data recovery and computer forensics, conducted a survey of 400 business professionals about their attitudes toward intellectual property (IP) theft:

■ Nearly 70 percent of employees have engaged in IP theft, taking corporate property upon (voluntary or involuntary) termination.

■ Almost one-third have taken valuable customer contact information, databases, or other client data.

■ Most employees send e-documents to their personal e-mail accounts when pil- fering the information.

■ Almost 60 percent of surveyed employees believe such actions are acceptable. ■ Those who steal IP often feel that they are entitled to partial ownership rights,

especially if they had a hand in creating the fi les. 6

These survey statistics are alarming, and by all accounts the trend continuing to worsen today. Clearly, organizations have serious cultural challenges to combat prevailing attitudes toward IP theft. A strong and continuous program of IG aimed at secur- ing confi dential information assets can educate employees, raise their IP security

Attacks can continue in organizations for years before they are uncovered—if they are discovered at all.

The average cost of a data breach in 2013 was over $5 million.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 209

awareness, and train them on techniques to help secure valuable IP. And the change needs to be driven from the top: from the CEO and boardroom. However, the mag- nitude of the problem in any organization cannot be accurately known or measured. Without the necessary IG monitoring and enforcement tools, executives cannot know the extent of the erosion of information assets and the real cost in cash and intangible terms over the long term.

Countering the Insider Threat

Frequently ignored, the insider has increasingly become the main threat—more than the external threats outside of the perimeter. Insider threat breaches can be more costly than outsider breaches. Most of the insider incidents go unnoticed or unreported.7

Companies have been spending a lot of time and effort protecting their perimeters from outside attacks. In recent years, most companies have realized that the insider threat is something that needs to be taken more seriously.

Malicious Insider

Malicious insiders and saboteurs comprise a very small minority of employees. A dis- gruntled employee or sometimes an outright spy can cause a lot of damage. Malicious insiders have many methods at their disposal to harm the organization by destroying equipment, gaining unsanctioned access to IP, or removing sensitive information by USB drive, e-mail, or other methods.

Nonmalicious Insider

Fifty-eight percent of Wall Street workers say they would take data from their company if they were terminated, and believed they could get away with it, according to a recent survey by security fi rm CyberArk.8 Frequently, they do this without malice. The majority of users indicated having sent out documents accidentally via e-mail. So, clearly it is easy to leak documents without meaning to do any harm, and that is the cause of most leaks.

Solution

Trust and regulation are not enough. In the case of a nonmalicious user, companies should invest in security, risk education, and IG training. A solid IG program can reduce IP leaks through education, training, monitoring, and enforcement.

Security professionals state that insider threat breaches are often more costly than outsider ones.

Information assets are invaded and eroded daily, often without detection. This compromises competitive position and has real fi nancial impact.

210 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

In the case of the malicious user, companies need to take a hard look and see whether they have any effective IG enforcement and document life cycle security (DLS) technology such as information rights management (IRM) in place. Most often, the answer is no. 9

Privacy Laws

The protection of personally identifi able information (PII) is a core focus of IG efforts. PII is any information that can identify an individual, such as name, Social Security number, medical record number, credit card number, and so on. Various privacy laws have been enacted in an effort to protect privacy. You must consult your legal counsel to determine which laws and regulation apply to your organization and its data and documents.

In the United States, the Federal Wiretap Act “prohibits the unauthorized inter- ception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications.” The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 amended the Federal Wiretap Act sig- nifi cantly and included specifi c on e-mail privacy. 10 The Stored Communications and Transactional Records Act (SCTRA) was created as a part of ECPA and is “sometimes useful for protecting the privacy of e-mail and other Internet communications when discovery is sought.” The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act makes it a crime to in- tentionally breach a “protected computer” (one used by a fi nancial institution or for interstate commerce).

Also relevant for public entities is the Freedom of Information Act, which allows U.S. citizens to request government documents that have not previously been released, although sometime sensitive information is redacted (blacked out), and specifi es the steps for disclosure as well as the exemptions. In the United Kingdom, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides for similar disclosure requirements and mandatory steps.

In the United Kingdom, privacy laws and regulations include these:

■ Data Protection Act 1998 ■ Freedom of Information Act 2000 ■ Public Records Act 1958 ■ Common law duty of confi dentiality ■ Confi dentiality National Health Service (NHS) Code of Practice ■ NHS Care Record Guarantee for England ■ Social Care Record Guarantee for England ■ Information Security NHS Code of Practice ■ Records Management NHS Code of Practice

Also, the international information security standard ISO/IEC 27002: 2005 comes into play when implementing security.

Redaction

Redaction is the process of blocking out sensitive fi elds of information. In a paper environment, this was done with a black marking pen; however, privacy software can redact certain fi elds in digital documents, making them unreadable. Redaction is used

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 211

for confi dential patient information in medical records as well as other confi dential document types, such as birth certifi cates, fi nancial documents, property deeds, and other unstructured information that is managed.

A complete audit trail should be enabled that shows when specifi c users accessed or printed specifi c confi dential information.

Limitations of Perimeter Security

Traditionally, central computer system security has been primarily perimeter security—securing the fi rewalls and perimeters within which e-documents are stored and attempting to keep intruders out—rather than securing e-documents directly upon their creation. The basic access security mechanisms implemented, such as passwords, two-factor authentication, and identity verifi cation, are rendered totally ineffective once the confi dential e-documents or records are legitimately accessed by an authorized employee. The documents are usually bare and unsecured. This poses tremendous challenges if the employee is suddenly terminated, if the person is a rogue intent on doing harm, or if outside hackers are able to penetrate the secured perimeter. And, of course, it is com- mon knowledge that they do it all the time. The focus should be on securing the documents themselves, directly.

Restricting access is the goal of conventional perimeter security, but it does not directly protect the information inside. Perimeter security protects information the same way a safe protects valuables; if safecrackers get in, the contents are theirs. There are no protections once the safe is opened. Similarly, if hackers penetrate the perimeter security, they have complete access to the information inside, which they can steal, alter, or misuse. 11 The perimeter security approach has four fundamental limitations:

1. Limited effectiveness. Perimeter protection stops dead at the fi rewall, even though sensitive information is sent past it and circulates around the Web, unsecured. Today’s extended computing model and the trend toward global business means that business enterprises and government agencies frequently share sensitive information externally with other stakeholders, including busi- ness partners, customers, suppliers, and constituents.

2. Haphazard protections. In the normal course of business, knowledge workers send, work on, and store copies of the same information outside the organi- zation’s established perimeter. Even if the information’s new digital environ- ment is secured by other perimeters, each one utilizes different access controls or sometimes no access control at all (e.g., copying a price list from a sales folder to a marketing folder; an attorney copying a case brief or litigation strategy document from a paralegal’s case folder).

3. Too complex. With this multi-perimeter scenario, there are simply too many pe- rimeters to manage, and often they are out of the organization’s direct control.

4. No direct protections. Attempts to create boundaries or portals protected by pe- rimeter security within which stakeholders (partners, suppliers, shareholders, or customers) can share information causes more complexity and administra- tive overhead while it fails to protect the e-documents and data directly. 12

Despite the current investment in e-document security, it is astounding that once information is shared today, it is largely unknown who will be accessing it tomorrow.

212 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Defense in Depth

Defense in depth is an approach that uses multiple layers of security mechanisms to protect information assets and reduce the likelihood that rogue attacks can succeed.13 The idea is based on military principles that an enemy is stymied by complex layers and approaches compared to a single line. That is, hackers may be able to penetrate one or two of the defense layers, but multiple security layers increase the chances of catching the attack before it gets too far. Defense in depth includes a fi rewall as a fi rst line of defense and also antivirus and anti-spyware software, identity and access management (IAM), hierarchical passwords, intrusion detection, and biometric t verifi cation. Also, as a part of an overall IG program, physical security measures are deployed, such as smartcard or even biometric access to facilities and intensive IG training and auditing.

Controlling Access Using Identity Access Management

IAM software can provide an important piece of the security solution. It aims to pre- vent unauthorized people from accessing a system and to ensure that only authorized individuals engage with information, including confi dential e-documents.

Today’s business environment operates in a more extended and mobile model, often including stakeholders outside of the organization. With this more complex and fl uctuating group of users accessing information management applications, the idea of identity management has gained increased importance.

The response to the growing number of software applications using inconsistent or incompatible security models is strong identity management enforcement software. These scattered applications offer opportunities not only for identity theft but also for identity drag , where the maintenance of identities does not keep up with changing g identities, especially in organizations with a large workforce. This can result in theft of confi dential information assets by unauthorized or out-of-date access and even failure to meet regulatory compliance, which can result in fi nes and imprisonment.14

IAM—along with sharp IG policies—“manages and governs user access to infor- mation through an automated, continuous process.” 15 Implemented properly, good IAM does keep access limited to authorized users while increasing security, reducing IT complexity, and increasing operating effi ciencies.

Critically, “IAM addresses ‘access creep’ where employees move to a different department of business unit and their rights to access information fail to get updated” (emphasis added).” 16

In France in 2007, a rogue stock trader at Société Générale had in-depth knowl- edge of the bank’s access control procedures from his job at the home offi ce. 17 He used that information to defraud the bank and its clients out of over €7 billion (over $10 billion). If the bank had implemented an IAM solution, the crime might not have been possible.

“IAM addresses ‘access creep’ where employees move to a different depart- ment of business unit and their rights to access information fail to get updated.”

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 213

A robust and effective IAM solution provides for:

■ Auditing . Detailed audit trails of g who attempted to access which information , and when . Stolen identities can be uncovered if, for instance, an authorized user attempts to log in from more than one computer at a time.

■ Constant updating. Regular reviews of access rights assigned to individuals, in- cluding review and certifi cation for user access, an automated recertifi cation process ( attestation ), and enforcement of IG access policies that govern the way users access information in respect to segregation of duties.

■ Evolving roles. Role life cycle management should be maintained on a continuous basis, to mine and manage roles and their associated access rights and policies.

■ Risk reduction. Remediation regarding access to critical documents and information.

Enforcing IG: Protect Files with Rules and Permissions

One of the fi rst tasks often needed when developing an IG program that secures confi - dential information assets is to defi ne roles and responsibilities for those charged with implementing, maintaining, and enforcing IG policies. Corollaries that spring from that effort get down to the nitty-gritty of controlling information access by rules and permissions.

Rules and permissions specify who (by roles) is allowed access to which documents and information, and even contextually from where (offi ce, home, travel) and at what times (work hours, or extended hours). Using the old policy of the s need-to-know basis is a good rule of thumb to apply when setting up these access policies (i.e., only those who are at a certain level of the organization or are directly involved in certain projects are allowed access to confi dential and sensitive information). The roles are relatively easy to defi ne in a traditional hierarchical structure, but today’s fl atter and more col- laborative enterprises present challenges.

To effectively wall off and secure information by management level, many compa- nies and governments have put in place an information security framework—a model that delineates which levels of the organization have access to specifi c documents and databases as a part of implemented IG policy. This framework shows a hierarchy of the company’s management distributed across a range of defi ned levels of information access. The U.S. Government Protection Profi le for Authorization Server for Basic Robustness Environments is an example of such a framework.

Challenge of Securing Confi dential E-Documents

Today’s various document and content management systems were not initially designed to allow for secure document sharing and collaboration while also preventing docu- ment leakage. These software applications were mostly designed before the invention and adoption of newer business technologies that have extended the computing environment. The introduction of cloud computing, mobile PC devices, smartphones, social media, and online collaboration tools all came after most of today’s document and content management systems were developed and brought to market.

214 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Thus, vulnerabilities have arisen that need to be addressed with other, comple- mentary technologies. We need to look no further than the WikiLeaks incident and the myriad of other major security breaches resulting in document and data leakage to see that there are serious information security issues in both the public and private sectors.

Technology is the tool, but without proper IG policies and a culture of compli- ance that supports the knowledge workers following IG policies, any effort to secure confi dential information assets will fail. An old IT adage is that even perfect technology will fail without user commitment.

Protecting Confi dential E-Documents: Limitations of Repository-Based Approaches

Organizations invest billions of dollars in IT solutions that manage e-documents and records in terms of security, auditing, search, records retention and disposition, version control, and so on. These information management solutions are predominantly re- pository-based, including enterprise content management (ECM) systems and collab- orative workspaces (for unstructured information, such as e-documents). With content or document repositories, the focus has always been on perimeter security—keeping intruders out of the network. But that provides only partial protection. Once intrud- ers are in, they are in and have full access to confi dential e-documents. For those who are authorized to access the content, there are no protections, so they may freely copy, forward, print, or even edit and alter the information. 18

The glaring vulnerability in the security architecture of ECM systems is that few protec- tions exist once the information is legitimately accessed.

These confi dential information assets, which may include military plans, price lists, patented designs, blueprints, drawings, and fi nancial reports, often can be printed, e-mailed, or faxed to unauthorized parties without any security attached. 19

Also, in the course of their normal work processes, knowledge workers tend to keep an extra copy of the electronic documents they are working on stored at their desktop, or they download and copy them to a tablet or laptop to work at home or while traveling. This creates a situation where multiple copies of these e-documents are scat- tered about on various devices and media, which creates a security problem, since they are out- side of the repository and no longer secured, managed, controlled, or audited.

The glaring vulnerability in the security architecture of ECM systems is that few protections exist once the information is legitimately accessed.

Technologies like fi rewalls, access controls, and gateway fi lters can grant or deny access but cannot provide granular enforcement of acceptable use policies that defi ne what users can and cannot do with confi dential data and documents.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 215

It also creates records management issues in terms of the various versions that might be out there and determining which one is the offi cial business record.

Apply Better Technology for Better Enforcement in the Extended Enterprise

Protecting E-Documents in the Extended Enterprise

Sharing e-documents and collaborating are essential in today’s increasingly mobile and global world. Businesses are operating in a more distributed model than ever be- fore, and they are increasingly sharing and collaborating not only with coworkers but also with suppliers, customers, and even at times competitors (e.g., in pharmaceutical research). This reality presents a challenge to organizations dealing in sensitive and confi dential information.20

Basic Security for the Microsoft Windows Offi ce Desktop

The fi rst level of protection for e-documents begins with basic protections at the desktop level. Microsoft Offi ce provides ways to password-protect Microsoft Offi ce fi les, such as those created in Word and Excel, quickly and easily. Many corporations and government agencies around the world use these basic protections. A key fl aw or caveat is that passwords used in protecting documents cannot be retrieved if they are forgotten or lost.

Where Do Deleted Files Go?

When you delete a fi le it is gone, right? Actually, it is not (with the possible exception of solid state hard drives). For example, after a fi le is deleted in Windows, a simple undelete DOS command can bring back the fi le, if it has not been overwritten. That is because when fi les are deleted, they are not really deleted; rather, the space where they reside is marked for reuse and can be overwritten. If it is not yet overwritten, the fi le is still there. The same process occurs as drafts of documents are created and temp (for temporary ) fi les are stored. The portions of a hard drive where deleted or temp fi les are stored can be overwritten. This is called unallocated space. Most users are unaware that deleted fi les and fragments of documents and drafts are stored temporarily on their computer’s unallocated space. So it must be wiped clean and completely erased to ensure that any confi dential documents or drafts are completely removed from the hard drive.

IG programs include the highest security measures, which means that an organi- zation must have a policy that includes deleting sensitive materials from a computer’s unallocated space and tests that verify such deletion actions are successful periodically.

Lock Down: Stop All External Access to Confi dential E-Documents

Organizations are taking other approaches to stop document and data leakage: physi- cally restricting access to a computer by disconnecting it from any network con- nections and forbidding or even blocking use of any ports. Although cumbersome, these methods are effective in highly classifi ed or restricted areas where confi dential

216 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

e-documents are held. Access is controlled by utilizing multiple advanced identity ver- ifi cation methods, such as biometric means.

Secure Printing

Organizations normally expend a good amount of effort making sure that computers, documents, and private information are protected and secure. However, if your com- puter is hooked up to a network printer (shared by multiple knowledge workers), all of that effort might have been wasted. 21

Some basic measures can be taken to protect confi dential documents from being compromised as they are printed. You simply invoke some standard Microsoft Offi ce protections, which allow you to print the documents once you arrive in the copy room or at the networked printer. This process varies slightly, depending on the printer’s manufacturer. (Refer to the documentation for the printer for details.)

In Microsoft Offi ce, there is an option in the Print Dialog Box for delayed print- ing of documents (when you physically arrive at the printer).

Serious Security Issues with Large Print Files of Confi dential Data

According to Canadian output and print technology expert William Broddy, in a company’s data center, a print fi le of, for instance, investment account statements or bank statements contains all the rich information that a hacker or malicious insider needs. It is information distilled to the most important core data about customers, and has been referred to as data syrup since it has been boiled down and contains no mountains of extraneous data, only the culled, cleaned, essential data that gives criminals exactly what they need.d 22

What most managers are not aware of is that entire print fi les and sometimes remnants of them stay on the hard drives of high-speed printers and are vulnerable to security breaches. Data center security personnel closely monitor calls to their data- base. To extract as much data as is contained in print fi les, a hacker requires hundreds or even thousands of calls to the database, which sets off alerts by system monitor- ing tools. But retrieving a print fi le takes only one intrusion, and it may go entirely unnoticed. The fi les are sitting there; a rogue service technician or fi eld engineer can retrieve them on a routine service call.

To help secure print fi les, specialized hardware devices designed to sit between the print server and the network and cloak server print fi les are visible only to those who have a cloaking device on the other end.

Organizations must practice good IG and have specifi c procedures to erase sensitive print fi les once they have been utilized. For instance, in the example of preparing statements to mail to clients, fi les are exposed to possible intrusions in at least six points in the process (starting with print fi le preparation and ending with the actual mailing). These points must be tightly monitored and controlled. Typically, an

A print fi le contains all the distilled customer information a hacker might want. Retrieving a print fi le takes only one intrusion and may go entirely unnoticed.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 217

organization retains a print fi le for about 14 days, though some keep fi les long enough for customers to receive statements in the mail and review them. Organizations must make sure that print fi les or their remnants are secured and then completely erased when the printing job is fi nished.

E-Mail Encryption

Encrypting (scrambling using advanced algorithms) sensitive e-mail messages is an effective step to securing confi dential information assets while in transit. Encryption can also be applied to desktop folders and fi les and even entire disk drives (full disk en- cryption, or FDE). All confi dential or sensitive data and e-documents that are exposed to third parties or transferred over public networks should be secured with fi le-level encryption, at a minimum. 23

Secure Communications Using Record-Free E-Mail

What types of tools can you use to encourage the free fl ow of ideas in collaborative efforts without compromising your confi dential information assets or risking litigation or compliance sanctions?

Stream messaging is an innovation that became commercially viable around 2006. It is similar in impact to IRM software, which limits the recipients’ ability to forward, print, or alter data in an e-mail message (or reports, spreadsheets, etc.) but goes further by leaving no record on any computer or server.r

Stream messaging is a simple, safe, secure electronic communications system ideal for ensuring that sensitive internal information is kept confi dential and not publicly released. Stream messaging is not intended to be a replacement for enterprise e-mail but is a complement to it. If you need an electronic record, e-mail it; if not, use stream messaging. 24

What makes stream messaging unique is its recordlessness. Streamed messages cannot be forwarded, edited, or saved. A copy cannot be printed as is possible with e-mail. That is because stream messaging separates the sender’s and receiver’s names and the date from the body of the message, never allowing them to be seen together. Even if the sender or receiver were to attempt to make a copy using the print-screen function, these ele- ments are never captured together.25

Files are exposed to possible intrusions in at least six points between print fi le preparation and fi nal hard-copy mailing.

With stream messaging, no record or trace of communication is left.

218 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

The instant a stream message is sent, it is placed in a temporary storage buffer space. When the recipient logs in to read the message, it is removed from the buffer space. By the time the recipient opens it, the complete stream message no longer exists on the server or any other computer.

This communications approach is Web based, meaning that no hardware or soft- ware purchases are required. It also works with existing e-mail systems and e-mail addresses and is completely immune to spam and viruses. Other solutions (both past and present) have been offered, but these have taken the approach of encrypting e-mail or generating e-mail that disappears after a preset time. Neither of these approaches is truly recordless.

Stream messaging is unique because its technology effectively eliminates the ability to print, cut, paste, forward, or save a message. It may be the only electronic commu- nications system that separates the header information—date, name of sender, name of recipient—from the body of the message. This eliminates a traceable record of the communication. Soon many other renditions of secure messaging will be developed.

In addition, stream messaging offers the added protection of being an indiscrimi- nate Web-based service, meaning that the messages and headers are never hosted on the subscribing companies’ networks. This eliminates the risk that employers, com- petitors, or hackers could intercept stream messages, which is a great security benefi t for end users. 26

Digital Signatures

Digital signatures are more than just digitized autographs—they carry detailed audit information used to “detect unauthorized modifi cations” to e-documents and to “authenticate the identity of the signatory.” 27

Online transactions can be conducted with full trust that they are legal, proper, and binding. They prove that the person whose signature is on the e-document did, in fact, authorize it. A digital signature provides evidence in demonstrating to a third party that the signature was genuine, true, and authentic, which is known as nonrepudiation . To repudiate is to dispute, and with digital signatures, a signatory is unable to claim that the signature is forged.

Digital signatures can be implemented a variety of ways—not just through soft- ware but also through fi rmware (programmed microchips), computer hardware, or a combination of the three. Generally, hardware- and fi rmware-based implementations are more diffi cult to hack, since their instructions are hardwired.

Here is a key point: For those who are unfamiliar with the technology, there is a big difference between electronic signatures and digital signatures. 28

An “electronic signature is likely to be a bit-map image, either from a scanned image, a fax copy or a picture of someone’s signature, or may even be a typed acknowledgement or acceptance.” A digital signature contains “extra data appended to

There is a big difference between digital and electronic signatures. Digital signatures contain additional authenticating information.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 219

a message which identifi es and authenticates the sender and message data using public-key encryption.”29”

So digital signatures are the only ones that offer any real security advantages. Digital signatures are verifi ed by the combination of applying a signatory’s private

signing key and the public key that comes from the signatory’s personal ID certifi - cate. After that, only the public key ID certifi cate is required for future verifi cations. “In addition, a checksum mechanism confi rms that there have been no modifi cations to the content .” t 30

A formal, trusted certifi cate authority (CA) issues the certifi cate associated with the public-private key. It is possible to generate self-certifi ed public keys, but these do not verify and authenticate the recipient’s identity and are therefore fl awed from a security standpoint. The interchange of verifi ed signatures is possible on a global scale, as “digital signature standards are mature and converging internationally.” 31

After more than 30 years of predictions, the paperless offi ce is almost here. Business process cycles have been reduced, and great effi ciencies have been gained since the majority of documents today are created digitally and spend most of their life cycle in digital form, and they can be routed through work steps using business process management (BPM) and work fl ow software. However, the requirement for a physical signature frequently disrupts and holds up these business processes . Documents have to bes printed out, physically routed, and physically signed—and often they are scanned back into a document or records management (or contract management) system, which defeats the effi ciencies sought.

Often multiple signatures are required in an approval process, and some organiza- tions require each page to be initialed, which makes the process slow and cumbersome when it is executed without the benefi t of digital signatures. Also, multiple copies are generated—as many as 20—so digital signature capability injected into a business pro- cess can account for signifi cant time and cost savings. 32

Document Encryption

There is some overlap and sometimes confusion between digital signatures and document encryption. Suffi ce it to say that they work differently, in that document encryption secures a document for those who share a secret key, and digital signatures prove that the document has not been altered and the signature is authentic.

There are e-records management implications of employing document encryption:

Unless it is absolutely essential, full document encryption is often advised against for use within electronic records management systems as it prevents full-text indexing, and requires that the decryption keys (and application) are available for any future access. Furthermore, if the decryption key is lost or

Requiring a physical signature can disrupt and slow business processes. Digital signatures speed that up and add a layer of security.

220 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

an employee leaves without passing it on, encrypted documents and records will in effect be electronically shredded as no one will be able to read them.

Correctly certifi ed digital signatures do not prevent unauthorized per- sons reading a document nor are they intended to. They do confi rm that the person who signed it is who they say they are, and that the document has not been altered since they signed it. Within a records management system a digi- tal signature is often considered to be an important part of the metadata of a document, confi rming both its heritage and its integrity.33

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) Technology

The aforementioned document security challenges have given rise to an emerging but critical set of capabilities by a new breed of IT companies that provide data loss prevention (DLP) (also called data leak prevention). DLP providers create software and hardware appliances that thoroughly inspect all e-documents and e-mail messages before they leave the organization’s perimeter and attempt to stop sensitive data from exiting the fi rewall.

This fi ltering is based on several factors, but mostly using specifi ed critical content keywords that are fl agged by the implementing organization. DLP can also stop the exit of information assets by document types, origin, time of day, and other factors.

DLP systems are designed to detect and prevent unauthorized use and transmission of confi dential information.34 In more detail, DLP is a computer security term referring to systems that identify, monitor, and protect data/documents in all three states: (1) in use (endpoint actions), (2) in motion (network actions), and (3) at rest (data/document stor-t age). DLP accomplishes this by deep content inspection and contextual security analysis of transaction data (e.g., attributes of the originator, the data object, medium, timing, recipient/destination, etc.) with a centralized management framework.

Promise of DLP

Gartner reports that the DLP market reached an estimated $670 million in 2013, up from $425 million in 2011, and “with adoption of DLP technologies moving quickly down to the small to medium enterprise, DLP is no longer an unknown quantity.” 35 Although the DLP market has matured, it suffers from confusion about how DLP best fi ts into the new mix of security approaches, how it is best utilized (endpoint or gateway), and even the defi nition of DLP itself. 36

Data loss is very much on managers’ and executives’ minds today. The series of WikiLeaks incidents exposed hundreds of thousands of sensitive government and mili- tary documents. According to the Ponemon Institute (as reported by DLP Experts), data leaks continue to increase annually. Billions of dollars are lost every year as a result of data leaks, with the cost of each breach ranging from an average of $700,000 to $31 million. Some interesting statistics from the study include:

■ Almost half of breaches happen while an enterprise’s data was in the hands of a third party.

■ Over one-third of breaches involved lost or stolen mobile devices.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 221

■ The cost per stolen record is approximately $200 to $225. ■ One-quarter of breaches were conducted by criminals or with malicious intent. ■ More than 80 percent of breaches compromised over 1,000 records. 37

What DLP Does Well (and Not So Well)

DLP has been deployed successfully as a tool used to map the fl ow of data inside and exiting the organization to determine the paths that content takes, so that more sophisticated information mapping, monitoring, and content security can take place.

This use as a traffi c monitor for analysis purposes has been much more successful than relying on DLP as the sole enforcement tool for compliance and to secure information assets. s Today’s technology is simply not fast enough to catch everything. It catches many e-mail messages and documents that users are authorized to send, which slows the network and the business down. This also adds unnecessary overhead, as someone has to go back and release each and every one of the e-mails or documents that were wrongly stopped.

Another downside: Since DLP relies on content inspection, it cannot detect and monitor encrypted e-mail or documents.

Basic DLP Methods

DLP solutions typically apply one of three methods:

1. Scanning traffi c for keywords or regular expressions, such as customer credit card or Social Security numbers.

2. Classifying documents and content based on a predefi ned set to determine what is likely to be confi dential and what is not.

3. Tainting (in the case of agent-based solutions), whereby documents are tagged and then monitored to determine how to classify derivative documents. For example, if someone copies a portion of a sensitive document into a different document, this document receives the same security clearance as the original document. 38

All these methods involve the network administrator setting up a policy clearly defi ning what is allowed to be sent out and what should be kept in confi dence. This policy creating effort is extremely diffi cult: Defi ning a policy that is too broad means ac-d cidentally letting sensitive information get out, and defi ning a policy that is too narrow means getting a signifi cant amount of false positives and stopping the fl ow of normal business communications.

Although network security management is well established, defi ning these types of IG policies is extremely diffi cult for a network administrator. Leaving this job to network administrators means there will be no collaboration with business units, no standardization, and no real forethought. As a result, many installations are plagued with false positives that are fl agged and stopped, which can stifl e and frustrate knowl- edge workers. The majority of DLP deployments simply use DLP for monitoring and audit- ing purposes.

Examining the issue of the dissolving perimeter more closely, a deeper problem is revealed: DLP is binary; it is black or white. Either a certain e-document or e-mail can

222 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

leave the organization’s boundaries or it cannot. This process has been referred to as outbound content compliance.

But this is not how the real world works today. Now there is an increasing need for collaboration and for information to be shared or reside outside the organization on mobile devices or in the cloud.

Most of today’s DLP technology cannot address these complex issues on its own. Often additional technology layers are needed.

Data Loss Prevention: Limitations

DLP has been hyped in the past few years, and major security players have made sev- eral large acquisitions—especially those in the IRM market. Much like fi rewalls, DLP started in the form of network gateways that searched e-mail, Web traffi c, and other forms of information traveling out of the organization for data that was defi ned as internal. When it found such data, the DLP blocked transmission or monitored its use.

Soon agent-based solutions were introduced, performing the same actions locally on users’ computers. The next step brought a consolidation of many agent- and net- work-based solutions to offer a comprehensive solution.

IG policy issues are key. What is the policy? All these methods depend on manage- ment setting up a policy that clearly defi nes what is acceptable to send out and what should be kept in confi dence.

With DLP, a certain document can either leave the organization’s boundaries or it can’t. But this is not how the real world works. In today’s world there is an increasing need for information to be shared or reside outside the organization on mobile devices or in the cloud. Simply put, DLP is not capable of addressing this issue on its own, but it is a helpful piece of the overall technology solution.

Missing Piece: Information Rights Management (IRM)

Another technology tool for securing information assets is information rights manage- ment (IRM) software (also referred to as enterprise rights management [ERM] and previously as enterprise digital rights management [e-DRM].) For purposes of this book, we use the term “IRM” when referring to this technology set, so as not to be confused with elec- tronic records management. Major software companies also use the term “IRM.”

IRM technology provides a sort of security wrapper around documents and pro- tects sensitive information assets from unauthorized access. 39 We know that DLP can search for key terms and stop the exit of sensitive data from the organization by in- specting its content. But it can also prevent confi dential data from being copied to external media or sent by e-mail if the person is not authorized to do so. If IRM is deployed, fi les and documents are protected wherever they may be, with persistent security. The ability to apply security to an e-document in any state (in use, in motion, and at rest), across media types, inside or outside of the organization, is called persistent security .

The ability to secure data at any time, in any state, is called persistent protection.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 223

This is a key characteristic of IRM technology, and it is all done transparently without user intervention. 40

IRM has the ability to protect e-documents and data wherever they may reside, however they may be used, and in all three data states (at rest, in use, and in transit). 41

IRM allows for e-documents to be remote controlled , meaning that security protectionsd can be enforced even if the document leaves the perimeter of the organization. This means that e-documents (and their control mechanisms) can be separately created, viewed, edited, and distributed.

IRM provides persistent, ever-present security and manages access to sensitive e-documents and data. IRM provides embedded fi le-level protections that travel with the document or data, regardless of media type.42 These protections and prevent un- authorized viewing, editing, printing, copying, forwarding, or faxing. So, even if fi les are somehow copied to a thumb drive and taken out of the organization, e-document protections and usage are still controlled.

The major applications for IRM services include cross-protection of e-mails and attachments, dynamic content protection on Web portals, secure Web-based training, secure Web publishing, and secure content storage and e-mail repositories all while meeting compliance requirements of Sarbanes–Oxley, the Health Insurance Portabil- ity and Accountability Act, and others. Organizations can comply with regulations for securing and maintaining the integrity of digital records, and IRM will restrict and track access to spreadsheets and other fi nancial data too.

In investment banking, research communications must be monitored, according to National Association of Securities Dealers rule (NASD) 2711, and IRM can help support compliance efforts. In consumer fi nance, personal fi nancial information col- lected on paper forms and transmitted by fax (e.g., auto dealers faxing credit applica- tions) or other low-security media can be secured using IRM, directly from a scanner or copier. Importers and exporters can use IRM to ensure data security and prevent the loss of cargo from theft or even terrorist activities, and they also can comply with U.S. Customs and trade regulations by deploying IRM software. Public sector data security needs are numerous, including intelligence gathering and distribution, espionage, and Homeland Security initiatives. Firms that generate intellectual property IP, such as re- search and consulting groups, can control and protect access to IP with it. In the highly collaborative pharmaceutical industry, IRM can secure research and testing data.

IRM protections can be added to nearly all e-document types including e-mail, word processing fi les, spreadsheets, graphic presentations, computer-aided design (CAD) plans, and blueprints. This security can be enforced globally on all documents or granularly down to the smallest level, protecting sensitive fi elds of information from prying eyes. This is true even if there are multiple copies of the e-documents scattered about on servers in varying geographic locations. Also, the protections can be applied permanently or within controlled time frames. For instance, a person may be granted access to a secure e-document for a day, a week, or a year.

Key IRM Characteristics

Three requirements are recommended to ensure effective IRM:

1. Security is foremost; documents, communications, and licenses should be en- crypted, and documents should require authorization before being altered.

224 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

2. The system can’t be any harder to use than working with unprotected documents. 3. It must be easy to deploy and manage , scale to enterprise proportions, and work

with a variety of common desktop applications. 43

IRM software enforces and manages document access policies and use rights (view, edit, print, copy, e-mail forward) of electronic documents and data. Controlled information can be text documents, spreadsheets, fi nancial statements, e-mail messages, policy and pro- cedure manuals, research, customer and project data, personnel fi les, medical records, intranet pages, and other sensitive information. IRM provides persistent enforcement of IG and access policies to allow an organization to control access to information that needs to be secured for privacy, competitive, or compliance reasons. Persistent content security is a necessary part of an end-to-end enterprise security architecture.

Well, it sounds like fabulous technology, but is IRM really so new? No, it has been has been around for a decade or more, and continues to mature and improve. It has es- sentially entered the mainstream around 2004/2005 (when this author began tracking its development and publishing researched articles on the topic).

IRM software currently is used for persistent fi le protection by thousands of or- ganizations throughout the world. Its success depends on the quality and consistency of the deployment, which includes detailed policy-making efforts. Diffi culties in policy maintenance and lack of real support for external sharing and mobile devices have kept fi rst- wave IRM deployments from becoming widespread, but this aspect is being addressed by a second wave of new IRM technology companies.

Other Key Characteristics of IRM

Policy Creation and Management IRM allows for the creation and enforcement of policies governing access and use of sensitive or confi dential e-documents. The organization’s IG team sets the policies for access based on role and organizational level, determining what employees can and cannot do with the secured e-documents. 44 The IG policy defi ned for a document type includes these following controls:

1. Viewing 2. Editing 3. Copy/Paste (including screen capture) 4. Printing 5. Forwarding e-mail containing secured e-documents

Access to sensitive e-documents may be revoked at any time, no matter where they are located or what media they are on, since each time a user tries to access a document, access rights are verifi ed with a server or cloud IRM application. This can be done remotely—that is, when an attempt is made to open the document, an authorization must take place. In cloud-based implementations, it is a matter of simply denying access.

Decentralized Administration  One of the key challenges of e-document security traditionally is that a system administrator had access to documents and reports that were meant only for

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 225

executives and senior managers. With IRM, the e-document owner administers the security of the data, which considerably reduces the risk of a document theft, alteration, or misuse.

Auditing Auditing provides the smoking-gun evidence in the event of a true security breach. Good IRM software provides an audit trail of how all documents secured by it are used. Some go further, providing more detailed document analytics of usage.

Integration To be viable, IRM must integrate with other enterprise-wide systems, such as ECM, customer relationship management, product life cycle management, enter- prise resource planning, e-mail management, message archiving, e-discovery, and a myriad of cloud-based systems. This is a characteristic of today’s newer wave of IRM software.

This ability to integrate with enterprise-based systems does not mean that IRM has to be deployed at an enterprise level. The best approach is to target one critical depart- ment or area with a strong business need and to keep the scope of the project narrow to gain an early success before expanding the implementation into other departments.

IRM embeds protection into the data (using encryption technology), allowing fi les to pro- tect themselves. IRM may be the best available security technology for the new mobile computing world of the permeable perimeter. 45

With IRM technology, a document owner can selectively prevent others from viewing, editing, copying, or printing it. Despite its promise, most enterprises do not use IRM, and if they do, they do not use it on an enterprisewide basis. This is due to the high complexity, rigidity, and cost of legacy IRM solutions.

It is clearly more diffi cult to use documents protected with IRM—especially when policy making and maintenance is not designed by role but rather by individual. Some early implementations of IRM by fi rst-to-market software development fi rms had as many as 200,000 different policies to maintain (for 200,000 employees). These have since been replaced by newer, second-wave IRM vendors, who have reduced that num- ber to a mere 200 policies, which is much more manageable. Older IRM installations require intrusive plug-in installation; they are limited in the platforms they support, and they largely prevent the use of newer platforms, such as smartphones, iPads, and other tablets. This is a real problem in a world where almost all executives carry a smartphone and use of tablets (especially the iPad) is growing.

Moreover, due to their basic design, fi rst-wave or legacy IRM is not a good fi t for organiza- tions aiming to protect documents shared outside company boundaries. These outdated IRM solutions were designed and developed in a world where organizations were more concerned with keeping information inside the perimeter than protecting information beyond the perimeter.

IRM technology protects e-documents and data directly rather than relying on perimeter security.

226 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Most initial providers of IRM focused on internal sharing and are heavily depen- dent on Microsoft Active Directory (AD) and lightweight directory access protocol (LDAP) for authentication. Also, the delivery model of older IRM solutions involves the deployment and management of multiple servers, SQL databases, AD/LDAP integration, and a great deal of confi guration. This makes them expensive and cum- bersome to implement and maintain. Furthermore, these older IRM solutions do not take advantage of or operate well in a cloud computing environment.

Although encryption and legacy IRM solutions have certain benefi ts, they are extremely unwieldy and complex and offer limited benefi ts in today’s technical and business environment. Newer IRM solutions are needed to provide more complete DLS.

Embedded Protection

IRM embeds protection into the data (using encryption technology), allowing fi les to protect themselves. IRM may be the best available security technology for the new mobile com- puting world of the permeable perimeter. 46

Is Encryption Enough?

Many of the early solutions for locking down data involved encryption in one form or another:

■ E-mail encryption ■ File encryption ■ Full Disk Encryption (FDE) ■ Enterprisewide encryption

These encryption solutions can be divided into two categories: encryption in transit (e.g., e-mail encryption) and encryption t at rest (e.g., FDE).t

The various encryption solutions mitigate some risks. In the case of data in transit, these risks could include an eavesdropper attempting to discern e-mail or network traffi c. In the case of at-rest data, risks include loss of a laptop or unauthorized access to an employee’s machine. The most advanced solutions are capable of applying a policy across the organization and encrypting fi les, e-mails, and even databases. However, encryption has its caveats.

Most simple encryption techniques necessarily involve the decryption of documents so they can be viewed or edited. At these points, the fi les are essentially exposed. Malware (e.g., Trojan horses, keystroke loggers) installed on a computer may use the opportunity to send out the plain-text fi le to unauthorized parties. Alternatively, an employee may copy the contents of these fi les and remove them from the enterprise.

Device Control Methods

Another method that is related to DLP is device control . Many vendors offer software or hardware that prevents users from copying data via the USB port to

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 227

portable drives and removing them from the organization in this manner. These solutions are typically as simple as blocking the ports; however, some DLP so- lutions, when installed on the client side, can selectively prevent the copying of certain documents. 47

Thin Clients

One last method worth mentioning is the use of thin clients to prevent data leaks. These provide a so-called walled garden containing only the applications users require to do their work, via a diskless terminal. This prevents users from copying any data onto portable media; however, if they have e-mail or Web access applications, they still can send information out via e-mail, blogs, or social networks.

Note about Database Security

Database security and monitoring is addressed in Chapter 10 , “IG for IT.”

Compliance Aspect

Compliance has been key in driving companies to invest in improving their security measures, such as fi rewalls, antivirus software, and DLP systems. More than 400 regulations exist worldwide mandating a plethora of information and data secu- rity requirements. One example is the Payment Card Industry Data Security Stan- dard (PCI-DSS), which is one of the strictest regulations for credit card processors. Companies that fail to comply with these regulations are subject to penalties of up to $500,000 per month for lost fi nancial data or credit card information. It is estimated that the per-record cost of a breach is $90 to $305.” 48 But do compliance activities always result in adequate protection of your sensitive data? In many cases the answer is no. It is important to keep in mind that being formally compliant does not mean the organization is actually secure. In fact, compliance is sometimes used as a fi g leaf, covering a lack of real document security. One needs to look no further than to the recent series of major document leakage incidents to understand this. Those all came from highly secure and regulated entities, such as banks, hospitals, and the military.

Hybrid Approach: Combining DLP and IRM Technologies

An idea being promoted recently is to make IRM an enforcement mechanism for platforms like DLP. Together, DLP and IRM accomplish what they independently cannot. Enterprises may be able to use their DLP tools to discover data fl ows, map them out, and detect transmissions of sensitive information. They can then apply their IRM or encryption protection to enforce their confi dentiality and information integrity goals. 49

Several vendors in the fi elds of DLP, encryption, and IRM have already announced in- tegrated products . However, at this point in time, most IRM solutions are by no meanss ready for prime time when it comes to this use. Only a select few second-wave IRM

228 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

software providers can offer comprehensive, streamlined, persistent security across many platforms.

As the enterprise perimeter dissolves, document and data security should become the focus of the Internet security fi eld. However, most legacy solutions, such as encryp- tion and legacy IRM, are complex and expensive and provide only a partial solution to the key problems. Combining several methods offers effective countermeasures, but an ultimate solution has not yet arrived.

Securing Trade Secrets after Layoffs and Terminations

In today’s global economy—which has shifted labor demands—huge layoffs are not uncommon in the corporate and public sectors. The act of terminating an employee creates document security and IP challenges while raising the question: How does the organization retrieve and retain its IP and confi dential data? An IG program to secure information assets must also deal with everyday resignations of employees who are in possession of sensitive documents and information. 50

According to Peter Abatan, author of the Enterprise Digital Rights Management blog, “As a general rule all organizations should classify all their documents with the aim of identifying the ones that need persistent protection” (emphasis added). That is to say, docu-” ments should be protected at all times, regardless of where they travel and who is using them, while the organization still retains control of usage rights. There are two basic technological approaches to this protection:

1. The fi rst, as discussed earlier in this chapter, is combining IRM with DLP ; P DLP is used to conduct deep content inspection and identify all documents that may contain sensitive information, then the DLP agent “notifi es the en- terprise [information] rights management engine that sensitive information is about to be copied to external media or outside the fi rewall and therefore needs to be encrypted.”

2. The second is using a form of context-sensitive IRM “in which all documents M that contain sensitive data defi ned in the [global] data dictionary [are] auto- matically encrypted.”

These two technological approaches must be fostered by an IG program. They can have signifi cant positive impact in protecting sensitive information, no matter where it is located, and can help document owners withdraw access to its sensitive documents at any time.

Organizations must educate their employees to increase awareness of the fi nancial and competitive impact of breaches and to clarify that sensitive documents are the property of the organization. If those handling sensitive documents are informed of the benefi ts of IRM and related technologies, they will be more vigilant in their efforts to keep information assets secure.

Persistently Protecting Blueprints and CAD Documents

Certain IRM software providers have focused on securing large-format engineer- ing and design documents, and they have made great strides in the protection of

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 229

computer-aided design fi les. As much as 95 percent of CAD fi les are proprietary designs and represent valuable, proprietary IP of businesses worldwide. And CAD fi les are just as vulnerable as any other e-document in that, when unprotected, they “can be emailed or transferred to another party without the knowledge of the owner of the content.”51

In today’s global economy, it is common to conduct manufacturing operations in markets where labor is inexpensive and regulations are lax. Many designs are sent to China, Indonesia, and India for manufacturing. Although they usually are accompa- nied by binding confi dential disclosure contracts, but these agreements are often dif- fi cult to enforce, especially given the disparity in cultures and laws. And what happens if a rogue employee in possession of designs and trade secrets absconds with them and sells them to a competitor? Or starts a competing business? There are a number of examples of this happening.

Owners of valuable proprietary IP must vigilantly protect it; the very survival of the business may depend on it. Monitoring and securing IP wherever it might travel is now a business imperative.

Theft of IP and confi dential information represents a clear and present danger to all types of businesses, especially global brands dependent on proprietary designs for a competitive advantage. Immediate IG action by executive management is required to identify possible leaks and plug the holes. Not safeguarding IP and confi dential or sensitive documents puts the organization’s competitive position, strategic plans, rev- enue stream, and very future at risk.

Securing Internal Price Lists

In 2010, it was reported that confi dential information about the advertising expen- ditures of some of Google’s major accounts was leaked to the public. 52 This may not seem like a signifi cant breach, but, in fact, with this information, Google’s custom- ers can determine if they are getting a preferred price schedule, and competitors can easily undercut Google’s pricing for major customers. According to Peter Abatan, “[It is clear] why this information is so critical to Google that this information is tight- ly secured.”

Is your company’s price list secured at all times? Price lists are confi dential infor- mation assets, and if they are revealed publicly, major customers could demand steeper discounts and business relationships could suffer irreparable damage, especially if cus- tomers fi nd out they are paying more for a product or service than their competitors.

A company’s price list is critical to an organization because it impacts all aspects of the business, from the ability to generate revenue to private dealings with customers and suppliers. IRM should be used to protect price lists, and printing of these valuable

As much as 95 percent of CAD fi les are proprietary designs and represent valuable IP.

230 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

lists must be monitored and controlled using secure printing methods and document analytics.

Confi dential information should be persistently protected throughout their docu- ment life cycle in all three states (at rest, in motion, and in use) so that if they are com- promised or stolen, they are still protected and controlled by the owning organization.

Approaches for Securing Data Once It Leaves the Organization

It is obvious with today’s trends that, as Andrew Jaquith of SilverSky (formerly with Forrester Research) states, “The enterprise security perimeter is quickly dissolving.” A lot of valuable information is routed outside the owning organization through unse- cured e-mail. A breach can compromise competitive position, especially in cases deal- ing with personnel fi les and marketing plans or merger details. Consider for a moment that even proprietary software and company fi nancial statements are sent out. Expo- sure of this data can have real fi nancial impact. Without additional protections, such as IRM and e-mail encryption, these valuable information assets are often out of the control of the IT department of the owning organization. 53

Third-party possession or control of enterprise data is a critical point of vulner- ability, and many organizations realize that securing data outside the organizational perimeter is a high priority. But a new concept has cropped up of late that bucks un- conventional wisdom: “ Control does not require ownership.”

Instead of focusing on securing devices where confi dential data is accessed, the new thinking focuses on securing the data and documents directly. With this new mind-set, security can be planned under the assumption that the enterprise owns its data but none of the devices that access it. As Forrester’s report states, “Don’t trust the endpoints. Treat them as hostile”. This is referred to as the zero-trust model of infor- mation security. The report states: “...trust but verify applies here. Enterprises must put teeth into their contractual language and audit their partners.” 54

Forrester has developed a new network architecture that builds security into the DNA of a network, using a mixture of fi ve data security design patterns:

1. Thin client. Access information online only, with no local operations, using a diskless terminal that cannot store data, documents, or programs so confi den- tial information stays stored and secured centrally. For additional security, “IT can restrict host copy-and-paste operations, limit data transfers, and require strong or two-factor authentication using SecurID or other tokens.”

2. Thin device. Devices such as smartphones, which have limited computing resources, Web surfi ng, e-mail, and basic Web apps that locally conduct no real information processing, are categorized as thin devices. In practice, these devices do not hold original documents but merely copies, so the offi cial busi- ness record or master copy cannot be altered or deleted. A nice feature of many smartphones is the ability to erase or wipe data remotely, in the event the device is lost. According to the Forrester report, “For insurance, thin de- vices can be remotely wiped—making them truly ‘disposable,’ unlike PCs.” 55

3. Protected process. This approach allows local processing with a PC where confi - dential e-documents and data are stored and processed in a partition that is highly secure and controlled. This processing can occur even if the PC is not

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 231

owned and controlled by the organization. “The protected process pattern has many advantages: local execution, offl ine operation, central manage- ment, and a high degree of granular security control, including remote wipe [erase].” A mitigating factor to consider here is most business PCs today are Windows based, and the world is rapidly moving to other, more nimble platforms.

4. Protected data. Deploying IRM and embedding security into the documents (or data) provides complete DLS. The newer wave of more sophisticated, easier-to-use IRM vendors have role-based policy implementation and such features as “contextual” enforcement, where document rights are dependent on the context —that is, tt where and when a user attempts access. For instance, allow access to documents on workers’ desktops but not on their laptops; or provide access to printing confi dential documents at the facility during offi ce hours but not after. “ Of all the patterns in the Zero Trust data security strategy, protected data is the most fi ne-grained and effective because it focuses on the informa- tion, not its containers.”

5. Eye in the sky. This design pattern uses technologies such as DLP to scan network traffi c content and halt confi dential documents or sensitive data at the perimeter. Deployed properly, DLP is “ideal for understanding the veloc- ity and direction of information fl ow and for detecting potential breaches, outliers, or anomalous transmissions.” It should be noted that DLP does not provide complete protection. To do so would mean that many legitimate and sanctioned e-mails and documents would be held up for inspection, thus slow- ing the business process. As stated earlier, DLP is best for discovering infor- mation fl ows and monitoring network traffi c. Another negative is that you cannot always require partner organizations and suppliers to install DLP on their computers. So this is a complementary technology, not a complete solu- tion to securing confi dential information assets.

By discarding the “age-old confl ation of ownership and control, enterprises will be able to build data protection programs that encompass all possible ownership sce- narios, including Tech Populism, offshoring, and outsourcing.”

Document Labeling

Document labeling is “an easy way to g increase user awareness about the sensitivity of information in a document”(emphasis added).56 What is it? It is the process of attach- ing a label to classify a document. For instance, who would not know that a document labeled “confi dential” is indeed confi dential? If the label appears prominently at the top of a document, it is diffi cult for persons accessing it to claim they did not know it was sensitive.

The challenge is to standardize and formalize the process of s getting the label onto the document— tt enterprisewide. This issue would be addressed in an IG effort focused on se- curing confi dential e-documents, or may also be a part of a classifi cation and taxonomy design effort. It cannot simply be left up to users to type in labels themselves, or it will not be suffi ciently executed and will end up leaving a mishmash of labeled documents without any formal classifi cation.

232 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Another great challenge are legacy or archived documents, which are the lion’s share of an organization’s information assets. How do you go back and label those? One by one? Nope. Not practical.

Some content repositories or portals, such as Microsoft SharePoint®, provide some functionality toward addressing the document labeling challenge. SharePoint is the most popular platform for sharing documents today.

SharePoint has an information management policy tool called Labels, which can be used to add document labels, such as Confi dential , to the top of documents:l

There are several options available for administrators to customize the labels, including the ability to:

1. Prompt users to add the label when they save or print, rather than relying on the user to click the Label button in the ribbon;

2. Specify labels containing static text and/or variables such as Project Name; 3. Control the appearance of the labels, such as font, size, and justifi cation. 57

The labels are easily added from within Microsoft Offi ce Word, PowerPoint, and Excel. One method that can be used is for the user to click the Label button on the Insert ribbon group; another method is to add the label through a prompt that appears when a user saves or prints a document (if the administrator has confi gured this option).

The labeling capabilities in document and content management systems such as Microsoft’s SharePoint are a good start for increasing user awareness and improving the handling of sensitive documents. However, the document labeling capabilities of Share- Point are basic and limited . These basic capabilities may provide a partial or temporary d solution, although organizations aiming for a high level of security and confi dentiality for their documents will need to search for supplemental technologies from third- party software providers. For instance, fi nding the capabilities to label documents in bulk rather than one by one, add watermarks, or force users to save or print documents with a standard document label that cannot be altered may require looking at alterna- tives. Some are software vendors have enhanced the SharePoint document labeling capability and may provide the complete solution.

Document Analytics

Some software providers also provide document analytics capabilities that monitor the access, use, and printing of documents and create real-time graphical reports of docu- ment use activities. These capabilities are very valuable.

Document analytics allows a compliance offi cer or system administrator to view exactly how many documents a user accesses in a day and how many documents the user accesses on average. Using this information, analytics monitors can look for spikes or anomalies in use. It is also possible to establish baselines and compare usage with that of an employee’s peers, as well as with his or her past document usage. If, for instance, a user normally accesses an average of 25 documents a day and that sud- denly spikes to 200, the system sends an alert, and perhaps it is time to pay a visit to that person’s offi ce. Or, if an employee normally prints 50 pages per day, then one day prints 250 pages, a fl ag is raised. Document analytics capabilities can go so far as to

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 233

calculate the average time a user spends reading a document; signifi cant time fl uctua- tions can be fl agged as potentially suspicious activity.

Confi dential Stream Messaging

E-mail is dangerous. It contains much of an organization’s confi dential information, and 99 percent of the time it is sent out unsecured. It has been estimated that as many as 20 percent of e-mail messages transmitted pose a legal, fi nancial, or regulatory threat to the organization. Specifi cally, “34 of employers investigated a leak of confi dential busi- ness information via email, and an additional 26% of organizations suffered the expo- sure of embarrassing or sensitive information during the course of a year,” according to Nancy Flynn, Executive Director of the ePolicy Institute. These numbers are rising, giv- ing managers and business owners cause to look for confi dential messaging solutions. 58

Since stream messaging separates the header and identifying information from the message, sends them separately, and leaves no record or trace, it is a good option for executives and managers, particularly when engaged in sensitive negotiations, litigation, or other highly confi dential activities. Whereas e-mail leaves behind an indelible fi n- gerprint that lives forever on multiple servers and systems, stream messaging does not.

Business records, IP and trade secrets, and confi dential executive communications can be protected by implementing stream messaging. It can be implemented alongside and in concert with a regular e-mail system, but clear rules on the use of stream mes- saging must be established, and access to it must be tightly restricted to a small circle of key executives and managers.

The ePolicy Institute offers seven steps to controlling stream messaging:

1. Work with your legal counsel to defi ne “business record” for your organization on a companywide basis. Establish written records retention policies, dispo- sition and destruction schedules. And litigation hold rules. Support the email retention policy with a bona fi de email archiving solution to facilitate the in- dexing, preservation and production of legally authentic records. Implement a formal electronic records management system to manage all records.

2. Work with your legal counsel to determine when, how, why, and with whom confi dential stream messaging is the most appropriate, effective— and legally compliant—way to hold recordless, confi dential business dis- cussions when permanent records are not required.

3. In order to preserve attorney-client privilege, a phone call or confi dential electronic messaging may be preferable to email. Have corporate counsel spell out the manner in which executives and employees should communi- cate with lawyers when discussing business, seeking legal advice, or asking questions related to specifi c litigation.

4. Defi ne key terms for employees. Don’t assume employees understand what management means when using terms like “confi dential,” “proprietary,” or “private” or “intellectual property,” etc. Employees must clearly understand defi nitions If they are to comply with confi dentiality rules.

5. Implement written rules and policies governing the use of email and con- fi dential stream messaging. E-policies should be written clearly and should

234 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

be easy for employees to access, and understand. Make them [as] “short and sweet” as possible. Do not leave anything up to interpretation.

6. Distribute a hard copy of the new confi dential messaging policy, email pol- icy and other electronic communications (e.g., social media, blogs). Insist that each and every employee signs and dates the policy, acknowledging that they understand and accept it and that disciplinary action including termi- nation may result from violation of the organization’s established policies.

7. Educate, educate, educate. Ensure that all employees who need to know the difference between email which leaves a potential business record and stream messaging which does not, and is confi dential. 59

Securing personal, classifi ed, or confi dential information effectively requires an eclectic, multifaceted approach. It takes clear and enforced IG policies, a collection of technologies, and regular testing and audits, both internally and by a trusted third party.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ The average cost of a data breach in 2013 was over $5 million.

■ Attacks on organizations’ networks and theft of their IP continue to increase. There were an estimated 354 million privacy breaches between 2005 and 2010 in the United States alone.

■ Attacks can continue in organizations for years before they are uncovered—if they are discovered at all.

■ All organizations should classify all their documents with the aim of identify- ing the ones that need persistent security protection.

■ Today’s ECM and document management solutions rely mostly on perimeter security and were not designed to allow for secure document sharing and collaboration.

■ Businesses are operating in a more distributed model than ever before, and they are increasingly sharing and collaborating—exposing confi dential documents.

■ Secure document printing reduces the chance that fi les can be compro- mised during or after printing. There are various methods to secure the print stream, depending on the print manufacturer. Copies or remnants of large print fi les often exist unsecured on the hard drives of high-speed printers. These fi les must be completely wiped to ensure security.

■ Identity and access management (IAM) software governs user access to in- formation through an automated, continuous process that addresses access creep, whereby employees move to a different business unit and their access rights are not updated.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 235

■ Data governance software is another tool that looks at who is accessing which documents and creates a matrix of roles and access along behavioral lines.

■ Encrypting sensitive e-mail messages is an effective step to securing con- fi dential information assets while in transit. Encryption can be applied to desktop folders and fi les.

■ For e-mail communication with no trace or record, stream messaging is a solution.

■ Digital signatures authenticate the identity of the signatory and prove that the signature was, in fact, generated by the claimed signatory. This is known as nonrepudiation.

■ Data loss prevention technology performs a “deep content inspection” of all e-documents and e-mails before they leave the organization’s perimeter to stop sensitive data from exiting the fi rewall.

■ DLP can be used to discover the fl ow of information within an organization. Additional security tools can then be applied. This may be the best use for DLP.

■ Information rights management software enforces and manages use rights of electronic documents. IRM provides a sort of security wrapper around docu- ments and protects sensitive information assets from unauthorized use or copying. IRM is also known as enterprise rights management.

■ Persistent security tools like IRM should be enforced on price lists, proprietary blueprints, and CAD designs. Printing these documents should be highly restricted.

■ Most legacy or fi rst-to-market providers of IRM focused on internal sharing and are heavily dependent on Microsoft Active Directory and lightweight di- rectory access protocol (LDAP) for authentication. These early solutions were not built for cloud use or the distributed enterprises of today, where mobile devices are proliferating.

■ DLP started in the form of network gateways (much like fi rewalls) that searched e-mails, Web traffi c, and other forms of information for data that was defi ned as internal. When it detected such data, it blocked it from leav- ing the perimeter or monitored its use.

■ Soon agent-based DLP technologies were introduced, performing the same action locally on users’ computers. The next step brought a consolidation of many agent- and network-based technologies to offer a more comprehen- sive solution.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

(( dcontinued ) )dd

236 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Notes

1. Ponemon Institute Research Report, “2013 Cost of Data Breach Study: United States,” May 2013, www .symantec.com/content/en/us/about/media/pdfs/b-cost-of-a-data-breach-us-report-2013.en-us.pdf

2. Jim Finkle, “‘State Actor’ behind Slew of Cyber Attacks,” Reuters, August 3, 2011, www.reuters.com/ article/2011/08/03/us-cyberattacks-idUSTRE7720HU20110803 (accessed August 18, 2011).

3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. Peter Abatan, “Persistently Protecting Your Computer Aided Designs,” Enterprise Digital Rights Man-

agement, http://enterprisedrm.tumblr.com/post/1423979379/persistently-protecting-your-computer- aided-designs (accessed August 18, 2011).

7. Ari Ruppin, March 20, 2011 via e-mail. 8. Sam Narisi, “IT’s  role in secure staff cuts,” March 2, 2009. www.fi nancetechnews.com/its-role-in-

secure-staff-cuts/ 9. Ibid. 10. Shira Scheindlin and Daniel Capra, The Sedona Conference, Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence ,

Thomson Reuters, 2009, p. 204, www.amazon.com/Scheindlin-Conferences-Electronic-Discovery-Evidence- ebook/dp/B00AUE0LRI

11. Oracle White Paper, “Oracle Information Rights Management 11g—Managing Information Every- where It Is Stored and Used,” March 2010 p. 4, www.oracle.com/technetwork/middleware/webcenter/ content/irm-technical-whitepaper-134345.pdf (accessed December 23, 2011).

12. Ibid. 13. Open Web Application Security Project, “Defense in Depth,” https://www.owasp.org/index.php/

Defense_in_depth (accessed June 24, 2013). 14. HCL, “Identity and Access Management Services,” www.hclisd.com/identity-and-access-management

.aspx (accessed September 2, 2011). 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Nicola Clark and David Jolly, “Fraud Costs Bank 7.1 Billion,” New York Times , January 25, 2008, wwws

.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25bank-web.html?hp (accessed September 2, 2011).

■ Combining IRM and DLP technologies is the best available approach to securing e-documents and data. Other encryption methods should also be utilized, such as e-mail encryption and FDE).

■ The use of thin-client and thin-device architecture can reduce security threats to confi dential information assets.

■ Document analytics monitor the access, use, and printing of documents and create real-time graphical reports of document use activities.

■ Document labeling is an easy way to increase user awareness about the sen- sitivity of information in a document.

■ Stream messaging is a way to conduct sensitive business negotiations and activities without leaving a business record. Legal counsel must be consulted, and clear policies for regular e-mail versus stream messaging must be estab- lished and enforced.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE AND PRIVACY AND SECURITY FUNCTIONS 237

18. Oracle White Paper, “Oracle Information Rights Management 11g.” 19. Robert Smallwood, “E-DRM Plugs ECM Security Gap,” KM World, April 1, 2008, www.kmworld.com/

Articles/News/News-Analysis/E-DRM-plugs-ECM-security-gap-41333.aspx (accessed March 30, 2012). 20. Adi Ruppin, March 20, 2011, via e-mail to author. 21. Annik Stahl, “Secure Printing: No More Mad Dashes to the Copy Room,” http://offi ce.microsoft.com/

en-us/help/secure-printing-no-more-mad-dashes-to-the-copy-room-HA001227631.aspx (accessed August 22, 2011).

22. Telephone interview of William Broddy by author, August 7, 2011. 23. Bill Blake, “WikiLeaks, the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century,” eDocument Sciences LLC, December 6,

2010, http://edocumentsciences.com/wikileaks-the-pearl-harbor-of-the-21st-century. 24. VaporStream, www.vaporstream.com (accessed December 9, 2013). 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid. 27. NIST, “Federal Information Processing Standards Publication,” FIPS PUB 186-3, issued June 2009, http://

csrc.nist.gov/publications/fi ps/fi ps186-3/fi ps_186-3.pdf (accessed August 15, 2011). FIPS Publication 186-3 (dated June 2009), was superseded on July 19, 2013 and is provided here only for historical purposes. For the most current revision of this publication, see: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/PubsFIPS.html

28. Doug Miles, AIIM White Paper, “Digital Signatures – Making the Business Case,” http://www.arx .com/fi les/DOCUMENTS/Digital-Signatures-for-Document-Workfl ow-and-SharePoint-Survey.pdf (accessed December 9, 2013).

29. Computer Desktop Encyclopedia, www.computerlanguage.com, retrieved March 30, 2012. 30. Doug Miles, AIIM White Paper, “Digital Signatures – Making the Business Case.” 31. Ibid. 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid. 34. Ari Ruppin, March 20, 2011, via e-mail. 35. Fred Donovan, “Gartner: Enterprise Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention Market to Reach $670 Million

This Year,” February 7, 2013, www.fi erceenterprisecommunications.com/story/gartner-enterprise-content- aware-data-loss-prevention-market-reach-670-mill/2013-02-07

36. Data Loss Prevention Experts, “DLP Product Guide for RSA Conference Expo 2011,” January 17, 2011, www.dlpexperts.com/dlpxblog/2011/1/17/dlp-product-guide-for-rsa-conference-expo-2011 .html (accessed August 22, 2011).

37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. 39. Ibid. 40. Peter Abatan, “Who Should Be Blamed for a Data Breach?” Enterprise Digital Rights Management,

http://enterprisedrm.tumblr.com/post/1087100940/who-should-be-blamed-for-a-data-breach (accessed December 9, 2013).

41. Peter Abatan, “Understanding Enterprise Rights Management,” Enterprise Digital Rights Manage- ment, www.enterprisedrm.info/page/2 (accessed August 3, 2011).

42. Robert Smallwood, “Securing Documents in the WikiLeaks Era,” May 28, 2011, www.kmworld.com/ Articles/Editorial/Feature/Securing-documents-in-the-WikiLeaks-era-75642.aspx (accessed August 1, 2011).

43. Oracle, IRM Technical White Paper , Oracle.com, February 2008 (accessed December 9, 2013). r 44. Abatan, “Understanding Enterprise Rights Management,” http://enterprisedrm.tumblr.com/page/3

(accessed December 9, 2013). 45. Ibid. 46. Ibid. 47. Ibid. 48. “http://www.bankersonline.com/bankrobbery/2007/04/if-you-remember-old-tv-commercials-for

.html?” 49. Abatan, “Understanding Enterprise Rights Management,” http://enterprisedrm.tumblr.com/page/3

(accessed December 9, 2013). 50. This discussion and quotes are from Peter Abatan, “Preparing for Staff Layoffs/Resignations where

Confi dential Information Is Concerned,” Enterprise Digital Rights Management, http://enterprisedrm .tumblr.com /post/1230356519/preparing-for-staff-layoffs-resignations (accessed December 9, 2013).

51. Ibid. 52. This discussion and quotes are from Peter Abatan, “Is Your Price List under Lock and Key?” Enter-

prise Digital Rights Management, http://enterprisedrm.tumblr.com/post/1120104758/is-your-price- list-under-lock-and-key (accessed August 18, 2011).

238 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

53. This discussion and quotes are from “Own Nothing. Control Everything”, Forrester Research, Inc., January 22, 2010.

54. “Own Nothing. Control Everything”, Forrester Research, Inc., January 22, 2010. 55. “Own Nothing. Control Everything”, Forrester Research, Inc., January 22, 2010. 56. This discussion and quotes are from Charlie Pulfer, “Document Labeling in SharePoint,” September 13,

2009, www.contentmanagementconnection.com/Home/21196/ (accessed January 28, 2014. 57. Ibid. 58. Nancy Flynn, The E-Policy Handbook: Rules and Best Practices to Safely Manage Your Company’s E-Mail, Blogs,

Social Networking, and Other Electronic Communication Tools , 2nd ed. (New York: AMACOM, 2009), p. 57. s 59. Ibid., pp. 68–70.

PART FOUR Information Governance for Delivery Platforms

241

E-mail is a major area of focus for information governance (IG) efforts: It is the most common business software application and the backbone of business com-munications today, and e-mail is the leading piece of evidence requested during the discovery phase of civil trials, so it is critically important to implement IG mea- sures for e-mail communications.

Employees utilize e-mail all day, including during their personal time, some- times mixing business and personal use of e-mail. Social media use has skyrocketed in recent years and actually has surpassed e-mail for personal use, but the fact remains that in business, knowledge workers rely on e-mail for almost all communications, including those of a sensitive nature. A 2013 survey of 2,400 corporate e-mail users worldwide found that nearly two-thirds stated that e-mail was their favorite form of business communication, surpassing not only social media but also telephone and in-person contact.1

These e-mail communications may contain discoverable information in litigation, and a percentage of them will be declared formal business records. E-mail often contains records, such as fi nancial spreadsheets and reports, product price lists, marketing plans, com- petitive analyses, safety data, recruitment and salary details, progressing contract ne- gotiations, and other information that may be considered as constituting a business record.

E-mail systems can be hacked, monitored, and compromised and cause far-reaching damage to a victimized organization. The damage may occur slowly and go undetected while information assets—and business value—are eroded.

In mid-2011, the “hacktivist” group AntiSec claimed responsibility for hacking a U.S. government contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, and publicly exposing 90,000 military e-mail addresses and passwords from the contractor by posting them online. It was the second attack on a government defense contractor in a single week. 2

Booz Allen employees “maintain high government security clearances” while working with the defense sector (yet in 2013 another Booz Allen employee, Edward Snowden, gained access to secret communications monitoring programs that the U.S.

Information Governance for E-Mail and Instant Messaging*

C H A P T E R 12

* Portions of this chapter are adapted from Chapter 11 , Robert F. Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices, and Technologies , © John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.s

242 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

National Security Agency operated to capture metadata and other information from the private e-mail and telephone conversations of American citizens on a broad scale). AntiSec penetrated the communications systems with relative ease and noted there were “basically had no security measures in place.” 3 AntiSec was able to go even fur- ther, by running its own rogue application to steal software source code and to search and fi nd access credentials to steal data from other servers, which the group said would help it to infi ltrate other federal contractors and agencies. It even stated it might pass the security information on to other hackers.

The attack did not stop there. Later that week, another federal defense and FBI contractor, IRC Federal, was hacked, databases were invaded, the Web site was modi- fi ed, and information from internal e-mail messages was posted online. 4

Employees Regularly Expose Organizations to E-Mail Risk

A 2011 global e-mail survey, commissioned by a leading hosted e-mail services pro- vider, found that nearly 80 percent of all employees send work e-mail to and from their personal accounts, and 20 percent do so regularly, which means that critical informa- tion assets are exposed to uncontrolled security risks. 5

“Awareness of the security risks this behavior poses does not act as a deterrent” (emphasis” added). Over 70 percent of people questioned recognize that there is an additional risk in sending work documents outside the corporate e-mail environment, but almost half of “these same respondents feel it is acceptable to send work emails and documents to personal email accounts anyway.” According to the survey, the reasons for using personal e-mail accounts for work purposes range from working on documents remotely (71 percent), to sending fi les that are too big for the company mailbox (21 percent), to taking documents with them when they leave a company (18 percent), to simply not wanting to carry a laptop home (9 percent). The top two frustrations users had with work e-mail were restrictions on mailbox size, which has a negative impact on e-mail management, and the inability to send large attachments. This second issue often forces workers to use a personal account to send and receive necessary fi les. If size limits are imposed on mailboxes and attachments, companies must provide a secure alternative for fi le storage and transfer. Otherwise, employees are pushed into risking corporate information assets via personal e-mail. This scenario not only complicates things for e-mail administrators but has serious legal and regulatory implications. Clearly, as stated by Paul Mah in his “Email Admin” blog, “email retention and archival becomes an impossible task when emails are routed in a haphazard manner via personal accounts.”6

This means that security, privacy, and records management issues must be ad- dressed by fi rst creating IG policies to control and manage the use of e-mail. These policies can utilize the e-mail system’s included security features and also employ ad- ditional monitoring and security technologies where needed.

The e-mail survey also found an overall lack of clear e-mail policies and weak communication of existing guidelines. This means a lack of IG. Nearly half of the respondents stated either that their company had no e-mail policy or that they were unaware of one. Among those aware of a corporate e-mail policy, 4 in 10 think it could be communicated better. Among companies that have a policy, most (88 percent) deal with the appropriate use of e-mail as a business tool, but less than one-third (30 percent) address e-mail retention from a security standpoint.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR E-MAIL AND INSTANT MESSAGING 243

Generally, employees are aware that sending work documents outside of their corporate network is unsafe, yet they continue to do so. It is abundantly clear that e-mail policies have to be updated and upgraded to accommodate and manage the increasingly sophisticated and computer-savvy generation of users who are able to fi nd ways to work around corporate e-mail restrictions. (These users have been dubbed Generation Gmail. ) In addition, new e-mail monitoring and security technologies need to be deployed to counter this risky practice, which exposes information assets to prying eyes or malicious attacks.

E-Mail Polices Should Be Realistic and Technology Agnostic

E-mail policies as part of your IG program must not be too restrictive. It may be tempting to include catchall policies that attempt to tamp down user behavior, but such efforts cannot succeed. 7 An important step is consulting with stakeholders to understand their usage patterns and needs and then going through a series of drafts of the policy, allowing for input. It may be determined that some exceptions and changes in technologies need to be factored in and that some additional technology is needed to accommodate users while keeping information assets safer and meeting compliance and legal demands. Specifi cs of these policies and tools should be progressively tight- ened on a regular basis as the process moves forward.

These new IG guidelines and policies need to refer to technology in a generic sense—a “technology-neutral” sense—rather than specifying proprietary software programs or features. 8 That is to say, they should be written so that they are not in t need of revision as soon as new technologies are deployed.

Developing organization-wide IG policies is time consuming and expensive; they are a defensive measure that does not produce revenue, so managers, pressed for performance, often relegate policy making to the low-priority list. Certainly, it is a tedious, diffi cult task, so organizations should aim to develop policies that are fl exible enough to stand the test of time. But it is also necessary to establish a review process to periodically revise policies to accommodate changes in the business environment, the law, and technology.

Here is an example of a technology-agnostic policy directive:

All confi dential information must be encrypted before being transmitted over the Internet.

This statement does not specify the technology to be used, or the mode of trans- mission. The policy is neutral enough to cover not only e-mail and instant messaging (IM) but also social media, cloud computing, mobile computing, and other means of communication. The policy also does not specify the method or brand of the encryp- tion technology, so the organization can select the best method and technology avail- able in the future without adapting the policy.9

E-Record Retention: Fundamentally a Legal Issue

Considering the massive volume of e-mail exchanged in business today, most e-mail messages do not rise to the level of being formal business records. But many of them do and are subject to IG, regulatory compliance, and legal requirements for maintain- ing and producing business records.

244 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Although often lumped in with other information technology (IT) concerns, the retention of e-mail and other e-records is ultimately a legal issue. Other departments, including records management and business units, should certainly have input and should work to assist the legal team to record retention challenges and archiving solutions. But e-mail and e-record retention is “fundamentally a legal issue,”l particularly for public or highly regulated companies. According to Nancy Flynn of the ePolicy Institute, “It is essential for the organization’s legal department to take the lead in determining precisely which types of email messages will be preserved, exactly how and where data will be stored, and specifi cally when —if ever—electronically stored information [ESI] will be deleted” 10 (emphasis added).

Since they are often shot out in the heat of battle, many times e-mail messages are evidence of a smoking gun in lawsuits and investigations. In fact, they are the most requested type of evidence in civil litigation today. The content and timing of e-mail messages can provide exonerating information too.

In January 2010, a U.S. House of Representatives committee probing bailout deals subpoenaed the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for e-mail and other correspon- dence from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (former president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) and other offi cials. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee was in the process of examining New York Fed decisions that fun- neled billions of dollars to big banks, including Goldman Sachs Group and Morgan Stanley.11

This is just one example of how crucial e-mail messages can be in legal investiga- tions and how they play an important role in reconstructing events and motives for legal purposes.

Preserve E-Mail Integrity and Admissibility with Automatic Archiving

Most users are not aware that e-mail contents and characteristics can be changed— “and rendered legally invalid”—by anyone with malicious motives, including those who are essentially “covering their tracks.” Not only can the content be edited, but metadata that includes such information as the time, date, and total number of charac- ters in the message can also be changed retroactively. 12

To offset this risk and ensure that spoliation (i.e., the loss of proven authenticity of an e-mail) does not occur, all messages, both inbound and outbound, should be captured and archived automatically and in real time. This preserves legal validity and forensic compliance. Additionally, e-mail should be indexed to facilitate the searching process, and all messages should be secured in a single location. With these measures, e-mail records can be assured to be authentic and reliable.

Managing e-records is primarily a legal issue, especially for public and heavily regulated companies.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR E-MAIL AND INSTANT MESSAGING 245

E-Mail Archiving Rationale: Compliance, Legal, and Business Reasons

There are good reasons to archive e-mail and retain it according to a specifi c retention schedule that follows your organization’s IG policies. Having a handle on managing voluminous e-mail archives translates to being able to effectively and rapidly search and retrieve exactly the right messages, which can provide a signifi cant legal advantage. It gives your legal team more and better information and more time to fi gure out how to leverage it in legal strategy sessions. This means the odds are tipped in your organization’s favor in the inevitable litigation arena. Your legal opponent may be driven to settle a weak claim when confronted with indisputable e-mail evidence, and, in fact, “email often produces supportive evidence that may help ‘save the day’ by providing valuable legal proof” of innocence.13 This evidence may stop frivolous lawsuits in their tracks. Further, reliable e-mail evidence also can curtail lengthy and expensive lawsuits, and prevail. And if your company is public, Sarbanes–Oxley regulations require the archiving of e-mail.

Don’t Confuse E-Mail Archiving with Backup

All backups are not created equal. There is a big difference between traditional system back- ups and specialized e-mail archiving software.

Backups are huge dumps to mass storage, where the data is stored sequentially and not compressed or indexed. 14 It is impossible to search backups except by date, and even doing that would mean combing through troves of raw, non-indexed data.

The chief executive may not be aware of it, but without true e-mail archiving, system administrators could spend long nights loading old tapes and churning out volumes of data, and legal teams will bill hourly for manual searches through troves of data. This compromises your enterprise’s legal position and not only increases raw costs but also leads to less capable and informed legal representation. According to one study, fully one-third of IT managers state they would have diffi culty producing an e-mail that is more than one year old. “A backup system is no substitute for automatic archiving technology”15 (emphasis added).

No Personal Archiving in the Workplace

Employees are naturally going to want to back up their most important fi les, just as they probably do at home. But for an overall IG information-security program to be effective, personal archiving at work must be prohibited. This underground archiving results in hidden shadow fi les and is time consuming and risky. According to Flynn, “Self-managed email can result in the deletion of electronic records, alteration of email evidence, time-consuming searches for back-up tapes, and failure to comply with legal discovery demands” (emphasis added). Also, users may compromise formal electronic records, or they may work from unoffi cial records, which therefore by defi nition might be inaccurate or out-of-date, posing compliance and legal ramifi cations. 16

Are All E-Mails Records?

Are e-mail messages records? This question has been debated for years. The short answer is no, not all e-mail messages constitute a record. But how do you determine

246 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

whether certain messages are a business record or not? The general answer is that a record documents a transaction or business-related event that may have legal rami- fi cations or historic value. Most important are business activities that may relate to compliance requirements or those that could possibly come into dispute in litigation. Particular consideration should be given to fi nancial transactions of any type.

Certainly evidence that required governance oversight or compliance activities have been completed needs to be documented and becomes a business record. Also, business transactions, in which there is an exchange of money or the equivalent in goods or services, are also business records. Today, these transactions are often documented by a quick e-mail. And, of course, any contracts (and any progressively developed or edited versions) that are exchanged through e-mail become business records.

The form or format of a potential record is irrelevant in determining whether it should be classifi ed as a business record. For instance, if a meeting of the board of directors is recorded by a digital video recorder and saved to DVD, it constitutes a record. If photographs are taken of a ground-breaking ceremony for a new manufac- turing plant, the photos are records too. If the company’s founders tape-recorded a message to future generations of management on reel-to-reel tape, it is a record also, since it has historical value. But most records are going to be in the form of paper, microfi lm, or an electronic document.

Here are three guidelines for determining whether an e-mail message should be considered a business record:

1. The e-mail documents a transaction or the progress toward an ultimate trans- action where anything of value is exchanged between two or more parties. All parts or characteristics of the transaction, including who (the parties to it), what, when, how much, and the composition of its components, are parts of the transaction. Often seemingly minor parts of a transaction are found bur- ied within an e-mail message. One example would be a last-minute discount offered by a supplier based on an order being placed or delivery being made within a specifi ed time frame.

2. The e-mail documents or provides support of a business activity occurring that pertains to internal corporate governance policies or compliance to externally mandated regulations.

3. The e-mail message documents other business activities that may possibly be disputed in the future, whether it ultimately involves litigation or not. (Most business disputes actually are resolved without litigation, provided that proof of your organization’s position can be shown.) For instance, your supplier may dispute the discount you take that was offered in an e-mail message and, once you forward the e-mail thread to the supplier, it acquiesces. 17

Destructive Retention of E-Mail

Destructive retention is an approach to e-mail archiving where e-mail messages are retained for a limited time (say, 90 days or six months), followed by their permanent manual or automatic deletion of messages from the company’s network, so long as there is no litigation hold or the e-mail has not been declared a record in accordance with IG and records management policies. Implementing this as a policy may shield

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR E-MAIL AND INSTANT MESSAGING 247

the enterprise from retaining potentially libelous or litigious e-mail that is not a formal business record (e.g., off-color jokes or other personnel violations).

For heavily regulated industries, such as health care, energy, and fi nancial services, organizations may need to archive e-mail for longer periods of time.

Instant Messaging

Instant messaging (IM) use in enterprises has proliferated—despite the fact that fre- quently proper policies, controls, and security measures are not in place to prevent e-document and data loss. There are a variety of threats to IM use that enterprises must defend against to keep their information assets secure.

The fi rst basic IM systems, which came into use in the mid-1960s, had real-time text capabilities for routing messages to users logged on to the same mainframe com- puter. Early chat systems, such as AOL Instant Messenger, have been in use since the late 1980s, but true IM systems that included buddy list features appeared on the scene in the mid-1990s, followed by the release of Yahoo! and Microsoft IM systems. The use of these personal IM products in the workplace has created new security risks. 18

More secure enterprise instant messaging (EIM) products can be deployed. Leading EIM installed systems include IBM Lotus Sametime, Microsoft Offi ce Com- munications Server, Cisco Unifi ed Presence, and Jabber XCP. In the fi nancial sector, Bloomberg Messaging and Reuters Messaging are leading platforms.

By the year 2000, it was estimated that nearly 250 million people worldwide were making use of IM, and today estimates are that more than 2 billion people use IM, with the addition of hundreds of millions of users in China.

As with many technologies, IM became popular fi rst for personal use, then crept into the workplace—and exploded. IM is seen as a quicker and more effi cient way to communicate short messages than engaging in a telephone conversation or going through rounds of sending and receiving endless e-mail messages. The problem with IM is that many organizations are blind to the fact that their employees are going to use it one way or another , sometimes for short personal conversations outside the organization.r If unchecked, such messaging exposes the organization to a myriad of risks and gives hackers another way to compromise confi dential information assets.

Best Practices for Business IM Use

Employing best practices for enterprise IM use can help mitigate its security risks while helping to capitalize on the business agility and velocity benefi ts IM can provide. Best practices must be built in to IG policies governing the use of IM, although “the specifi cs of these best practices must be tailored for each organization’s unique needs.”

A methodology for forming IM-specifi c IG policies and implementing more secure use of IM must begin with surveying and documenting the proliferation of IM use in the organization. It should also discover how and why users are relying on IM—perhaps there is a shortcoming with their available IT tools and IM is a work-around.

Typically, executives will deny there is much use of IM and that if it is being used, its impact is not worth worrying about. Also, getting users to come clean about

248 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

their IM use may be diffi cult, since this may involve personal conversations and vio- lations of corporate policy. A survey is a good place to start, but more sophisticated network monitoring tools need to be used to factually discover what IM systems are actually in use.

Once this discovery process has concluded and the use of IM is mapped out, the IG team or steering committee must create or update policies to: decide which IM systems it will allow to be used, how, when, and by whom; decide what restrictions or safeguards must be imposed; and create guidelines as to appropriate use and content. As a part of an overall IG effort, Quest Software determined that a successful IM policy will:

■ Clearly and explicitly explain the organization’s instant messaging objectives. Users should know why the organization permits IM and how it is expected to be used.

■ Defi ne expectations of privacy. Users should be made aware that the organiza- tion has the right to monitor and log all IM sessions for corporate compli- ance, safety, and security reasons.

■ Detail acceptable and unacceptable uses. An exhaustive list of permitted and forbidden activities may not be necessary, but specifi c examples are helpful in establishing a framework of IM behaviors for users.

■ Detail content and contact restrictions (if any). Most organizations will want to limit the amount of idle IM chat that may occur with family, friends, and other nonbusiness-related contacts. There may also be additional issues related to information confi dentiality and privacy. Some businesses may choose to block the distribution of certain types of information via live IM chat session or fi le transfer.

■ Defi ne consequences for violations of the policy. Users should be advised of the consequences of policy violations. Generally these should be aligned with the company’s personnel and acceptable use policies.

The use of a standard disclaimer, to be inserted into all users’ IM sessions, can remind employees of appropriate IM use and that all chat sessions are being moni- tored and archived, and can be used in court or compliance hearings.

The next major step is to work with the IT staff to fi nd the best and most appropriate security and network monitoring tools, given the computing environ- ment. Alternatives must be researched, selected, and deployed. In this research and selection process, it is best to start with at least an informal survey of enterprises within the same industry to attempt to learn what has worked best for them.

The key to any compliance effort or legal action will be ensuring that IM records are true and authentic, so the exact, unaltered archiving of IM messages along with associated metadata should be implemented in real time. This is the only way to

Documenting IM use in the organization is the fi rst step in building IG policies to govern its use. Those policies must be tailored to the organization and its IM use.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR E-MAIL AND INSTANT MESSAGING 249

preserve business records that may be needed in the future. But in addition, a policy for deleting IM messages after a period of time, so long as they are not declared busi- ness records, must be formulated.

IG requires that these policies and practices not be static; rather, they must be reg- ularly revisited and updated to refl ect changes in technology and legal requirements and to address any shortcoming or failure of the IG policies or technologies deployed.

Technology to Monitor IM

Today, it has been estimated that as much as 80 percent of all IM used by corporate employees comes from free IM providers like Yahoo!, MSN, or AOL. These programs are also the least secure. Messages using these IM platforms can fl y around the Inter- net unprotected. Any monitoring technology implemented must have the capability to apply and enforce established IM use policies by constantly monitoring Internet traffi c to discover IM conversations. Traffi c containing certain keywords can be monitored or blocked, and chat sessions between forbidden users (e.g., those who are party to a lawsuit) can be stopped before they start. But this all necessarily starts with IG and policy formulation.

Tips for Safer IM

Organizations should assume that IM is being used, whether they have sanctioned it or not. And that may not be a bad thing—employees may have found a reasonable business use for which IM is expedient and effective. So management should not rush to ban its use in a knee-jerk reaction. Here are some tips for safer use of corporate IM:

■ Just as e-mail attachments and embedded links are suspect and can contain ma- licious executable fi les, beware of IM attachments too. The same rules governing s e-mail use apply to IM, in that employees should never open attachments from people they do not know. Even if they do know them, with phishing and social engineering scams, these attachments should fi rst be scanned for malware using antivirus tools.

■ Do not divulge any more personal information than is necessary. This comes into play even when creating screen names—so the naming convention for IM screen names must be standardized for the enterprise. Microsoft advises, “Your screen name should not provide or allude to personal information. For example, use a nickname such as SoccerFan instead of BaltimoreJenny.” 19

■ Keep IM screen names private ; treat them as another information asset that needs to be protected to reduce unwanted IM requests, phishing, or spam (actually spim , in IM parlance).

Records of IM use must be captured in real time and preserved to ensure they are reliable and accurate.

250 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

■ Prohibit transmission of confi dential corporate information. It is fi ne to set up a meeting with auditors, but do not attach and route the latest fi nancial report through unsecured IM.

■ Restrict IM contacts to known business colleagues. If personal contacts are allowed for emergencies, limit personal use for everyday communication. In other words, do not get into a long personal IM conversation with a spouse or teen- ager while at work. Remember, these conversations are going to be monitored and archived.

■ Use caution when displaying default messages when you are unavailable or away. Details such as where an employee is going to have lunch or where their child is being picked up from school may expose the organization to liability if a hacker takes the information and uses it for criminal purposes. Employees may be un- knowingly putting themselves in harm’s way by giving out too much personal information.

■ Ensure that IM policies are being enforced by utilizing IM monitoring and fi ltering tools and by archiving messages in real time for a future verifi able record, should it be needed.

■ Conduct an IM usage policy review at least annually ; more often in the early stages of policy development.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ E-mail is a critical area for IG implementation, as it is a ubiquitous business communication tool and the leading piece of evidence requested at civil trials.

■ Nearly 80 percent of all employees send work e-mail messages to and from their personal e-mail accounts, which exposes critical information assets to uncontrolled security risks.

■ Meeting e-mail retention and archival requirements becomes an impossible task when e-mail messages are routed in a haphazard manner via personal accounts.

■ In developing e-mail policies, an important step is consulting with stakeholders.

■ E-mail policies must not be too restrictive or tied to a specifi c technology. They should be fl exible enough to accommodate changes in technology and should be reviewed and updated regularly.

■ Not all e-mail messages constitute a business record.

■ Not all e-mail rises to the level of admissible legal evidence. Certain condi- tions must be met.

■ Automatic archiving protects the integrity of e-mail for legal purposes.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR E-MAIL AND INSTANT MESSAGING 251

Notes

1. “Research Finds that Restrictive Email Policies are Creating Hidden Security Risks for Businesses,” BusinessWire , March 9, 2011, www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110309005960/en/Research- Finds-Restrictive-Email-Policies-Creating-Hidden .

2. Elizabeth Montalbano , “AntiSec Hacks Booz Allen, Posts Confi dential Military Email,” Information- Week , July 12, 2011, www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/231001418?cid=nl_IW_dai- ly_2011-07-12_html .

3. Ibid. 4. Mathew J. Schwartz, “AntiSec Hacks FBI Contractor,” InformationWeek , July 11, 2011, www.informa-

tionweek.com/news/security/attacks/231001326 . 5. Quotes from this survey are from “Research Finds That Restrictive Email Policies Are Creating Hid-

den Security Risks for Businesses.” 6. Paul Mah, “How to Reduce the Email Security Risks to Your Business,” EmailAdmin , March 10, 2011,

www.theemailadmin.com/2011/03/how-to-reduce-the-email-security-risks-to-your-business/ . 7. Blair Kahn, Information Nation: Seven Keys to Information Management Compliance (Silver Spring, MD:

AIIM International, 2004), pp. 98–99. 8. Ibid, pp. 95–96. 9. Ibid. 10. Nancy Flynn, The E-Policy Handbook: Rules and Best Practices to Safely Manage Your Company’s E-Mail, Blogs,

Social Networking, and Other Electronic Communication Tools , 2nd ed. (New York: AMACOM, 2009), 20.s 11. Hugh Son and Andrew Frye, “Geithner’s E-mails, Phone Logs Subpoenaed by House (update3),”

January 13, 2010, www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aGzbhrSxFlXw ,. 12. Flynn, E-Policy Handbook , p. 37. 13. Flynn , E-Policy Handbook , pp. 40–41. 14. Nancy Flynn and Randolph Kahn, Email Rules, A Business Guide to Managing Policies, Security, and Legal

Issues for E-Mail and Digital Communication (New York: AMACOM, 2003), pp. 81–82.

■ Instant messaging use in business and the public sector has become wide- spread, despite the fact that often few controls or security measures are in place.

■ Typically as much as 80 percent of all IM use in corporations today is over free public networks, which heightens security concerns.

■ IM monitoring and management technology provides the crucial compo- nents that enable the organization to fully implement best practices for business IM.

■ Enterprise IM systems provide a greater level of security than IM from free services.

■ Regular analysis and modifi cation (if necessary) of business IM policies and practices will help organizations leverage the maximum benefi t from the technology.

■ Records of IM use must be captured in real time and preserved to ensure they are reliable and accurate.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS (Continued )

252 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

15. Flynn, The E-Policy Handbook , p. 41. 16. Ibid., p. 43. 17. Robert F. Smallwood, Taming the Email Tiger: Email Management for Compliance, Governance, & Litiga-

tion Readiness (New Orleans, LA: Bacchus Business Books, 2008). s 18. This discussion is based on Quest Software White Paper, “Best Practices in Instant Messaging

Management” (October 2008), http://media.govtech.net/Digital_Communities/Quest%20Software/ Best_Practices_in_Instant_Messaging_Management.pdf , p. 5.

19. M. Adeel Ansari, “10 Tips for Safer IM Instant Messaging,” July 6, 2008, http://adeelansari.wordpress. com/tag/safer-im-instant-messaging/ .

253

By Dr. Patricia Franks and Robert Smallwood

Information Governance for Social Media*

C H A P T E R 13

Information is the lifeblood of every organization, and an increasing volume of infor-mation today is created and exchanged through the use of social networks and Web 2.0 tools like blogs, microblogs, and wikis. Corporations use public social media technology to create a visible brand,

strengthen relations with current customers while attracting new connections and cli- ents, highlight their products and services, and gather intelligence that can be used in decision making.

Governments use public social media technologies to consult with and engage citi- zens, provide services, and keep pace with fast-moving events (e.g., natural disasters).

Both types of enterprises also benefi t from the use of internal social media solu- tions that facilitate communication and collaboration, improve employee engagement, and boost productivity and effi ciency.

Content created through or posted to these new social media platforms must be managed, monitored, and, quite often, archived. Content that meets the organization’s defi nition of a record (i.e., documents business activities) must be retained in accor- dance with the organization’s records retention and disposition policy.

Too often, social media content is not managed by information governance (IG) policies or monitored with controls that ensure protection of the brand and critical information assets and preservation of business records.

Types of Social Media in Web 2.0

The term “Web 2.0” was coined to characterize the move from static Web sites that passively provided information to consumers to more participative, interactive, col- laborative, and user-oriented Web sites and Web applications that allow for input, discussion, and sharing. Users can add content, increasing the value of the Web site or service. Examples include blogs and Web pages containing podcasts (digital me- dia, usually audio) where readers can post comments or pose questions; wikis that

* Portions of this chapter are adapted from Chapter 13 , Robert F. Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices, and Technologies , © John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.s

254 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

hyperlink to related information to create a knowledge base that shows interrelation- ships and allow users to add content; and RSS (really simple syndication) feeds that provide a stream of fresh content to the user or consumer.

Web 2.0 is the term used to describe the second generation of the World Wide Web, which is comprised of a combination of technologies that allow consumers of Web content to participate, collaborate, and share information online. The improved functionality refl ects consumer needs and preferences that surfaced as a result of in- creased use of the Web for daily information and communications.

Social media sites like LinkedIn, Twitter, and Facebook encourage social interac- tions by allowing users to create their own close network of business associates or friends—essentially a hand-picked audience—and to post their own content in the form of comments, links, photos, videos, and so forth. Others in their social network may view, forward, share, organize, and comment on this content.1

Web 2.0 and social media platforms began as outward-facing, public Web services that could link users from around the world. Subsequently, businesses discovered that social media technology could also be leveraged for internal use in various ways, such as by creating a directory and network of subject matter experts that users can search when working on special projects or by sending out microblog messages to keep their workforce informed. These internal social networks may be extended to include external stakeholders, such as suppliers and customers, in a controlled environment. A number of platform and software options exist for enterprise social media develop- ment and use.

According to the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration:

Social media platforms can be grouped into the categories below. Some spe- cifi c platforms may fi t into more than one category depending on how the platform is used.

■ Web Publishing . Platforms used to create, publish, and reuse content. g ■ Microblogging (Twitter, Plurk) ■ Blogs (WordPress, Blogger) ■ Wikis (Wikispaces, PBWiki) ■ Mashups (Google Maps, popurls)

■ Social networking. Platforms used to provide interactions and collaboration among users.

■ Social networking tools (Facebook, LinkedIn) ■ Social bookmarks (Delicious, Digg) ■ Virtual worlds (Second Life, OpenSim) ■ Crowdsourcing/Social voting (IdeaScale, Chaordix)

■ File sharing/storage. Platforms used to share fi les and host content storage. ■ Photo libraries (Flickr, Picasa) ■ Video sharing (YouTube, Vimeo) ■ Storage (Google Drive, Dropbox) ■ Content management (SharePoint, Drupal)

Agencies [and businesses] use a variety of software tools and platforms. The examples given above are not meant to be an exhaustive list. 2

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 255

Additional Social Media Categories

Breaking out the categories of social media further, we can see in Table 13.1 examples of the wide range of social media applications that exist in the marketplace today. These categories will increase and fl uctuate as the market matures and the companies providing the social media technologies and services expand, merge, are acquired, or die off.

There are certainly additional categories, and the categories will continue to grow. In addition, social media companies do not always fi t neatly into one category. Applica- tions (apps) for smartphones and tablets offer instant gratifi cation and combine several functions. For example, Snapchat allows the sender to share an experience by snapping an image or video, adding a caption, and sending it to a friend.3 The image, unless saved by the recipient, is visible only for the number of seconds set by the sender. The goal is to share a moment in time by sending a fl eeting message. Another app, Vine, introduced by Twitter in early 2013, allows anyone to capture and share short looping videos. 4 Popular for personal use, a number of fi rms (e.g., GE, Urban Outfi tters, and

Table 13.1 Social Media by Application Type

Category Examples

Content curation Buzzfeed, Flipboard, Skygrid, Storify, Summify

Content sharing Yelp, Scribd, Slideshare, Digg, Topix

Photo sharing Flickr, Picasa, SmugMug, Photobucket

Social ad networks Lifestreet, AdKnowledge, Media6degrees, BurstMedia

Social analytics Awe.sm, Bluefi n Labs, Mixpanel, Webtrends

Social bookmarking BibSonomy, Delicious, Diigo, Folkd

Social business software Lithium, Jive, Pluck, Mzinga, Telligent, Ingage, Leverage Software, Huddle, Cubetree, Yammer (Microsoft), Socialcast, Igloo, Socialtext, Watchtoo, Acquia*

Social brand engagement Socialvibe, Mylikes, Adly, Sharethrough

Social commerce platforms Ecwid, Moontoast, Shop Tab, Dotbox, Storenvy, VendorShop

Social community platforms Ning, Mixxt, Grou.ps, Groupsite

Social data GNIP, DataSift, Rapleaf, RavenPack

Social intelligence software SDL, Netbase, Postrank, Google Analytics, Trendrr, Trackur, Visible

Social marketing management Shoutlet, Syncapse, Objective Marketer, Immobi, MediaFunnel

Social promotion platforms Offerpop, Seesmic, Strutta, Votigo, Fanzila, Zuberance, Extole, Social AppsHQ, Social Amp

Social publishing platforms Hootsuite, Spredfast, Hearsaysocial, MutualMind, SproutSocial, Flowtown, Socialware

Social referral 500Friends, Curebit, Tip or Skip, Turnto

Social search and browsing StumbleUpon, Topsy, Wink, Kurrently, SocialMention

Social scoring Klout, EmpireAvenue, PeerIndex

Source: Luma Partners and Terry Kawaja, http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4fb5077becad04 5f47000003-960/buddy-media-social-marketing.jpg (accessed May 21, 2012).

256 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

20th Century Fox) have begun to integrate Vine into their marketing/branding strat- egy, including major brands.

Social Media in the Enterprise

Public-facing social media integrates Internet-based applications, technology, social interaction, and content creation to enable communication, collaboration, and content sharing within and across subnetworks of millions of public users. Implementing tight security on these types of mass networks would likely slow response time and inhibit the user experience, and it may not provide a suffi cient level of security to warrant the investment on the part of the social media provider.

While popular consumer-based technologies (Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn) top the list of social media technologies used in enterprises today, 5 these services were not designed with the business in mind. Enterprises that need tight security but wish to take advantage of the many benefi ts of social media use are increasingly implementing enter- prisewide social media solutions in addition to or in place of public-facing social media.

In the business world, Facebook-like social networking software is offered for pri- vate, closed networks with a fi nite number of users. In this computing environment, implementing security is more manageable and practical. Some services are cloud based; others operate internally behind the enterprise fi rewall; and some operate ei- ther way or in conjunction as hybrid architecture. Usage statistics that refl ect trends, adoption rates, and areas of content interest can be provided to help feed the metrics needed to chart the progress and effectiveness of the enterprise social network. 6

Enterprise social networking is being adopted by business and public-sector entities at a rapid rate. With the entry of Generation Gmail into the workforce, many of these l initiatives took on an experimental, “cool” image. However, it is crucial to establish so- cial media business objectives, to defi ne time-limited metrics, and to measure progress. There does need to be some leeway, as calculating return on investment (ROI) for en- terprise social networks is very new, and all the benefi ts (and pitfalls) have not yet been discovered or defi ned. Certainly the network load and required bandwidth for e-mail and attachments will decrease; instead of sending a 25MB PowerPoint fi le back and forth among 10 coworkers, the fi le can sit in a common workspace for collaboration.

Another intangible benefi t is the competitive value in being a market leader or industry innovator. But to keep that edge, companies need to continually scan the horizon for new technologies and services. Engaging in online conversations with cus- tomers and other stakeholders is the norm rather than the exception. One sign of a progressive-thinking organization is its ability to leverage social media technology to refi ne operations, improve customer services, and make employees’ lives easier. An organization with a strong social media reputation likely will be better able to attract, recruit, and retain qualifi ed, high-achieving employees.

Implementing security is more manageable and practical with enterprise so- cial networking software.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 257

Key Ways Social Media Is Different from E-Mail and Instant Messaging

Social media offers some of the same functionality as other communication and col- laboration systems like e-mail and instant messaging (IM), yet its architecture and underlying assumptions are quite different.

When implementing enterprise versions of social media applications, a company may exert more control over the computing and networking environment through in-house implementation rather than outsourcing. Consumer-oriented social media applications, such as Facebook and Twitter, reside on application servers outside the enterprise controlled by third-party providers. This creates IG and records manage- ment (RM) challenges and poses legal risks. 7

Obviously, social media is an emerging technology, so standards, design, and archi- tecture are in fl ux, whereas e-mail has been stable and established for 15 to 20 years. E-mail is a mature technology set, meaning it is unlikely to change much. There are standard e-mail communications protocols, and the technology’s use is pervasive and constant. So when e-mail IG policies are formed, less updating and fi ne-tuning are required over time. With social media, new features are being added, standards are non- existent, privacy settings change overnight, and the legalese in terms of service agree- ments is continually modifi ed to include new features and settings, which means that your social media policy must be more closely monitored and frequently fi ne-tuned.

E-mail, IM, and social media are all communication tools used to share content and collaborate, but social media also offers user interaction features, such as “Like” on Facebook or “retweet” (copying and posting a 140-character tweet) on Twitter, that bring attention to the content in the user’s network and can be construed as an endorsement or rejection of content based on user opinions expressed and associated with the content. 8

Further confounding the organization’s ability to control the social media envi- ronment is the fact that the social media sites are dynamic and ever changing, with comments and opinions being published in real time. This is not true with e-mail and IM systems, which are more structured, stable, and technologically mature.

Biggest Risks of Social Media

Social media is the Wild West of collaboration and communication. Vulnerabilities still are being exposed, and rules still are being established. Users often are unsure of exactly who can see what they have posted. They may believe that they have posted a comment only for the eyes of a friend or colleague, not realizing it may have been posted publicly. “One of the biggest risks that social networking poses to organizations

Social media differs greatly from e-mail use. E-mail is mature and stable. Social media is not. These distinctions have important ramifi cations for IG policy development.

258 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

is that employees may be exposing information that’s not meant for public consumption , es- pecially in highly regulated environments like banking and healthcare, in industries that rely heavily on proprietary research and development, or even in the military”9 (emphasis added).

Organizations that believe they can ban social media in order to avoid risks are mistaken. Prohibition of social media can result in social media use being driven underground. Employees accustomed to the ease of communicating and collaborating through social networks may turn to the use of personal devices and accounts outside the control of the organization. Even strict adherence to a nonuse policy can harm the organization’s reputation, fi nances, ability to gather information that can be used to improve operations, and ability to remain competitive.

Once an organization decides it will engage in social media initiatives, it must identify different types of risks to initiate its IG effort in this area. According to Chris Nerney of Network World , two of the greatest social media security threats are:d

1. Lack of a social media policy. Many organizations are just now discovering the extent to which social media has popped up in various pockets of their organization. They may believe that their e-mail and communications policy will pretty much cover social media use and that it is not worth the time and expense to update IG policies to include social media.

This invites complexities, vagaries, and potential disaster. A simple Twitter comment could invite litigation: “Our new project is almost ready, but I’m not sure about the widget assembly.” It’s out there. There is a record of it. Instant potential liability in 140 characters or less. s

Social media can add value to an organization’s efforts to reach out to cus- tomers and other stakeholders, but this must be weighed carefully against the accompanying risks.

The objectives of a social media initiative must be spelled out, and metrics must be in place to measure progress. But more than that, who can utilize social media on behalf of the company and what they can state needs to be established with clarity in the IG policy. If not, employees are essentially fl ying blindly without controls, and they are more likely to put the enterprise at risk. 10

More than policy development is needed. If your organization is going to embark on a social media program, it needs an executive sponsor to champion and drive the program, communicating policy to key leaders. You will also need to conduct training—on a consistent basis. Training is key, since social me- dia is a moving target.

2. Employees—the accidental and intentional insider threat. This may be in part due to lack of social media policy or due to lack of monitoring and enforcement. Sometimes an employee harms an organization intentionally. Remember Pri- vate Bradley Manning’s release of hundreds of thousands of classifi ed gov- ernment documents to WikiLeaks?11 But most times employees do not realizes the negative impact of their behavior in posting to social media sites. People might use social media to vent about a bad day at work, but the underlying message can damage the company’s reputation and alienate coworkers and clients. Other times a post that is seemingly unrelated to work can backfi re and take a toll on business. We’re all human and sometimes emotion gets the better of us, before we have rationally thought out the consequences. And that

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 259

is especially true in the new world of social media, where it may be unclear exactly who can see a comment.

The dangers of social media are quite different from those posed by an iso- lated, off-color, or offensive verbal comment made in the workplace, or even one errant e-mail. With social media it is possible that the whole world will be able to see a comment meant only for a limited and controlled audience. For example, consider Ketchum public relations vice president James Andrews, who in 2009 “fi red off an infamous tweet trashing the city of Memphis, home- town of a little Ketchum client called FedEx, the day before he was to make a presentation to more than 150 FedEx employees (on digital media, no less!).” FedEx employees complained to Ketchum and their own executives, point- ing out that while they suffered salary reductions, money was being spent on Ketchum, which had been clearly disrespectful of FedEx. Andrews was forced to make a “very public and humiliating apology.” 12

This story shows that high-level executives must be just as careful as lower- level employees. Andrews was not only a corporate vice president, but also a public relations, communications, and social media expert, well versed in the fi rm’s policies and mission. He also had no ill intent. Knowing this, consider what a rogue employee intent on damaging the company might do. Such im- pact could be much worse. For instance, what if a chief executive’s assistant were to release details of strategic plans, litigation, or ethics investigations to the public? Or embarrassing details of the CEO’s private life? The impact could be quite costly.

Legal Risks of Social Media Posts

With over 554 million active registered users and an estimated average of 58 million tweets per day in 2013 to the microblogging site Twitter, 13 a number that continues to increase, surely some employees in your organization are tweeting. As of the fi rst quarter of 2013, more than 225 million professionals in over 200 countries and ter- ritories were members of the LinkedIn network, and the network continues to expand, with students and recent college graduates being the fastest-growing segment. Ap- proximately 33 percent of members are in the United States.14

The casual use of public comments can easily create liability for a company. With no IG policy, guidelines, monitoring, or governance, legal risks of using social media increase signifi cantly. This is an avoidable risk.

Many people are posting birthday wishes and pictures of what they had for dinner, but others may be venting about specifi c companies and individuals within those companies. There’s a difference between “I can’t stand Wall Street,” and “Goldman is run by Satan, and his name is John Smith. We’re going to sue his butt off.” Instant liability .

Two of the biggest threats of social media use for organizations come from the lack of a social media policy and threats presented by employee use.

260 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

The specifi cs of where and how an employee posted or tweeted a message may mean whether a lawsuit against your company is successful or not. If a personal LinkedIn or Twitter account is used, and it was posted after hours using a PC from home, the company may be off the hook. But if it was done using a company computer or network, or from a company-authorized account, a defense will be diffi cult. Opposing counsel likely will ask questions about the policy for posting fi rst. One thing is true: “Much of this remains unsettled ground.”15

Just when compliance and records managers thought they had nailed down IG for e-mail, IM, and electronic records, social media came on the scene creating new, dynamic challenges!

Even though not all social media content will rise to the level of a record, accord- ing to the defi nition in use, the organization still may be responsible for managing the nonrecord content. For example, an organization may consider a social networking profi le a record but consider comments nonrecords. That decision will have an impact on what must be retained according to the records retentions schedule. It does not, however, absolve the organization from monitoring and evaluating the comments. 16

“Tweets are no different from letters, e-mail, or text messages—they can be dam- aging and discoverable, which is especially problematic for companies that are required to preserve electronic records, such as the securities industry and federal contractors. Yet another compliance headache is born.”

Blogs are simply Web logs, a sort of online journal that is focused on a particular topic. Blog readers can become followers and receive notices when new content is posted as well as add their own comments, which may be moderated or restricted. It seems confounding, but with the explosion in the use of blogs, there have been actual incidents where employees have “disclosed trade secrets and insider trading informa- tion on their blogs. Blogs have also led to wrongful termination and harassment suits.”

So the liability and potential for leakage or erosion of information assets is not theoretical; it is real.

To safeguard the enterprise that sanctions and supports blog use, IG policies must be clear, and real-time capture and management of blog posts should be implemented. Re- member, these can be business records that are subject to legal holds, and authenticity and accuracy are crucial in supporting a legal case. So a true and original copy must be retained. This may, in fact, be a legal or regulatory requirement, depending on the industry.

If content-posting guidelines are not clear, then the informal nature of social me- dia posts potentially can be damaging to an organization. The usual fact checking and vetting that is done for traditional press releases and advertising may not be con- ducted, so social media posts can be unscreened and unfi ltered, which poses problems when IG policies are not clear and fully enforced. 17 Beyond that, the consequences of violating policy should be severe and clearly stated in policies, as should the penalties imposed, a message that should be reinforced consistently over time.

With no IG policy, guidelines, monitoring, or governance, legal risks of using social media increase signifi cantly. This is an avoidable risk.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 261

Tools to Archive Social Media

New approaches to capture, manage, and archive social media are emerging. Some are free or inexpensive and appropriate for personal and small business use. Others require a more substantial investment of resources but better meet the needs of midsize and large organizations.

Public Social Media Solutions

Launched as a personal cloud organizing service in March 2012, Jolicloud took a fi le system approach to social media so Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, Picasa, and Twitter content that was previously interacted with or shared could be sorted and searched. 18 The service “slurps” (extracts) content from social media sites and makes it available for viewing through any mainstream Internet browser, tablet, or smartphone. As users perform social media functions like sharing, “liking,” and “favoriting” content on their various social media services, the content is automatically saved to their Jolicloud ac- count, which can later be sorted and searched.

Jolicloud has similarities with other “personal social Web memory” products, such as Facebook Timeline and TimeHop. In 2013, Jolicloud added the ability to view and edit fi les and rebranded its unifi ed cloud platform Jolidrive.19

If you prefer to maintain copies of all fi les on your own computer, an alternative to Jolicloud is a product called SocialFolders. This app lives on your computer and con- nects directly to your favorite social media sites so you can manage, backup, and sync your photos, videos, and documents in a centralized location. 20

Since Facebook and Twitter initially did not provide archiving tools, some third- party applications have popped up to perform the task.

TwInbox is a free MS Outlook plug-in that archives Twitter postings and allows us- ers to install a (Twitter) menu option to send tweets directly from Outlook; these tweets are archived into a standard Outlook folder. The folder can be confi gured to capture tweets that a user sends outside of Outlook, so that everything is stored in one folder.

TweetTake is a free utility that archives followers and tweet posts. It does not require a software download, and the archive can be stored as a zip fi le and then im- ported into a spreadsheet (e.g., Excel) for further analysis. By the time this book goes to press, there will be even more options, and the existing ones will have changed and (it is hoped) improved.

If your organization uses Twitter and social media archiving is required by law, regulations, or internal IG policies, a good place to start your research is with software like TwInbox (if you operate in a Microsoft Offi ce environment) and TweetTake as well as other new entrants to the market or other options your organization may have. 21

For archiving Facebook posts, there are several options. Facebook users can down- load and archive their Facebook data from their account settings page. Also, there are free plug-ins for Mozilla’s Firefox browser. One comes directly from Mozilla, which archives everything but fan pages into a zip fi le. Another is a Firefox add-on called ArchiveFacebook, which allows you to save Facebook content directly to your hard drive and view the content exactly as it looks on Facebook. Other tools, including So- cialSafe, PageFreezer, and Wayback Machine, charge a small fee. All of these options and new ones need to be evaluated when selecting an archiving solution for Facebook that meets your organization’s requirements.

262 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

For archiving LinkedIn posts and information, SocialSafe, PageFreezer, and Way- back Machine can be used, and other tools will surface.

To convert records to a standard format for use outside of the social media application, there are also options to create PDF documents out of social media posts using products like PDF995 and PrimoPDF.22 Nuance Software also provides PDFCreate.

Additional archiving tools are being developed as the social media market matures. Bear in mind that tools developed by third parties always carry some risk that tools directly from the software or service provider do not.

These tools may not provide a legally defensible audit trail in court. Choosing among the tools requires a critical analysis and may require additional technology layers. Other alternatives, such as real-time content archiving tools and even in-house developed customizations, also have to be considered.

Government and Industry Solutions

Most of the products and methods that could be of use for personal or small business archiving of social media content involves manual intervention, which can be time consuming. All organizations must focus on their core business and would benefi t from tools and services that streamline and automate the archiving process as much as possible—however, there is a cost. Midsize and large organizations, often using both public and enterprise social media technologies, may fi nd the investment in com- mercial products and services worth the additional cost, especially those products that integrate and manage social media content with other enterprise content. Capture and management of social media content is an area that must be addressed as part of an overall IG strategy. Some of the solutions available at this time are described in Table 13.2 ; however, because of the recent increased focus on archiving solutions for public and enterprise social media content, the landscape will continue to become more effi cient, effective, and possibly unifi ed.d

In addition to providing archiving functions, unifi ed and integrated solutions provide business intelligence applications and tools to enable the enterprise to better achieve its organizational goals, processes, and performance requirements.

IG Considerations for Social Media

The report “How Federal Agencies Can Effectively Manage Records Created Us- ing Social Media Tools” addresses building an IG framework for social media. An IG model provides the overarching policies, guidelines, and boundaries for social media initiatives. 23

An IG framework for social media should incorporate social media policy, controls, and operational guidelines as well as spell out consequences for violations. Best practices for social media still are being established, and those that have been established are evolving. In addition to establishing policies to govern the use of social media across the organiza- tion, best practices should include industry-specifi c, vertical market considerations. A cross-section of functional groups within the enterprise should provide input into the policy-making process. At the very minimum, internal audit, marketing, fi nance, infor- mation technology (IT), legal, human resources, and RM must be consulted, and all

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 263

Table 13.2 Social Media Archiving and Management Software

Type of Solution Description Examples

Archiving solution Services that capture, protect, and retain social media for compliance, e-discovery, digital preservation, and records management

Archives Social; Smarsh; RegEd by Arkovi

Unifi ed solutions Services and software that facilitate the management of various fi le types across the enterprise (e.g., social media, legacy data, word fi les, SharePoint fi les) for storage, optimization, e-discovery, compliance, and records management

Unifi ed Archive® by ZL Technologies; Symantec Enterprise Vault; HP Autonomy

Integrated solutions Services that integrate various types of systems (e.g., customer relationship management in the cloud with social media tools, enterprise content management [ECM], and/or records management) to manage records and information for business operations and compliance.

Microsoft SharePoint 2013 and Yammer (contains social and collaboration features as well as RM and compliance features); Salesforce and Chatter (integrates social collaboration technology and potential to integrate with ECM content repository and ECM Documentum Records Manager).

business units should be represented. Clear roles and responsibilities must be spelled out, and controls must be established to govern acceptable use—essentially what is al- lowed and what is not. Even writing style, logo format, branding, and other marketing considerations should be weighed. The enterprise’s image and brand are at risk, and prudent steps must be taken to protect this valuable, intangible asset. And most im- portant, all legal and regulatory considerations must be folded into the new IG policy governing the use of social media.

Key Social Media Policy Guidelines

Your social media policy development process can begin by examining the published policies of major organizations in your industry or closely related industries. It should also be based on changes in the workplace as well as established standards, such as guidance developed as the result of a January 2013 ruling by the National Labor Rela- tions Board. More important, social media policies must be hand-crafted and customized for each organization.

An IG framework for social media should incorporate social media policy, con- trols, and operational guidelines, and spell out consequences for violations.

264 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

A prudent and properly crafted social media policy:

■ Specifi es who is authorized to create social media accounts for the organization. ■ Authorizes specifi cally who can speak on the organization’s behalf and who

cannot (by role/responsibility). ■ Outlines the types of negative impact on the company’s brand and reputation

that unscreened, poorly considered posts may have. 24 ■ Draws clear distinctions between business and personal use of social media and

specifi es whether personal access is allowed during work hours. ■ Underscores the fact that employees should not have any expectation of privacy

when using social media for corporate purposes, just as in using other forms of communications such as e-mail, IM, and voicemail, which may be monitored.

■ Clearly states what is proper and allowed on the organization’s behalf and what is forbidden in social media posts or using organization resources.

■ Instructs employees to always avoid engaging in company-confi dential or even controversial discussions.

■ Encourages/requires employees to include a standard disclaimer when pub- lishing content that makes clear the views shared are representative of the em- ployee and not the organization.

■ Strictly forbids the use of profanity and uses a professional business tone, albeit more informal than in other corporate communications.

■ Strictly forbids any statements that could be construed as defamatory, discrimi- native, or infl ammatory.

■ Outlines clear punishments and negative actions that will occur to enforce so- cial media policy.

■ Draws clear rules on the use of the company name and logo.25

The policy need not be long but should be clear. Best Buy’s social media policy, for example, uses the slogan, “Be smart. Be respectful. Be human.”26 It then breaks the guid- ance into two major sections: what you should do and what you should never disclose. A word of caution contained in the Best Buy Social Media Policy explains the rationale for the employee to abide by the social media policy: Protect the brand, protect yourself.

To ensure compliance with the organization’s IG strategy, it is also necessary to include a reference to the organization’s related policies, including the records and information management policy.

Records Management and Litigation Considerations for Social Media

Legal requirements and demands trump all others when making decisions about captur- ing and preserving social media records. Social media is no different from other forms of electronically stored information (ESI) in that it is potentially discoverable during n litigation.27 Not all ESI residing in social media are records, but all are discoverable. If an organization employs social media and makes a conscious decision not to archive t all or some portion of that data, it is taking risks. A legally defensible records retention schedule must be in place, and it must be based on specifi c laws that identify the records that must be retained and to a records retention policy that explains the process for iden- tifying, categorizing, and managing information and records.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 265

From an RM perspective, it is critical to consider that social media posts are more than the posts themselves; for legal or compliance purposes, they include metadata and hyperlinks to external content—and that external content in its native format— that must also be preserved, preferably in real time. That external content may be a PDF document, a PowerPoint presentation, Web site content, or even a video on YouTube, which would require that video archiving, along with associated metadata, is in place.

To truly capture the necessary content required by law, records and compli- ance managers must understand how software programs communicate with each other in order to recommend possible solutions to the IT department. One way to preserve the Web-based data of social media applications is to use the application programming interfaces (APIs) that social media providers offer. APIs offer standard “hooks” into an application. Another way, perhaps preferable, is to enlist a service that can capture and archive information from multiple social networks. Further innovations in tools and services that will make capturing these records easier are being developed.

Content found in social media networks can be static or dynamic. Profi les in Face- book and blog posts are examples of static content. They can be captured before being posted to the Web. Blog comments and endorsements through “liking” or “favoriting” a post are examples of dynamic content. The ideal method from a RM standpoint is to capture all dynamic social media content in real time in order to be able to prove authenticity and fi ght claims of records spoliation (corruption or adulteration of evi- dence) in the event of a discovery request.

Regardless of method of capture, social media content that meets record status criteria should be moved to a repository in an electronic records management

U.S. corporations must archive social media records under Rule 34 of the FRCP.

U.S. corporations that utilize social media are compelled to preserve those records, including metadata and associated linked content , according to Rule 34 of the t Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), which states that opposing parties in litigation may request “any designated documents or ESI—including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations—stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a usable form.”28 This echoes a key principle of the Sedona Confer- ence ®, a leading RM and legal retention think tank. Also, Rule 26 of the FRCPe requires that any and all information that might be discoverable or “potentially responsive” must be preserved and produced if requested by the opposing party. So it is clear that there is a legal duty to preserve social media records.

266 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

(ERM) system application. Then business rules for retention should be applied to those records. Typical functions of an ERM system include these:

■ Marking an electronic document as a read-only electronic record ■ Protecting the record against modifi cation or tampering ■ Filing a record against an organizational fi le plan or taxonomy for categorization ■ Marking records as vital records ■ Assigning disposal (archival or destruction rules) to records ■ Freezing and unfreezing disposal rules ■ Applying access and security controls (Security rules may differ from the source

elec tronic document in an electronic document management system or enter- prise content management [ ECM] software.)

■ Executing disposal processing (usually an administrative function) ■ Maintaining organizational/historical metadata that preserves the business

context of the record in the case of organizational change ■ Providing a history/audit trail 29

Robust search capabilities are perhaps the most crucial component of a social media ERM or archiving solution. It is fi ne to preserve the records and their associated metadata perfectly, but if you cannot easily fi nd and produce the information, compliance and e- discovery efforts will fall short and may cost the organization dearly.

Social media policy will be unique to each particular organization. It is fi ne to start with a social media policy example or template, but it must be tailored to the needs of the organization for it to be effective and legally defensible. 30

Records Retention Guidelines

Here are some basic records retention guidelines:

■ Make records threshold determinations. Examine the content to see if it in fact constitutes a record by your own organization’s defi nition of a record , which should d be contained in your IG policies. This records determination process likely also will require consultation with your legal counsel. If the social media site has not been kept operating, or it was used for a specifi c project that has been completed (and all pertinent records for that project have been retained), then its content may not require retention of records. 31

■ Use existing retention schedules if they apply. If your organization already has reten- tion policies for, say, e-mail, then any e-mail sent by social media should adhere to that same scheduling guideline, unless there is some legal reason to change it.

■ Apply basic content management principles. Focus on capturing all related content for social media posts, including conversation threads, and associated metadata that may be required in legal discovery to provide context and maintain the completeness, authenticity, and integrity of the records.

Social media policy must be unique to each particular organization.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 267

■ Risk avoidance in content creation. Instruct and reinforce the message to employ- ees participating in corporate social media that content on the Web stays there indefi nitely and that it carries potential legal risks. In addition, once something is posted on the Web, completely erasing and destroying the content at the end of its retention period is nearly impossible.

Content Control Models

There are several basic ways to manage social media content, ranging from tightly con- trolling it through one single, accountable person, to delegating control to the busi- ness unit level, all the way to letting the social media participants post their thoughts, unmoderated and unfettered, to encourage spontaneity and enthusiastic use of the tool. The approach your organization takes will depend on the specifi ed business ob- jectives you have for utilizing social media and your organization’s appetite for risk.

Emerging Best Practices for Managing Social Media Records

Best practices for managing social media business records are still evolving, and will continue to develop as records and information practitioners gain more experience with social media records. Here are some emerging best practices:

■ Identify records during the social media planning stage. Both a social media policy and the records and information policy should refer to a form to be completed by the person or unit proposing a new social media initiative. The person com- pleting the form should indicate if records will be created and, if so, how they will be managed.

■ Promote cross-functional communications. A social media team of representatives from various departments, such as IT, social media, legal, compliance, records management, and other stakeholders, is formed, and communication and col- laboration is encouraged and supported.

■ Require consultation in policy development. Extending beyond the social media team, input and advice from multiple stakeholder groups is essential for creat- ing IG policies that cover social media records management.

■ Establish clear roles and responsibilities. The cross-functional social media team must lay out clear expectations and responsibilities and draw lines of account- ability so that stakeholders understand what is expected of them.

■ Utilize content management principles. Management of social media content should fall under an ECM software implementation, which can capture and track content, including associated metadata and external content, and manage that social media content through its life cycle.

■ Implement RM functionality. Management by an ERM system that offers fea- tures that enable records retention and disposition, implementation of legal holds, and lifting of legal holds is essential.

■ Control the content. Clear guidelines and monitoring mechanisms must be in place to control and manage content before it gets published on the Web, when possible (e.g., static content on blogs and profi les in social networks) if there is any potential legal risk at all.

268 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

■ Capture content in real time. By implementing a real-time content capture solu- tion for content posted directly to social media (e.g., comments on blogs and posting of someone else’s content or retweets), organizations will begin their control and management of the content at soonest point and can more easily prove it is authentic and reliable from a legal perspective.

■ Champion search capabilities. After capture and preservation of records and as- sociated metadata, search capabilities are the single most important feature that the technology must provide.

■ Train, train, train. Social media is a new and emerging technology that changes rapidly. Users must be trained, and that training must be updated and rein- forced on a regular basis so that employees have clear guidelines, understand the technology, and understand the business objectives for its use.

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ Organizations are increasingly using social media and Web 2.0 platforms to connect people to companies and government.

■ Social media use presents unique challenges because of key differences with other electronic communications systems, such as e-mail and IM.

■ Two of the biggest risks that social networking poses to organizations are (1) not having a social media policy; and (2) employees may be—intentionally or not—exposing information that is not meant for public consumption.

■ Enterprise social networking software has many of the features of consumer social applications such as Facebook, but with more oversight and control, and they come with analytics features to measure adoption and use.

■ Various software tools have become available in recent years for archiving social media posts and followers for RM purposes.

■ An IG framework provides the overarching policies, guidelines, and bound- aries for social media initiatives, so that they may be controlled, monitored, and archived.

■ Social media posts are more than the post itself; they include metadata and also include hyperlinks to external content—and that external content must be preserved in its native format to meet legal standards.

■ Robust search capabilities are the most crucial component of a social media ERM or archiving solution.

■ Social media policy will be unique to each particular organization.

■ Best practices for managing social media business records are still evolving but include forming cross-functional social media teams with clear responsibilities, encouraging communication, and capturing complete content in real time.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR SOCIAL MEDIA 269

Notes

1. U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, NARA Bulletin 2011-02, “Guidance on Manag- ing Records in Web 2.0/Social Media Platforms,” October 20, 2010, www.archives.gov/records-mgmt/ bulletins/2011/2011-02.html .

2. Ibid. 3. See www.snapchat.com/ (accessed June 3, 2013). 4. See http://vine.com/ (accessed June 3, 2013). 5. Nancy Gohring , “Facebook and Twitter Rule the Enterprise, Too,” May 20, 2013, www.citeworld.com/

social/21893/facebook-twitter-rule-enterprise (accessed June 4, 2013). 6. Andrew Conry-Murray, “Can Enterprise Social Networking Pay Off?” Internet Evolution, March 21, 2009,

www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=173854 . 7. Patricia C. Franks, “How Federal Agencies Can Effectively Manage Records Created Using New

Social Media Tools,” IBM Center for the Business of Government, San Jose State University, 2010, www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/How%20Federal%20Agencies%20Can%20 Effectively%20Manage%20Records%20Created%20Using%20New%20Social%20Media%20Tools. pdf , pp. 20–21 (accessed March 30, 2012).

8. Ibid. 9. Paul McDougall, “Social Networking Here to Stay Despite Security Risks,” Information Week , May 12,

2011, www.informationweek.com/news/security/privacy/229500138 . 10. Chris Nerney, “5 Top Social Media Security Threats,” Network World , May 31, 2011, www.network-d

world.com/news/2011/053111-social-media-security.html . 11. C. Savage, “Soldier Admits Providing Files to WikiLeaks,” New York Times , February 23, 2013, wwws

.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-giving-trove-of-military-data-to-wikileaks

.html?ref=bradleyemanning&_r=0 (accessed May 19, 2013). 12. Ibid. 13. Twitter Statistics, Statistic Brain, www.statisticbrain.com/twitter-statistics/ (accessed May 18, 2013). 14. LinkedIn, “About Us,” www.linkedin.com/about-us (accessed May 18, 2013). 15. Sharon Nelson, John Simek, and Jason Foltin, “Capturing Quicksilver: Records Management for

Blogs, Twittering and Social Networks,” Sensei Enterprises, 2009, www.senseient.com/storage/articles/ Capturing_Quicksilver.pdf (accessed December 10, 2013).

16. This discussion and the next quotes in this section are from Patricia C. Franks, Records and Information Management (Chicago: American Library Association Neal-Schuman, 2013), p. 179.t

17. Sharon Nelson and John Simek, “Mitigating Legal Risks of Using Social Media,” Information Manage- ment 45, no. 5 (September/October 2011), ARMA International.t

18. Liz Gannes, “Saving the Social Web for Later Use: Jolicloud Organizes Everything You’ve Shared, Liked, and Favorited,” March 19, 2012, http://allthingsd.com/20120319/saving-the-social-web-for- later-use-jolicloud-organizes-everything-youve-shared-liked-and-favorited/ .

19. Nick Summers, “Jolicloud Rebrands Its Unifi ed Cloud Platform as Jolidrive, Adds the Ability to View and Edit Files,” TNW , March 6, 2013, http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/03/06/jolicloud-rebrands-its-WW unifi ed-cloud-service-as-jolidrive-adding-the-ability-to-edit-and-view-fi les/ (accessed May 18, 2013).

20. Social Folders, “About Us,” http://socialfolders.me/about-us/ (accessed May 18, 2013). 21. Andy Opsahl, “Backing Up Twitter and Facebook Posts Challenges Governments,” Government

Technology , January 20, 2010, www.govtech.com/policy-management/Backing-Up-Twitter-and-Face- book-Posts.html?utm_source=related&utm_medium=direct&utm_campaign=Backing-Up-Twitter- and-Facebook-Posts .

22. Ibid. 23. The next discussion is based on Franks, “How Federal Agencies Can Effectively Manage Records.” 24. Nelson and Simek, “Mitigating Legal Risks of Using Social Media.” 25. Ibid. 26. Best Buy Social Media Policy, http://forums.bestbuy.com/t5/Welcome-News/Best-Buy-Social-Media-

Policy/td-p/20492 (accessed December 10, 2013). 27. The next discussion is based on Rakesh Madhava, “10 Things to Know about Preserving Social Media,”

Information Management (September/October 2011): 34–35, 37. ARMA International.t 28. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rulesandpolicies/rules/cv2009.pdf

(accessed 2/20/14). 29. Franks, Records and Information Management , p. 151. t 30. Ibid., pp. 36–37. 31. Guidelines here and in the next section are from New York State Archives, “Records Advisory: Preliminary

Guidance on Social Media,” May 24, 2010, www.archives.nysed.gov/a/records/mr_social_media.shtml .

271

Information Governance for Mobile Devices*

C H A P T E R 14

* Portions of this chapter are adapted from Chapter 7 , Robert F. Smallwood, Safeguarding Critical E-Documents: Imple- menting a Program for Securing Confi dential Information Assets , © John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2012. Reproduced withs permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The use of mobile devices is ubiquitous in today’s society. According to CTIA (the Wireless Association), over 326 million mobile devices were in use within the United States as of December 2012. 1 This is a more than 100 percent penetra- tion rate, since many users have more than one mobile device, and usage continues to grow. Citizens of China, India, and the European Union (EU) have even greater mobile phone usage than those in the United States.

Mobile computing has vastly accelerated in popularity over the last decade. Sev- eral factors have contributed to this: Improved network coverage, physically smaller devices, improved processing power, better price points, a move to next-generation operating systems (OSs) such as Google’s Android and Apple’s iOS, and a more mobile workforce have fueled the proliferation of mobile devices.

Mobile devices include laptops, netbooks, tablet PCs, personal digital assistants (PDAs) such as BlackBerries, and smartphones such as Apple’s iPhone and those based on Google’s Android platform. What used to be simple cell phones are now small com- puters with nearly complete functionality and some unique communications capabilities. These devices all link to an entire spectrum of public and private networks.

Gartner has estimated that “by 2016, 40 percent of the global workforce will be mobile , with 67 percent of workers using smartphones” 2 (emphasis added).

With these new types of devices and operating environments come new demands for information governance (IG) policies and unknown security risks. 3 The Digital Systems Knowledge Transfer Network, a UK think tank, found: “The plethora of mo- bile computing devices fl ooding into the market will be one of the biggest ongoing security challenges [moving forward].” “With mobile devices connecting to Wi-Fi and Bluetooth networks, there are suddenly many more opportunities [for hackers] to get in and steal personal information.”4

Due to this rapid shift toward mobile computing, companies with mobile person- nel, such as salespeople and service technicians, need to be aware of and vigilant toward these impending security threats, which can compromise confi dential information.

Securing mobile devices is critical: A survey by Aberdeen Group, an IT research and analysis fi rm, estimates that that data leakage or loss can cost an organization anywhere from $10,600 to over $400,000 . 5

272 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

The reality is that most mobile devices are not designed with security in mind ; in fact, d some compromises have been made to enable new smartphone operating systems to run on a variety of hardware, such as the Android OS from Google. This is analogous to the trade-offs Microsoft made when developing the Windows OS to run across a variety of hardware designs from many PC manufacturers.

Smartphone virus infections are particularly diffi cult to detect and thorny to remove. Users may be unaware that all their data is being monitored and captured and that a hacker is waiting for just the right time to use it. Businesses can suffer economic and other damage, such as erosion of information assets or even negative goodwill from a damaged image.

The smartphone market is rapidly expanding with new developments almost daily, each providing criminals with a new opportunity. An International Data Corporation report indicated that “ smartphone sales outpaced PC sales for the fi rst time ever in the fourth quarter of 2010 , with 100.9 million smartphones shipped versus 92.1 million PCs” (em- phasis added). 6 The growth in smartphone sales and new services from banks—such as making deposits remotely by snapping a picture of a check—means that there are new and growing opportunities for fraud and identity theft.

Awareness and education are key. The fi rst line of defense is for users to better under- stand cybercriminal techniques and to become savvier in their use of information and commu- nications technologies. s

A large part of the battle will be won when biometric authentication technolo- gies (those that use retina, voice, and fi ngerprint recognition) are mature enough to positively identify a user to ensure the correct person is accessing fi nancial or confi dential accounts. Application suppliers are fi rst concerned about functionality and widespread adoption; security is not their top priority. Users must be aware and vigilant to protect themselves from theft and fraud. On a corporate level, organi- zations must step up their training efforts in addition to adding layers of security technology to safeguard critical electronic documents and data and to protect infor- mation assets.

Social engineering —using various ways of fooling the user into providing privategg data—is the most common approach criminal hackers use , and it is on the rise. Machines do their job, and software performs exactly as it is programmed to do, but human beings are the weakest link in the security chain. As usage trends in the direction of a more mobile and remote workforce, people need to be trained as to what threats exist and constantly updated on new criminal schemes and approaches. This training is all part of an overall IG effort, controlling who has access to what information, t when, and from where.

With more and more sensitive business information being pushed out to mo- bile devices (e.g., fi nancial spreadsheets, business contracts, strategic plans, etc.) and advancing and evolving threats to mobile the mobile realm, IG becomes an imperative; and the most important part of IG is that it is done on an ongoing basis, con- sistently and regularly . Policies must be reviewed when a new mobile device starts to be utilized, when new threats are uncovered, as employees use unsecured public Wi-Fi networks more and more, and as business operations change to include more and more mobile strategies. Information technology (IT) divisions must ensure their mobile devices are protected from the latest security risks, and users must regularly be apprised of changing security threats and new criminal approaches by hackers.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR MOBILE DEVICES 273

Mobile device management (MDM) is critical to secure confi dential informa-t tion assets and managing mobile devices. Some available technologies can wipe devices free of confi dential documents and data remotely, even after they are lost or stolen. These types of utilities need to be deployed to protect an enterprise’s information assets.

Current Trends in Mobile Computing

With the rapid pace of change in mobile computing, it is crucial to convey an under- standing of trends, to better know what developments to anticipate and how to plan for them. When a new mobile device or operating system is released, the best thing may be to wait to see what security threats pop up. It is important to understand the direction mobile computing usage and deployment are taking in order to plan and develop IG policies to protect information assets.

From CIOZone.com, here are the top trends in mobile computing:

1. Long Term Evolution (LTE). The so-called fourth generation of mobile computing (4G) is expected to be rolled out across North America over the next several years [2013–2015], making it possible for corporate users to run business applications on their devices simultaneously with Voice over IP (VoIP) capabilities.

2. WiMax [Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access]. As LTE andx WiMax networks are deployed in the U.S. through [2013 and beyond], expect to see more netbooks and laptops equipped with built-in radio fre- quency identifi cation (RFID) and wireless support. [WiMax is protocol for communications that provides up to 40 megabits/second speeds (much faster than Wi-Fi) for fi xed and mobile Internet access. The next IEEE 802.16m update will push the speed to up to 1 gigabyte bit/second fi xed speeds.]

3. 3G and 4G interoperability. Sprint has developed a dual mode card which will enable mobile device users to work on both 3G and 4G networks. Other carriers are expected to follow suit.

4. Smartphone applications. Third-party software vendors will increasingly make enterprise applications available for smartphones, including inven- tory management, electronic medical records management, warehousing, distribution and even architectural and building inspection data for the construction industry.

5. GPS. Global Positioning Systems (GPS) will increasingly be used to iden- tify end users by their whereabouts and also to analyze route optimization for delivery workers and service technicians.

6. Security. As new and different types of mobile devices are introduced, cor- porate IT departments will fi nd it increasingly challenging to identify and authenticate individual end users. As such, expect to see a combination of improvements in both Virtual Private Network (VPN) software and hard- ware-based VPNs to support multiple device types.

274 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

7. Antivirus. As more third-party business applications are made available on smartphones and other mobile devices, CIOs [chief information offi cers] will also have to be cognizant about the potential for viruses and worms.

8. Push-button applications. Let’s say a waste disposal truck arrives at an indus- trial site and is unable to empty a Dumpster because a vehicle is blocking its path. Smartphones will increasingly have applications built into them that would make it possible for the disposal truck driver to photograph the impeding object and route the picture to a dispatcher to document and time-stamp the obstruction.

9. Supplemental broadband. As carriers implement LTE and WiMax networks, companies such as Sprint and Verizon are looking at potentially extending wireless broadband capabilities to small businesses which don’t have fi ber optic or copper connections on the ground. Under this scenario, a small packaging company in New Jersey could potentially be able to receive T-1 level (high-speed) broadband capabilities in regions of the U.S. where it has offi ces but doesn’t have wireline broadband connections.

10. Solid State Drives (SSDs). Corporate customers should expect to see contin- ued improvements in the controllers and fi rmware built into SSDs in order to improve the longevity of the write cycles in notebooks. 7

Security Risks of Mobile Computing

Considering their small size, mobile computing devices store a tremendous amount of data, and storage capacities are increasing with the continued shrinking of circuits and advancement in SSD technologies. Add to that the fact that they are highly portable and often unsecured and you have a vulnerable mix that criminals can target. Consid- ering how often people lose or misplace their mobile devices daily, and what valuable targets they are for physical theft (this author had a laptop stolen in the Barcelona air- port, right from under his nose), and it is clear that the use of mobile devices represents an inherent security risk.

But they do not have to be lost or stolen to be compromised, according to Stan- ford University’s guidelines, which are intended to help mobile computing device us- ers protect the information the devices contain. “ Intruders can sometimes gain all the access they need if the device is left alone and unprotected, or if data is ‘sniffed out of the air’ during wireless communications” s 8 (emphasis added). The devices can be compromised with the use of keystroke loggers that capture every single entry a user makes. This can be done without the user having any knowledge of it. That means company passwords, confi dential databases, and fi nancial data (including personal and corporate credit card numbers) are all at risk.

Securing Mobile Data

The fi rst and best way to protect confi dential information assets is to remove confi dential, un- necessary, or unneeded data from the mobile device. Confi dential data should not be stored on the device unless explicit permission is given by the IT department, business unit

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR MOBILE DEVICES 275

head, or the IG board to do so. This includes price lists, strategic plans, competi- tive information, photo images of corporate buildings or coworkers, and fi nancial data such as tax identifi cation numbers, company credit card or banking details, and other confi dential information.

If it is necessary for sensitive data to be stored on mobile devices, there are options to secure the data more tightly, using USB drives, fl ash drives, and hard drives that have integrated digital identity and cryptographic (encryption) capabilities.

Mobile Device Management

MDM software helps organizations to remotely monitor, secure, and manage devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs. 9 MDM improves security and streamlines enterprise management of mobile devices by providing ways to contact the remote devices individually or en masse to add, upgrade, or delete software, change confi guration settings, and “wipe,” or erase, data, and make other security-related changes and updates. More sophisticated MDM offerings can manage not only homogenous company-owned mobile devices but also those that employees use in the workplace in a bring-your-own-device (BYOD) environment.

The ability to control confi guration settings and secure data remotely allows or- ganizations to better manage and control mobile devices, which reduces the risk of data leakage and reduces support costs by providing more uniformity and the ability to monitor enforce company-dictated IG policy for mobile devices.

Key vendors in the MDM marketplace include AirWatch, Apple (Profi le Man- ager) AppSense, BoxTone, Centrify, Citrix, Good Technology, IBM (Endpoint Man- ager for Mobile Devices), LANDesk, MobileIron, SAP (Afaria MDM), and Symantec (Mobile Management Suite).

Rapid growth is expected in the MDM marketplace, with Gartner projecting that nearly two-thirds of organizations will deploy MDM software by 2018. 10 And Frost & Sullivan projects that “the market for enterprise MDM will grow from $178.6 million in 2011 to $712.4 million by 2018.” 11

Trends in MDM

Six key trends in the MDM marketplace are discussed next.

1. MDM software expansion and maturity. Many experts believe that MDM will develop and reach beyond just mobile endpoints to include deep integration with mobile infrastructure and applications (apps). 12 What is important is securing and authenticating data. To ensure that, MDM must expand beyond remote device locking, tracking, and wiping. A more comprehensive life cycle management approach will emerge beginning with the acquisition or introduction of the device into the enterprise network until its retirement or destruction. In addition, monitoring and controlling costs through integrated expense management will likely occur.

2. Consolidation of MDM major players. Acquisitions by Citrix, Good Technology, TT and others signal that fewer but stronger market leaders are likely to emerge.

276 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

3. Cloud-based MDM. This will become the norm, not the exception, and it will happen quite rapidly.

4. Emphasis on mobile device policy. Technology can do only so much—an orga- nization must have its IG policies, processes, and audit practices formalized, tested, and monitored. The IT department must have clear direction on which data and devices to monitor and secure, and employee rights and responsibili- ties must be clearly delineated and communicated.

5. Diversifying and expanding mobile monitoring and security. This means that MDM may go beyond today’s mobile devices and include remote instruments and machines that are churning out data in applications, such as process man- agement, transportation management, and enterprise resource management.

6. Infrastructure consolidation. The currently disparate pieces, including social computing, mobile computing, and cloud computing, may consolidate and become the new construct for the infrastructure paradigm. This means that tools will emerge to manage all these pieces in a centralized and holistic way.

IG for Mobile Computing

Stanford University’s guidelines are a helpful foundation for IG of mobile devices. They are “relatively easy to implement and use and can protect your privacy” and safeguard data “in the event that the device becomes compromised, lost or stolen.” 13

Smartphones and Tablets ■ Encrypt communications. For phones that support encrypted communication

(secure sockets layer [SSL], virtual private network [VPN], hypertext transfer protocol secure [https]), always confi gure defaults to use encryption.

■ Encrypt storage. Phones approved to access confi dential information assets must encrypt their bulk storage with hardware encryption.

■ Password protect. Confi gure a password to gain access and or use the device. Passwords for devices that access confi dential information assets should be at least seven characters in length and use upper- and lowercase letters as well as some numerical characters. Passcodes should be changed every 30 days.

■ Timeout. Set the device so that it is locked after a period of idleness or timeout, perhaps as short as a few minutes.

■ Update. Keep all system and application patches up to date, including mobile OSs and installed applications. This allows for the latest security measures and patches to be installed to counter ongoing threats.

■ Protect from hacking. Phones approved to access confi dential and restricted data must not be jailbroken (hacked to gain privileged access on a smartphone us- ing the Apple iOS) or rooted (typically refers to jailbreaking on a smartphone running the Android OS). The process of rooting varies widely by device. It usually includes exploiting a security weakness in the fi rmware shipped from the factory. “‘Jailbreaking’ and ‘rooting’ removes the manufacturer’s protection against malware.”

■ Manage. Phones approved to gain access to confi dential information assets must be operating in a managed environment to maintain the most current security and privacy settings, and monitor use for possible attacks.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR MOBILE DEVICES 277

Portable Storage Devices These include thumb drives or memory sticks, removable hard drives, and even devices like iPods that are essentially mobile disc storage units with extra bells and whistles.

■ Create a user name and password to protect the device from unauthorized ac-d cess—especially if lost or stolen.

■ Utilize encryption to protect data on devices used to store and/or transport con- fi dential information assets.

■ Use additional levels of authentication and management for accessing the device,t where possible.

■ Use biometric identifi cation to authenticate users, where possible.

Laptops, Netbooks, Tablets, and Portable Computers ■ Password protect. This is the most basic protection, yet it is often not used. Cre-

ate a user name and password to protect the device from unauthorized access; require that they are entered each time the computer is used.

■ Timeout. Require that the password is reentered after a timeout period for the screensaver.

■ Encrypt. Laptops, notebooks, or tablets used to access confi dential information assets should be required to be encrypted with whole disk encryption.

■ Secure physically. Physical locks should be used “ whenever the system is in a station- ary location for extended periods of times.” s

Building Security into Mobile Applications

While it is a relatively new channel, mobile electronic commerce (e-commerce) is growing rapidly, and new software apps are emerging for consumers as well as business and public sector enterprises. These apps are reducing business process cycle times and making the organizations more agile, more effi cient, and more productive. Some key strategies can be used to build secure apps.

As is the case with any new online delivery channel, security is at the forefront for organizations as they rush to deploy or enhance mobile business apps in the fast- growing smartphone market. Their priorities are different from those of the software developers churning out apps.

In the banking sector, initially many mobile apps limited customers to a walled-off set of basic functions—checking account balances and transaction histories, fi nding a branch or automated teller machine location, and initiating transfers—but “a new wave of apps is bringing person-to-person payments, remote deposit capture and bill pay to the mobile channel. Simply, the apps are getting smarter and more capable. But with those capabilities comes the potential for greater threats”s 14 (emphasis added).

Security experts state that the majority of the challenges that could result from mobile fraud have not been seen before. Mobile e-commerce is relatively new and has not been heavily targeted—yet. But industrial espionage and the theft of trade secrets by targeting mobile devices is going to be on the rise and the focus of rogue competitive intelligence-gathering organizations. User organizations have to be even

278 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

more proactive, systematic, and diligent in designing and deploying mobile apps than they did with Web-based apps.

Software developers of mobile apps necessarily seek the widest audience possible, so they often deploy them across multiple platforms, which forces some security trade- offs: Enterprises have to build apps for the “strengths and weaknesses intrinsic to every device, which adds to the security challenges”15 (emphasis added).

A side effect of mobile app development efforts from the user perspective is that it can reshape the way users interact with core information management (IM) applica- tions within the enterprise.

The back-offi ce IM systems, such as accounting, customer relationship manage- ment, human resources, and other enterprise apps that are driving online and mobile, are the same as before, but the big difference comes in how stakeholders (employees, customers, and suppliers) are interacting with the enterprise. In the past, when deploy- ing basic online applications for browser access, there was much more control over the operating environment; with newer mobile applications running on smartphones and tablets, that functionality has been pushed out to end user devices.

Real Threats Are Poorly Understood

The list of threats to mobile apps is growing, and existing threats are poorly under- stood, in general. They are just too new, because mobile commerce by downloadable app is a relatively new phenomenon—the Apple iTunes App Store and the Android Marketplace debuted in the second half of 2008. “But that doesn’t mean the threat isn’t real—even if the app itself is not the problem.” 16 The problem could be the unsecure network users are on or a device infection of some sort.

For mobile apps, antivirus protection is not the focus as it is in the PC world; the security effort mostly focuses on keeping malware off the device itself by addressing software development methods and network vulnerabilities. Surely, new types of at- tacks on mobile devices will continue to be introduced. That is the one thing that can be counted on.

There already have been some high-profi le examples of mobile devices being compromised. For example, in 2010:

New York–based Citibank’s iPhone app was found to be storing customers’ [private] data on their phones, with obvious privacy implications [and expos- ing it to theft and fraud]. Meanwhile, Google (New York) has had to pull a number of apps from the Android Marketplace built by an anonymous [crim- inal] developer who was creating fake bank apps [with realistic and usable features] that attempted to exploit information on users’ devices to commit banking and [credit] card fraud.

There are many more examples, but the cited incidents make it imperative to understand the mobile app marketplace itself in order that effective IG policies and controls may be developed, deployed, and enforced. Simply knowing how Google has approached soliciting app development is key to developing an IG strategy for Android devices. Google’s relatively open-door approach initially meant that almost anyone could develop and deploy an app for Google Android. Although the policy has evolved somewhat to protect Android users, it is still quite easy for any app developer—well

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR MOBILE DEVICES 279

intentioned or malicious—to release an app to the Android Marketplace. This in itself can pose a risk to end users, who sometimes cannot tell the difference between a real app released by a bank and a banking app built by a third party, which may be fraudulent. Apple has taken a more prudent and measured approach by enforcing a quality-controlled approval process for all apps released to its iTunes App Store. Sure, it slows development, but it also means apps will be more thoroughly tested and secure.

Both approaches have their positives and negatives the companies and for the de- vice users. But clearly, Apple’s curated and quality-controlled approach is better from a security risk standpoint.

Understanding the inherent strengths and, perhaps more important, weaknesses of specifi c mobile hardware devices and OS—and their interaction with each other— is key when entering the software design phase for mobile apps.

The development environment is altogether different. Windows programmers will experience a learning curve. Mobile apps under Android or Apple OS operate in a more restricted and less transparent fi le management environment.

Bearing that in mind—regardless of the mobile OS—fi rst ensure that data is secured, — and then check the security of the application itself. That is, practice good IT governance to ensure that the software source code is also secure. Malicious code can be inserted into the program; once it is deployed, hackers will have an easy time stealing confi dential data or documents.

Innovation versus Security: Choices and Trade-offs

As organizations deploy mobile apps, they must make choices, given the limited or confi ned software development environment and the need to make agile, intuitive apps that run fast so users will adopt them. To ensure that a mobile offering is secure, many businesses are limiting their apps’ functionality. So stakeholder users get mobile access that they didn’t have before and a new interface with new functionality, but it is not possible to offer as much functionality as in Web apps. And more security means some sacrifi ces and choices will need to be made versus speed and innovative new features.

Some of the lessons learned in the deployment of online Web apps still apply to mobile apps. Hackers are going to try social engineering like phishing (duping users into providing access or private information) and assuming the identity of an account holder, bank, or business. They will also attempt man-in-the-middle attacks. (More on that topic soon).

With mobile applications, typically the app is operated directly on a mobile de- vice, such as a smartphone. This is a key difference between apps and traditional PC-based interfaces that rely on browser access or using basic mobile phone text messaging. Connect- ing to a business via app can be more secure than relying on a browser or texting platform, which require an additional layer of software (e.g., the browser, texting platform, or Wi-Fi connection) to execute sensitive tasks. These security vulnerabili- ties can compromise the safety of information transmitted to a secure site. Thank- fully, if the app is developed in a secure environment, it can be entirely self-contained, and the opportunity to keep mobile data secure is greatest when using the app as opposed to a browser-based platform.

This is because a mobile app provides a direct connection between the user’s de- vice and the business, governmental agency, or e-commerce provider. Some security experts believe that mobile apps potentially could be more secure than browser-based

280 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

access from the desktop because they can communicate on an app-to-app (or comput- er-to-computer) level.

In fact, “a customer using a bank app on a mobile network might just be safer than a customer accessing online banking on a PC using an open Wi-Fi connection” that anyone can monitor.

How do you combat this browser-based vulnerability if it is required to access an online interface? The most effective and simplest way to counter security threats in the PC- based browser environment and to eliminate man-in-the-browser or man-in-the-middle r attacks is to use two different devices rather than communicate over a standard Internet s connection. This approach can be built into IG guidelines.

Consider this: Mobile apps actually can bring about greater security. For exam- ple, do you receive alerts from your bank when hitting a low-balance threshold? Or a courtesy e-mail when a transaction is posted? Just by utilizing these types of alerts—and they can be applied to any type of software application beyond bank- ing—tech-savvy users themselves can serve as an added layer of protection. If they receive an alert of account activity regularly, they may be able to identify fraudulent activity immediately and take action to counter it and stop it in its tracks, limiting the damage and potential exposure of additional private data or confi dential infor- mation assets.

Best Practices to Secure Mobile Applications

Mobile computing is not going away; it is only going to increase in the future. Most businesses and governments are going to be forced to deploy mobile apps to compete and provide services customers will require. There is the potential for exposure of confi dential data and e-documents, but this does not mean that organizations must shy away from deploying mobile apps. 17 Some proven best practice approaches can help to ensure that mobile apps are secure.

Some steps can be taken to improve security—although there can never be any guarantees— and some of these should be folded into IG guidelines in the policy de- velopment process. BankTech magazine identifi ed six best practices that can shape an organization’s app development process:

1. Make sure your organization or outside development fi rm uses seasoned application developers who have had secure-coding training and use a se- cure software development life cycle (SDLC).

2. [Developed for banking apps, this approach can be applied to other vertical apps too.] Follow the guidance suggested by the Federal Deposit Insur- ance Corp. (FDIC FIL-103-2005) regarding authentication in an Inter- net banking environment. The guidance describes enhanced authentication methods, such as multifactor authentication, that regulators expect banks to use when authenticating the identity of customers using the bank’s online products and services.

3. Make sure that the customer (or employee) is required to re-enter his or her credentials after a certain time period to prevent someone other than the mo-d bile device’s owner from obtaining access to private account information.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR MOBILE DEVICES 281

4. Hire an information security expert to assess the security around your mobile t application servers. Unfortunately, an organization’s servers are often over- looked during a risk assessment, as they require a specialized skill set to test d them.

5. Encrypt sensitive data that is stored on a mobile device and account data that travels from the handset across the Internet. Ensure that the encryption is implemented properly.

6. Hire a security expert to test the security of a mobile application before you implement it across your customer base. 18 (Emphasis added throughout.)

Developing Mobile Device Policies

Where do you start? Developing a comprehensive mobile strategy is key before you craft your mobile device policies. You will need input from a variety of stakeholders, and you will need to understand where mobile devices fi t in your overall technology infrastructure and strategy. Here are some best practices for developing your mobile device policies.

1. Form a cross-functional mobility strategy team. You will need the input of primary stakeholder groups, including IT, fi eld business units, and human resourc- es (for policy creation and distribution). Your strategy development process should also tap into the expertise of your risk management, compliance, re- cords management, and legal departments. The aim will be to balance risks and benefi ts to improve employee productivity and guard against risk while focusing on the goals and business objectives of the organization. 19

2. Clarify goals for your mobile strategy. Start your discussion with the big picture, the “30,000 foot view” of the business drivers, challenges, threats, and op- portunities that mobile computing provides in today’s technology context and your business context. Draw a direct line from your mobile business needs to your planned mobile support strategy and infrastructure. Keep your business goals in mind and link them to the discussion.

3. Drill down into policy requirement details. You may want to survey other exist- ing mobile device policies to inform your mobility strategy team. Those from peer organizations and competitors will be most relevant. Then start with the basics: which types of devices and OS make sense for your organization to support, what changes and trends are occurring in the technology market- place, which sensitive e-documents and data you must protect (or disallow) on mobile devices, and what available security technologies (e.g. MDM, mobile VPNs, encryption, information rights management) you might deploy. It may be helpful to segment your mobile users into broad categories, and break out a list of their specifi c business needs related to mobile computing. Your strategy and policies for executives will be somewhat different than those for users in fi eld business units. And you will need BYOD policies if your organization opts to go this route.

4. Budgeting and expense control. Is the organization going buy devices and pay all mobile expenses through direct billing each month? What cost controls need

282 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

to be in place? Or will mobile device use expenses be reimbursed by a fl at rate or by processing expense reports? What about BYOD? Roaming charge limits? Decisions on the fi nancial and cost control aspects of mobile comput- ing use must be made by your mobility policy team, under the guidance of an executive sponsor.

5. Consider legal aspects and liability issues. Consult your legal counsel on this. What key laws and regulations apply to mobile use? Where could users run afoul? What privacy and security issues are most prominent to consider? What about the private data that users may hold on their own (BYOD) devices? An overarching consideration is to maintain security for private information and to have a policy in place for data leaks and lost or stolen devices. That includes your policy on remote “wipes” of sensitive data or perhaps all data.l

6. Weigh device and data security issues. Since most mobile devices—especially smartphones—were not designed with security as a foremost consideration, you must take steps to protect your sensitive data and to secure the devices themselves without impeding business or making operation too diffi cult for the end user. The world of mobile computing presents new challenges that were not present when IT had full control of endpoint devices and internal networks. Clear mobile security policies and controls must be in place.

7. Develop your communications and training plan. Users must be apprised and re- minded of your mobile device policy if they are going to adhere to it. They also need to know the consequences of violating your policies. Your commu- nications and training plan should be creative—from wall posters to text and e-mail messages, from corporate newsletters to group training sessions. You may want to fi rst pilot your new policy with a small group of users. But com- munication and training are key: A perfect mobile device policy will not work if it is not communicated properly and users are not trained properly.

8. Update and fi ne-tune. There will be some misses, some places where after your deploy your mobile policy you fi nd room for improvement. You will receive user feedback, which should be considered too. And there will be changes in the technology marketplace and user trends. A program must be in place to periodically (every six months, perhaps) review your mobile device policy and any audit information to make improvements in the policy.

If your organization sanctions the use of mobile devices, you must have a clear, updated IG policy for their use, and you must be able to monitor, test, and audit com- pliance with the policy. Bear in mind that mobile devices are inherently unsecured and have many vulnerabilities, and you will have to consider possible security threats. If your organization plans to utilize a BYOD approach, your support for mobile de- vices will be more challenging and complex. Critical to success in leveraging mobile devices is training employees on your IG policy and policy updates and consistently reinforcing the message of cautiousness with confi dential company data. If you are us- ing mobile devices to conduct business, there will be business records that are created that must be captured and archived with their integrity and authenticity intact. All information on an employee’s smartphone or tablet is potentially discoverable in legal proceedings, so you must include your legal team in policy development and periodic updates. Mobile device use can allow for great productivity gains, but the gains come with associated risks.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR MOBILE DEVICES 283

Notes

1. CTIA, “Wireless Quick Facts,” www.ctia.org/advocacy/research/index.cfm/aid/10323 (accessed May 13, 2013).

2. Alan Joch, “How to Create an Effective Mobile Device Policy,” Biztech , www.biztechmagazine.com/ article/2013/03/how-create-effective-mobile-device-policy , March 26, 2013.

3. “Current Mobile Computing Calls for Security as Powerful as Titanium,” http://techreview.blogpool .co.uk/2011/02/10/modern-day-mobile-computing-calls-for-security-as-powerful-as-titanium (accessed March 30, 2012).

CHAPTER SUMMARY: KEY POINTS

■ The plethora of mobile computing devices fl ooding into the market will be one of the biggest ongoing security challenges moving forward.

■ An IDC report indicated that smartphone sales outpaced PC sales for the fi rst time ever in the fourth quarter of 2010.

■ As businesses work to deploy mobile apps, they walk a fi ne line between in- novation and risk. To ensure that a mobile offering is secure, many businesses are limiting their apps’ functionality.

■ Human beings remain the weakest link in security, particularly with the in- creasing use of mobile devices. IG policies must be established and employ- ees must be trained to be aware of security and privacy risks.

■ Connecting to a business directly via an app can be more secure than rely- ing on a browser or texting platform, which require an additional layer of software.

■ Over the next several years North America will be upgrading to 4G networks, faster WiMax will be deployed, and there will be 3G and 4G interoperability.

■ MDM software helps organizations to remotely monitor, secure, and manage devices such as smartphones and tablet PCs.

■ There will be new enhanced security and antivirus products developed to combat the increasing threat of cyberattacks.

■ Mobile computing security challenges require that organizations follow best practices when developing and deploying apps. Some keys are: encrypting sensitive data, using the secure software development life cycle (SDLC) meth- odology and enhanced authentication methods, and hiring a security expert to test new apps.

■ Develop a comprehensive mobile strategy before you craft your mobile de- vice policies. You will need input from a variety of stakeholders, and you will need to understand where mobile devices fi t in your overall technology infrastructure and strategy.

284 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

4. Warwick Ashford, “Mobility among the Top IT Security Threats in 2011, Says UK Think Tank,” Computer Weekly , January 7, 2011, www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/01/07/244797/Mobility- among-the-top-IT-security-threats-in-2011-says-UK-think.htm (accessed March 30, 2012).

5. Ann All, “Mobile Device Management: 6 Trends to Watch,” eSecurity Planet , www.esecurityplanet.com/t mobile-security/mobile-device-management-6-trends-to-watch.html (accessed February 8, 2013).

6. Matt Gunn, “How to Build a Secure Mobile App,” Bank Systems and Technology , July 6, 2011, www .banktech.com/risk-management/231001058?itc=edit_stub (accessed December 19, 2011).

7. “Top Ten Trends in Mobile Computing,” CIO Zone , www.ciozone.com/index.php/Editorial-Research/ Top-Ten-Trends-in-Mobile-Computing/2.html (accessed December 19, 2011).

8. Stanford University, “Guidelines for Securing Mobile Computing Devices,” www.stanford.edu/group/ security/securecomputing/mobile_devices.html (accessed December 19, 2011).

9. Symantec, “Business Challenge: Mobile Device Management,” www.symantec.com/mobile-device- management (accessed May 14, 2013).

10. All, “Mobile Device Management: 6 Trends to Watch.” 11. Vikrant Gandhi, “U.S. Mobile Device Management (MDM) Market,” October 4, 2012, www.frost

.com/sublib/display-report.do?ctxixpLink=FcmCtx1&searchQuery=mdm&bdata=aHR0cDovL3d3d y5mcm9zdC5jb20vc3JjaC9jYXRhbG9nLXNlYXJjaC5kbz9xdWVyeVRleHQ9bWRtQH5AU2Vhc- mNoIFJlc3VsdHNAfkAxMzYwMzI5NTg4NTc5&ctxixpLabel=FcmCtx2&id=NB29-01-00-00-00

12. All, “Mobile Device Management: 6 Trends to Watch.” 13. Quotes in this section are from Stanford University, “Guidelines for Securing Mobile Computing

Devices.” www.stanford.edu/group/security/securecomputing/mobile_devices.html 14. Quotations in this section are from Matt Gunn, “How to Build a Secure Mobile App,” Bank Systems

and Technology , July 6, 2011, www.banktech.com/risk-management/231001058?itc=edit_stub (accessed March 30, 2012).

15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Beau Woods, “6 Ways to Secure Mobile Apps,” Bank Systems and Technology , May 26, 2011, www

.banktech.com/architecture-infrastructure/229700033 (accessed March 30, 2012). 18. Ibid. 19. Joch, “How to Create an Effective Mobile Device Policy.”

285

Information Governance for Cloud Computing*

C H A P T E R 15

By Monica Crocker CRM, PMP, CIP, and Robert Smallwood

* Portions of this chapter are adapted from Chapter 12 , Robert F. Smallwood, Managing Electronic Records: Methods, Best Practices, and Technologies , © John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2013. Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.s

Cloud computing represents one of the most signifi cant paradigm shifts in infor-mation technology (IT) history. It may have evolved as an extension of sharing an application-hosting provider, which has been around for a half century and was common in highly regulated vertical industries, such as banks and health care institutions. But cloud computing is a very different computing resource, utilizing advances in IT architecture, system software, improved hardware speeds, and lower storage costs.

The impetus behind cloud computing is that it provides economies of scale by spreading costs across many client organizations and pooling computing resources while matching client computing needs to consumption in a fl exible, (nearly) real- time way. Cloud computing can be treated as a utility that is vastly scalable and can be readily modulated, just as the temperature control on your furnace regulates your energy consumption. This approach has great potential, promising on-demand computing power, off-site backups, strong security, and “innovations we cannot yet imagine.”1

When executives hear of the potential cost savings and elimination of capital outlays associated with cloud computing, their ears perk up. Cloud deployments can give users some autonomy and independence from their IT department, and IT departments are enthused to have instant resources at their disposal and to shed some of the responsibilities for infrastructure so they can focus on business applica- tions. Most of all, they are excited by the agility offered by the on-demand provision- ing of computing and the ability to align IT with business strategies more nimbly and readily.

But for all the hoopla and excitement, there are also grave concerns about security risks and loss of direct IT control , which call for strict information governance (IG) policies andl processes. Managers and IT leaders who are customers of cloud computing services are ultimately responsible for IT performance. A number of critical IG challenges as- sociated with cloud computing must be addressed. These include privacy and security issues, records management (RM) issues, and compliance issues, such as the ability to

286 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

respond to legal discovery orders. In addition, there are metadata management and custody challenges to consider. An investigation and analysis of how the cloud services provider(s) will deliver RM capability is crucial to supporting IG functions, such as archiving and e-discovery, and meeting IG policy requirements.

Organizations need to understand the security risks of cloud computing, and they must have IG policies and controls in place for leveraging cloud technology to manage electronic information before moving forward with a cloud computing strategy.

Defi ning Cloud Computing

The defi nition of cloud computing is, rather, well, g cloudy , if you will. The fl urry of developments in cloud computing makes it diffi cult for managers and policy makers to defi ne it clearly and succinctly, and to evaluate available options. Many misconceptions and vagaries surround cloud computing. Some misconceptions and questions include:

■ “That hosting thing is like SaaS” ■ “Cloud, SaaS, all the same, we don’t own anything” ■ “OnDemand is Cloud Computing” ■ “ASP, Hosting, SaaS seems all the same” ■ “It all costs the same so what does it matter to me?” ■ “Why should I care if it’s multi-tenant or not?” ■ “What’s this private cloud versus public cloud?” 2

Cloud computing is a shared resource that provides dynamic access to computing services that may range from raw computing power, to basic infrastructure, to fully operational and supported applications.

It is a set of newer information technologies that provides for on-demand, modu- lated, shared use of computing services remotely. This is accomplished by telecom- munications via the Internet or a virtual private network (which may provide more security). It eliminates the need to purchase server hardware and deploy IT infrastruc- ture to support computing resources and gives users access to applications, data, and storage within their own business unit environments or networks. 3 Perhaps the best feature of all is that services can be turned on or off, increased or decreased, depending on user needs.

There are a range of interpretations and defi nitions of cloud computing, some of which are not completely accurate. Some merely defi ne it as renting storage space or applications on a host organization’s servers; others center defi nitions around Web- based applications like social media and hosted application services.

Someone has to be the offi cial referee, especially in the public sector. The Na- tional Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is the offi cial federal arbiter of

“Cloud computing encompasses any subscription-based or pay-per-use service that, in (near) real time over the Internet, extends IT’s existing capabilities.”

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING 287

defi nitions, standards, and guidelines for cloud computing. NIST defi nes cloud com- puting as:

a model for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of confi gurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applica- tions, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. 4

NIST has offered its offi cial defi nition, but “the problem is that (as with Web 2.0) everyone seems to have a different defi nition.” 5 The phrase “the cloud” has entered the mainstream—it is promoted on prime-time TV—but its meaning and description are in fl ux: that is, if you ask 10 different people to defi ne it, you will likely get 10 dif- ferent answers. According to Eric Knorr and Galen Gruman in InfoWorld, it’s really just “a metaphor for the Internet,” but when you throw in “computing” alongside it, “the meaning gets bigger and fuzzier.” Cloud computing provides “a way to increase capacity [e.g., computing power, network connections, storage] or add capabilities dy- namically on the fl y without investing in new infrastructure, training new personnel, or licensing new software. Cloud computing encompasses any subscription-based or pay-per-use service that, in (near) real time over the Internet, extends IT’s existing capabilities.” 6

Given the changing nature of IT, especially for newer developments, NIST has stated that the defi nition of cloud computing “is evolving.” People looking for the lat- est offi cial defi nition should consult the most current defi nition available from NIST’s Web site at www.nist.gov (and other resources).

Key Characteristics of Cloud Computing

NIST also identifi es fi ve essential characteristics of cloud computing:

1. On-demand self-service. A [computing] consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service’s provider.

2. Broad network access. Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, laptops, and PDAs [personal digi- tal assistants]).

3. Resource pooling. The [hosting] provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physi- cal and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to

Cloud computing enables convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of confi gurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned.

288 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, network bandwidth, and virtual ma- chines.

4. Rapid elasticity. Capabilities can be rapidly and elastically provisioned, in some cases automatically, to quickly scale out, and rapidly released to quickly scale in. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be purchased in any quantity at any time.

5. Measured service. Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appro- priate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.7

What Cloud Computing Really Means

Cloud computing growth is expected to continue to climb dramatically. A recent Gart- ner study shows that the United States is the leader in adopting cloud computing, and the market is expanding rapidly. 8 The cloud computing market is expected to grow 21 percent annually from 2012 to 2016, exceeding $16 billion in 2014 and growing to over $22 billion in 2016. 9

The use of service-oriented architecture —which separates infrastructure, ap- plications, and data into layers—permeates enterprise applications, and the idea of loosely coupled services running on an agile, scalable infrastructure may eventually “make every enterprise a node in the cloud.” That is the direction the trend is headed.

A common misconception is that an organization “moves to the cloud.” In reality, the organization may decide to transition some specifi c business applications to the cloud. Those specifi c business applications are selected because a cloud architecture may offer crucial functions that the internally hosted solution does not or because the internal solution is burdensome to maintain. Some examples of business applications that frequently are moved to the cloud include advertising, collaboration, e-mail, of- fi ce productivity applications, sales support solutions, customer response systems, fi le storage, and system backups.

Another common misconception is that if your organization does not decide to migrate to a cloud solution, you are protected from all the dangers of cloud computing. The hard facts are that, for the vast majority of organizations, users are already putting information in the cloud. They are simply using cloud solutions to compensate for

Among metatrends, “Cloud computing is the hardest one to argue with in the long term.”

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING 289

limitations of the current environment. They may be using Box.com to get at infor- mation when working remotely or Dropbox.com to share information with an outside business partner. Or they are using SkyDrive get to documents from their iPad. They may not even realize they have posted company information to a cloud environment, so they do not realize they violated any policy against doing that. To complicate mat- ters, they probably also left a copy of the information within your organization’s fi re- wall. Internal users might not realize they are not using the current version, and your records manager does not know another copy is fl oating around out there. This is completely ungoverned information in the cloud . The best defense against it is to deliver d solutions for those business needs so that users do not have to fi nd their own.

Cloud Deployment Models

Depending on user needs and other considerations, cloud computing services typically are deployed using one of four models, as defi ned by NIST:

1. Private cloud. This is dedicated to and operated by a single enterprise. This is a particularly prudent approach when privacy and security are key issues, such as in the health care and fi nancial services industries and also for sensitive gov- ernment or military applications and data. A private cloud may be managed by the organization or a third party and may exist on or off premises.

2. Community cloud. Think co-ops, nonprofi t organizations, and nongovernmen- tal organizations. In this deployment, the cloud infrastructure is shared by sev- eral organizations and supports a specifi c community that has shared concernss (e.g., mission, security requirements, policy, and compliance considerations). It may be managed by the organizations or a third party and may exist on or off premises.

3. Public cloud. Open to the public, this cloud can be maintained by a user group or even a fan club. In this case, “the cloud infrastructure is made available to the general public or a large industry group and is owned by an organization selling cloud services.”

4. Hybrid cloud. This utilizes a combined approach, using parts of the aforemen- tioned deployment models: private, community, and/or public. The cloud infrastructure is a “ composition of two or more clouds, (private, community, or public) that remain unique entities but are bound together by standardized

The idea of loosely coupled services running on an agile, scalable infrastruc- ture should eventually “make every enterprise a node in the cloud.”

There are four basic cloud computing models: private, public, community, and hybrid (which is a combined approach).

290 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

or proprietary technology that enables data and application portability (e.g., cloud bursting for load-balancing between clouds)” (emphasis added). 11

Security Threats with Cloud Computing

Cloud computing comes with serious security risks—some of which have not yet been uncovered. In planning your cloud deployment, these risks must be borne in mind and dealt with through controls and countermeasures. Controls must be tested and audited, and the actual enforcement must be carried out by management. Key cloud computing security threats are discussed next, along with specifi c examples and reme- dial measures that can be taken (fi xes). The majority of this information and quotations are from the Cloud Security Alliance. 12

Information Loss

When information is deleted or altered without a backup, it may be lost forever. Information also can be lost by unlinking it from its indices, deleting its identifying metadata, or losing its encoding key, which may render it unrecoverable. Another way data/document loss can occur is by storing it on unreliable media. And as with any architecture—not just cloud computing—unauthorized parties must be prevented from hacking into the system and gaining access to sensitive data. In general, pro- viders of cloud services have more resources at their disposal than their individual clients typically have.

Examples ■ Basic operational failures, such as server or disk drive crashes. ■ Data center reliability, backup, and disaster recovery/business continuity issues. ■ Implementation of information purging without your approval (e.g., purging

all data over three years old without regard to your retention schedule or exist- ing legal holds).

The Fixes ■ Agreement by cloud provider to follow standard operating procedures for data

backup, archiving, and retention. ■ Standard procedures for information purges that require your signoff before

they are completed. ■ Check your insurance coverage. Are you covered for the costs or liability asso-

ciated with a breach or loss of information that is stored in the cloud? ■ Clear delineation of the process for notifying the client of a security breach or

data loss.

Cloud computing carries serious security risks—some of which have not yet been uncovered.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING 291

Information Breaches

Many times damage to information is malicious, while other times damage is unintentional. Lack of training and awareness, for example, can cause an information user to accidentally compromise sensitive data. Organizations must have proactive IG policies that combat either type of breach. The loss of data, documents, and records is always a threat and can occur whether cloud computing is utilized or not.

But the threat of data compromise inherently increases when using cloud comput- ing, due to “the number of and interactions between risks and challenges which are either unique to cloud, or more dangerous because of the architectural or operational characteristics of the cloud environment.”

Examples ■ Lack of document life cycle security (DLS) technologies, such as data lossy

prevention (DLP) and information rights management (IRM) technologies. ■ Insuffi cient authentication, authorization, and audit controls to govern log-t

in access. ■ Ineffective encryption and software keys, including lost keys or inconsistent

encryption. ■ Security challenges related to persistent data or ineffective disposal methods. ■ Inability to verify disposal at the end of information lifecycle.

The Fixes ■ DLS implementation where needed to protect information from creation to

their fi nal disposition. ■ Strong encryption to protect sensitive data at rest, in use, and in transit. ■ IG policies for data and document security during the software application de-

sign phase as well as testing and auditing the controls for those policies during live operation.

■ Secure storage, management, and document destruction practices. ■ Contractual agreement by cloud service providers to completely delete data

before storage media are reused by other clients. ■ Check your insurance coverage. Are you covered for the costs or liability asso-

ciated with a breach or loss of information that is stored in the cloud? ■ Clear delineation of the process for notifying the client of a security breach or

data loss.

The Enemy Within: Insider Threats

Since the advent of the National Security Agency controversy and the slew of examples in the corporate world, the threat of the malicious insider is well known. “ This threat is amplifi ed for consumers of cloud services by the convergence of IT services and customers under

Lack of training on cloud use can lead to users compromising sensitive data.

292 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

a single management domain, combined with a general lack of transparency into provider process and procedure” (emphasis added). It is important to understand your cloud pro-” vider’s security procedures for its employees: How are they screened? Are background checks performed? How is physical access to the building and data center granted and monitored? What are its remedial procedures for noncompliance?

When these security, privacy, and support issues are not fully investigated, it cre- ates an opportunity for identity thieves, industrial spies, and even “nation-state spon- sored intrusion. The level of access granted could enable such an adversary to harvest confi dential data or gain complete control over the cloud services with little or no risk of detection.”

Examples ■ A cloud provider’s employee steals information to give or sell to one of your

company’s competitors. ■ Inadequate screening processes (by your company or a cloud provider) can

result in the hiring of people with criminal records, granting them access to sensitive information.

■ A cloud provider’s subcontractor steals information to give or sell to one of your company’s competitors.

■ A cloud provider’s employee allows unauthorized access to data that your com- pany believes is secure in the cloud.

■ The physical cloud storage facility lacks security, so anyone can enter the build- ing and access information.

The Fixes ■ Implementation of DLP and IRM technologies and related technology sets at

all stages of DLS. ■ Assessment of suppliers’ practices and complete supply chain, especially those

services that are subcontracted. ■ Screening and hiring requirements (e.g., background checks) for employees as

part of contract with cloud provider. ■ Transparent policies regarding information security, data management, com-

pliance, and reporting, as approved by the client. ■ Clear delineation of the process for notifying the client of a security breach or

data loss.

Hacking and Rogue Intrusions

Although cloud computing providers, as a rule, invest heavily in security, they also can be the target of attacks, and those attacks can affect many client enterprises. Pro- viders of cloud infrastructure service (e.g., network management, computing power,

It is prudent to investigate the security and personnel screening processes of a potential cloud provider.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING 293

databases, storage) offer their customers the illusion of unlimited infrastructure expan- sion in the form of computing, network resources, and storage capacity. Often this is coupled with a very easy sign-up process, free trials (even for anonymous users), and simple activation with a credit card. This is a boon to hackers who can assume multiple identities. Using these anonymous accounts to their advantage, hackers and spammers can engage in criminal operations while remaining elusive.

Examples ■ Cloud services providers have often unknowingly hosted malicious code,

including Trojan horses, keystroke loggers, bot applications, and other pro- grams that facilitate data theft. Recent examples include the Zeus botnet and InfoStealer.

■ Malware can masquerade as downloads for Microsoft Offi ce, Adobe PDFs, or other innocuous fi les.

■ Botnets can infect a cloud provider to gain access to a wide range of data, while leveraging the cloud provider’s control capabilities.

■ Spam is a perennial problem—each new countermeasure is met with new ways to sneak spam through fi lters to phish for sensitive data.

The Fixes ■ IG policies and monitoring controls must require tighter initial registration

and thorough user verifi cation processes. ■ IG policies and technologies to combat credit card fraud. ■ Total network monitoring, including deep content inspection. ■ Requirement that the cloud provider regularly monitor public blacklists to

check for exploitation.

Insecure Points of Cloud Connection

By their very nature, cloud computing solutions involve the movement of information. Information moves from a workstation in your network to the cloud, from the cloud to a mobile device user, from an external partner to the cloud and then to one of your workstations, and so on. Further, information may be moved automatically from an application in the cloud to an application you host internally and vice versa. The movement of information complicates the process of securing it, as it now must be protected at the point of origin, the point of receipt, on the device that transmits it, on the device that receives it and at all times when it is in transit.

An application programming interface (API) is a way of standardizing the con- nection between two software applications. APIs are essentially standard hooks that an application uses to connect to another software application—in this case, a system in

Easy sign-up procedures for cloud services mean that hackers can easily assume multiple identities and carry out malicious attacks.

294 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

the cloud. System actions like provisioning, management, orchestration, and monitor- ing can be performed using these API interfaces.

It comes down to this: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, so APIs must be thoroughly tested to ensure that all connections abide by established policy. Doing this will thwart hackers seeking work-arounds for ill intent as well as valid users who have made a mistake. It is possible for third parties to piggyback value-added services on APIs, resulting in a layered interface that is more vulnerable to security breaches.

Examples ■ Anonymous logins and reusable passwords can undermine the security of an

entire cloud community. ■ Unencrypted transmission or storage and unencrypted verifi cation allow suc-

cessful man-in-the-middle data theft. ■ Rigid basic access controls or false authorizations pose a threat. ■ Poor management, monitoring, and recording of cloud logins and activity

make it diffi cult to detect malicious behavior. ■ Weak APIs provide opportunities for data compromise. ■ Dependency on unregulated API interfaces, especially third-party add-ons, can

allow critical information to be stolen as necessary connections are made.

The Fixes ■ Utilization of multiple logon authentication steps and strong access controls. ■ Encryption of sensitive data during transmission. ■ More robust and secure API access control. ■ An understanding of the security model of cloud provider APIs and interfaces,

including any third-party or organization-created dependencies. ■ Understanding how the API impacts associated cloud usage.

Issues with Multitenancy and Technology Sharing

Basic cloud infrastructure is designed to leverage scale through the sharing of components. Despite this, many component manufacturers have not designed their products to function in a multitenant system. Newer architectures will evolve to address this issue.

In the meantime, virtual computing is often used, allowing for multiple instances of an operating system (OS) (and applications) to be walled off from others that are running on the same computer. Essentially, each instance of the OS runs indepen- dently, as if it were the only one on the computer. A “virtualization hypervisor me- diates access between guest operating systems and the physical compute resources” (like central processing unit processing power). Yet fl aws have been found in these hypervisors “that have enabled guest operating systems to gain inappropriate levels of control or infl uence on the underlying platform”—and therefore indirectly impact

APIs must be thoroughly tested to ensure they are secure and abide by policy.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING 295

the other guest OSs running on the machine. To combat this, “security enforcement and monitoring” of all shared computing resources must be employed. Solid partitions between the guest OSs—known as compartmentalization—should be employed to en- sure that one client’s activities do not interfere with others running on the same cloud provider. Customers should never have access to any other tenant’s “actual or residualr data, network traffi c” or other proprietary data.

Examples ■ Joanna Rutkowska’s Blue Pill root technique, which describes how an unau-

thorized user could intercept data by using virtual hardware called a hypervisor. The Blue Pill would be undetectable as long as the host system was functioning properly. Rutkowska also developed a Red Pill, which could detect a Blue Pill hypervisor, allowing the owner to eliminate it.

■ Kostya Kortchinksy’s CloudBurst is another example of hypervisor exploitation.

The Fixes ■ Security IG that leverages best practices for installation, confi guration, moni-

toring, testing, and auditing of cloud computing resources. ■ Requirements for monitoring the computing environment for any rogue

intrusions or misuse of cloud resources. ■ Control and verifi cation of access. Promote a more secure two-factor authen-

tication procedure. ■ Enforceable service-level agreements (SLAs) for patching software bugs,

addressing data breaches, and fi xing vulnerabilities. ■ An IG policy that requires regular audits and evaluations to detect weaknesses

in cloud security and confi guration.

Hacking, Hijacking, and Unauthorized Access

Hacking into accounts to assume the identity of an authorized user has been happen- ing almost since personal e-mail existed. It can be as simple as stealing passwords with a keystroke logger. Attack methods such as social engineering (e.g., phishing), fraud by identity theft, and exploitation of software vulnerabilities are still effective at com- promising systems. Most people recycle a few passwords and reuse them for multiple accounts, so once one is breached, criminals can gain access to additional accounts. If login credentials are compromised, a hacker can monitor nearly everything your or- ganization is doing: A less passive hacker might alter or destroy sensitive documents, create false information, or replace your links with fraudulent ones that direct users to sites harboring malware or phishing scams. Once they have control, it can look like your organization is the origin of the malicious downloads or information capture. From here, the attackers can assume the good name and reputation of an organization to further their attacks.

Cloud providers use virtualization heavily and hypervisors may allow intrusions.

296 INFORMATION GOVERNANCE

Examples ■ Examples are widespread in the general population; however, no clear instances

of this occurring with cloud services providers are known (as this book goes to press).

The Fixes ■ IG policies should clearly state that users and providers should never reveal

their account information to anyone. ■ An IG policy should require more secure two-factor authentication techniques

to verify login identity, where possible. ■ Require your cloud services provider to actively monitor and log all activity

in order to quickly identify users engaging in fraudulent actions or those that otherwise fail to comply with the client’s IG policy.

■ Understand, analyze, and evaluate the cloud provider’s contract, especially re- garding security protocols. Negotiate improved terms in SLAs to improve or enhance security and privacy.

Who Are Your Neighbors?

Knowing your neighbors—those who are sharing the same infrastructure with you—is also important, and, as we all know, good fences make good neighbors. If the cloud services provider will not or cannot be forthcoming about who else is sharing its infra- structure services with your organization and this becomes a signifi cant issue, you may want to insert contract language that forbids any direct competitor from sharing your servers. These types of terms are always diffi cult to verify and enforce, so moving to a private cloud architecture may be the best option.

Examples ■ The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) utilized Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud

service. When the IRS asked Amazon for a certifi cation and accreditation (C&A) report, Amazon declined. (Note: The C&A process was developed to help ensure compliance with NIST standards and mandated by the Offi ce of Management and Budget, which oversees Federal Information Security Man- agement Act of 2002 compliance.)

■ Heartland, a payment processing corporation, suffered a data breach in 2008. Hackers stole account details for over 100 million credit and debit cards. This data was stored on Heartland’s network, which the hackers broke into using information (pertaining to employees, corporate structure, company networks, and related systems) it had stolen in the weeks leading up to the major breach.

It is important to know what other clients are being hosted with your cloud services provider, as they may represent a threat. Moving to a private cloud architecture is a solution.

INFORMATION GOVERNANCE FOR CLOUD COMPUTING 297

The Fixes ■ An IG policy that requires full disclosure of activity and usage logs, and related

information. Audit the policy for compliance. ■ Investigate the architecture of your cloud services provider (e.g., version levels,

network OSs, fi rewalls, etc.). ■ Robust and vigilant supervision, logs, and reporting of all system activity,

particularly requesting expansive and detailed reports on the handling of sensi- tive information.

Additional IG Threats and Concerns

A primary selling point of cloud computing is that enterprises are freed up to focus on their core business rather than being focused on providing IT services. Modulating computer hardware and software resources without making capital expenditures is an- other key advantage. Both of these business benefi ts allow companies to invest more heavily in line-of-business activities and focus on their core products, services, and operations. However, the security risks must be weighed against the fi nancial and operational advantages. Further complicating things is the fact that cloud deployments often are enthusiastically driven by advocates who focus inordinately on potential ben- efi ts and do not factor in risk and security issues. Additional examples of IG concerns are listed next.

■ Lack of clarity about who owns the information (and if that changes at any point). ■ Risk of association with any larger failures of the cloud provider. ■ Inability of the cloud services provider to manage records at the fi le level. ■ Inability to closely follow the user’s retention schedule and produce certifi cates of

destruction at the end of the information life cycle. This may result in informa- tion that is held for too long and ends up costing the client unnecessary expense if it is deemed to be responsive to litigation or other legal action.

■ Lack of RM functionality in many cloud-based applications. This problem is not unique to cloud platforms, but the key difference is that internal storage resource systems may have functionality that supports integration with a RM solution. It is unlikely that a cloud provider will provide the option of integrat- ing your in-house RM system with its system. Too many potential security, access control, and performance issues may result.

■ Inability to implement legal holds when litigation is pending or anticipated.s ■ Poor response time—inability to deliver fi les quickly and in line with user expectations. ■ Limited ability to ensure your cloud provider meets your duties to follow regulations

related to the governance of your information . ■ Jurisdiction and political issues that may arise due to the fact that the cloud

provider resides outside of the client’s geographic region. ■ Storage of personally identifi able information (PII) on servers in Europe or

other locales that prohibit or restrict the release of PII back to the United States (or s home country of the cloud services client organization). 13

An an