Cohasset Associates , ARMA International , and AIIM recently published the results of the 2013/2014 Information Governance Benchmarking Survey (download a copy here). The survey was underwritten in part by Iron Mountain .
Participants
The findings are based on responses from 1,300+ invitees including ARMA International members, AIIM members, recent attendees of Cohasset’s Managing Electronic Records (MER) Conference , selected Iron Mountain customers , and members of the Records Management LISTSERV .
Respondents work in many industries such as government, financial services/banking, professional services, and manufacturing. The majority (58%) work for ‘small’ organizations (up to 4,999 employees) followed by ‘medium’ organizations (5,000 – 24,999 employees), and ‘large’ organizations (25,000+ employees). Most respondents’ survey answers represented operations in the U.S. (58%) followed by global operations – excluding U.S. (27%), and Canada (12%). When asked to select (select all that apply) their job responsibilities related to information lifecycle management, the most frequently cited responsibilities were: implementing RIM technologies and tools (51%), enterprise RIM program including international, if organization is global (48%), RIM strategy definition (47%), and managing RIM file room or electronic repository (45%).
Questions
The survey questions address topics such as business commitment to RIM, retention schedules, records deletion/destruction, legal holds, information lifecycle management, and RIM Program maturity.
For some questions, the 2013 responses are compared to responses in past studies (the 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011 surveys or a sub-set thereof) to illustrate trends over time. More than 12,000 individuals have responded to the survey since its inception.
Findings
According to the authors, this 8th biennial survey provides “authoritative, up-to-date benchmarking metrics on information lifecycle practices with an emphasis on electronically stored information (ESI)”. The following Survey Highlights table from the report summarizes the results and recommends implementation actions to modernize information governance (IG). The authors encourage organizations to use the table to “formulate internal action plans and to develop communications highlighting . . . [their] program’s strengths and opportunities.”
| SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS | RECOMMENDEND ACTIONS |
|---|---|
| 1. Overall, IG programs are more prevalent, better-designed, and inclusive of ESI. However, many essential implementation elements are not being addressed. |
|
| 2. Effective IG is increasingly recognized as an imperative for corporate compliance and risk mitigation. Coordination and integration is on the rise. |
|
| 3. While improvements are reported in the management of some ESI, information governance must modernize or forever be losing in a game of catch-up. |
|
| 4. Legal Hold processes are more commonplace, but over-preservation is an immense challenge to the implementation of effective information lifecycle controls, thereby contributing to future risk and complexity. |
|
