
I had been thinking about writing a post on Blockchain when I happened across the Washington Post’s In/Out List for 2017, and that sealed the deal:
Out: Not being able to explain Bitcoin.
In: Not being able to explain Blockchain.
So, feeling up to the challenge, here goes.
Blockchain is really just a distributed, shared database technology. Its use demands that multiple, untrusted entities (such as different companies in a supply chain) write transactions to multiple, duplicate copies of the database that propagate through peer-to-peer protocols. Each node (or copy) of the database verifies the transaction independently by requiring the transaction to be confirmed in a blockchain. The blockchain is chronological, and the database can only be changed when there is consensus among the participants. Most important for the discussion here, however, is that the transactions and the distributed database are claimed to be immutable and permanent. And that’s a real problem for information governance.

As the calendar year turned there were several great
I put off writing this post for months, because I found the April news item so profoundly disturbing. But as I reflect on the past year, now that 2016 has finally come to a close, it strikes me that one detail of this news story metaphorically captures a deep and troubling problem in our technology-fueled, dysfunctional relationship with information.
The “business case” for information governance often focuses solely on quantifying specific costs for data management and exposures for
Retention schedules are essential in bringing order to a company’s complicated, chaotic information environment. Whether they succeed in doing so depends largely on whether they are structured properly. So, the age-old question is, what’s the best way to go – organizing the schedule by department/group, or by information content types?
Having too much data causes problems beyond needless storage costs, workplace inefficiencies, and uncontrolled litigation expenses. Keeping data without a legal or business reason also exacerbates data security exposures. To put it bluntly, businesses that tolerate troves of unnecessary data are playing cybersecurity roulette … with even larger caliber ammunition.
Most enterprise information governance initiatives are event-driven: an expensive lawsuit, a system migration, a board or regulatory inquiry, a corporate move, and so on. Though there’s nothing wrong with being opportunistic in making IG progress, it can sometimes be too little, too late when a cybersecurity breach or some catastrophic event shines the light on decades of inattention. How then do we become more proactive in improving how we manage information—arguably any company’s most valuable asset?