The link took me to the SearchDataManagement definition page for data stewardship. I tend to like their definition, and how it differs and relates to data governance. However, I prefer a shorter, more catch (sales ready?) description of the two roles:
- Information stewardship equates to policy enforcement
- Information governance equates to policy setting
But, I was interested to see, in the data stewardship definition, a reference to “data lifecycle management”. I hot-footed over there – and presto – I spotted the following:
Data life cycle management (DLM) is a policy-based approach to managing the flow of an information system’s data throughout its life cycle: from creation and initial storage to the time when it becomes obsolete and is deleted.
If you look at Wikipedia, the Information Lifecycle Management (ILM) page lists the following at the top:
Information Lifecycle Management (sometimes abbreviated ILM) refers to a wide-ranging set of strategies for administering storage systems on computing devices.
I don’t like that at all. I don’t like it since the focus is “administering storage systems”. I don’t mean to say I don’t agree with the need to manage that; I just think it’s a great shame that the lovely, catchy name ILM has, in the wider community, resulted in a focus on mostly or even only on storage systems. What about the business use of information? What about information value? Or authority model between applications? System and user decision rights? Why doesn’t ILM relate more broadly to information governance and information stewardship?
Storage is the last thing on the mind of the business users when they consider creating new product data, or innovating a new business practice. Yet the information needed to sustain both is critical; and its governance equally. Hence the result is that ILM tends to be downstream of the exciting, more important aspects of information governance.
What I like about DLM is that it mentions storage, but it seems the emphasis is more on the flow of information across the organization, and less on the physical storage aspects. Now, as you read through the definition of DLM there is a tendency to refer back to storage and access, but at least there is a chance that the focus might be more business oriented. I might be wrong; but I did like the DLM definition a little better. Seems to be more usable and broader that ILM – even if it isn’t perfect. Maybe we need a new name?