An image of men around a desk pointing at blueprintsMany digitization projects suffer from a common point of confusion: that electronic-format records management, data management, and information governance are essentially the same thing, and any system or tool that solves one will solve all. This is not true. These three aspects of managing information are certainly closely related and overlap with each other, but each dimension has different policy, process, and technology implications.

What’s the Difference?

First, let’s define these concepts. Technology consultancy group Gartner’s has a useful Information Technology Glossary we can use to clarify what these terms mean:

  • Records management: “The policies and rules for the retention and disposition of content required for documenting business transactions, in addition to automating the management of their record-retention policies.” (source)
  • Data management: “The practices, architectural techniques, and tools for achieving consistent access to and delivery of data … to meet the data consumption requirements of all applications and business processes.” (source)
  • Information governance: “The specification of decision rights and an accountability framework to ensure… the effective and efficient use of information in enabling an organization to achieve its goals.” (source)

Records management is thus concerned with making sure necessary records are stored, organized, archived, and handled appropriately. Records contain the data but aren’t themselves the data. So, data management is concerned with ensuring the data within those records can be used by the business. Information governance then offers an umbrella of policies and processes designed to ensure the data produces maximum value with minimum risk. This breakdown is obviously oversimplifying, but that’s how these three concepts relate to each other on a high level.

How Does Their Management Differ?

Unfortunately, it’s not feasible for most organizations to have separate solutions for the different functions. Organizations need technology and tools that can handle all of them at once. This is tough! As one records management official tells FCW, a publication aimed at federal technology executives, many systems are “built around datasets rather than documents” (data management rather than records management). The reverse can be true as well.

This can have real-world tangible impacts on business operations. For example, organizations that use SharePoint sites within an organization might find those sites quickly individuating from each other. The inconsistencies between them make the information within them less accessible and/or less useful and can even potentially break security and privacy controls. If the solution doesn’t successfully tackle all three elements – records management, data management, and information governance – it will lead to problems.

What’s the Best Way to handle These Disparities?

Planning and the right electronic records management technology. First, organizations need to think through high-level questions: “Why are we designing this? What information problems are we solving? How do we ensure we not only comply with mandates from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration but also get maximum utility out of the information these records contain?” Trying to deploy a technology solution before resolving these questions will result in system that solves only some issues while creating others, as the SharePoint example illustrates.

Then, the organization needs a technology solution that can support all of the objectives determined through the planning process. For more information, read our short guide “How to Evaluate Electronic Records Management Systems.”

About PSL

PSL is a global outsource provider whose mission is to provide solutions that facilitate the movement of business-critical information between and among government agencies, business enterprises, and their partners. For more information, please visit or email info@penielsolutions.com.