Has your company implemented an information management strategy around unstructured data?
Implemented – Working well and meeting needs
Implemented – Somewhat working but still room for improvement to meet needs
Approved – Approved, but development and implementation are not complete
Evaluating – Being considered, but no decision has been made
Not Considered – No formal consideration has occurred
Denied – Evaluated and rejected
Failed – Approved, but implementation failed
Question Context: For this question, unstructured data refers to any document, file, graphic, image, text, report, form, video or sound recording that has not been tagged or otherwise structured into rows and columns or records (e.g., in a database). There may be some order to unstructured data (for instance, paragraphs and chapters), but it is not organized in a manner that is easy and consistent to retrieve or use.
Please indicate if you would be willing to be contacted for follow-up questions.
I’ve authored a Strategy and a Framework for a major energy company that is in a highly regulated space that was actually sent to, and reviewed by, the Gartner VP for ECM.
I would be interested in reading that paper as well if it can be shared. I have similar questions as Vicki.
We have implemented an information strategy framework as well as a content management system in the higher education space. Implemented – Most of it works but still room for improvement to cater for new laws and technologies We used Oracle’s WebCenter Content as our content management system.
I have developed an Information (data & process) Management Strategy (ABC) for a highly regulated oil & gas company:-
1) Adopt a single IM framework (capability based).
2) Build one of key foundation capability (EIM Governance).
3) Construct a common IM on-boarding roadmap (common approach & measurement).
It is a long journey……….
I’m curious about your success using a capability map approach for content/unstructured data. When I was at another organization outside Canada, the Business EA had previously developed a capability map and we tried using that as the basis for a level 1 and 2 enterprise IA for content but ran into a lot of uphill challenge with even the middle/senior level folks getting them to understand the verbiage and relationships of a capability map versus something that they were more familiar with like a process type of view and the verbiage language associated. How did TC overcome that?
Lessons Learnt #1:- establish common terminology is very import in general adoption.
1) “Information” – the word has been overly used and the meanings are very different. See the b4–afdName Change Proposal.
2) “Data” – in the raw form without context (process). It includes structured & unstructured in digital & paper format.
3) Framework vs. Capabilities. 4) Architecture (planning & defining) vs. Management (execution & day to day operation) – both used at the capability level. It will go a long way if we have the full buy-in (accepted) for a single common glossary!
Our first step was to draft a policy and understand our types of data we have. The draft policy has been in review for over a year. This would put us in:
*Evaluating – Being considered, but no decision has been made