« Let’s be frank: most in-house counsel do not want to own records management. From my experience, most counsel have been brought to the records management table through sheer necessity, having recently suffered from a huge e-discovery bill due to massive information over-retention or because of a failed audit. Likewise, legal departments eschew owning anything but the smallest part of a records program such as policy development. They’d rather pass the execution, program ownership and, most importantly, the resultant headcount burden to another department. “Hey, once we publish a policy let’s get IT to own this!”
I understand and sympathize with this sentiment. Owning traditional records management - narrowly-focused, regulation-based schedule development and hard-copy record storage - is something of a career dead-end for in-house counsel. Most up-and-coming attorneys would prefer to work on something that they see as more important for the business. »
C’est ainsi que débute un billet de Mark Diamond intitulé Records management might be a career dead-end, but information governance is not et publié sur le site Web InsideCounsel. Il y a de quoi réfléchir sur la portée des concepts qui sont encore véhiculés dans le métier, limitant le « Records Management » ou la « Gestion des documents d’activité » à la mise en valeur de la seule information consignée sur papier.