The IGRM model has been included within the EDRM model for several years. But this is the real relationship between EDRM and IGRM.

This is a topic I’ve been thinking about for a while, but a LinkedIn discussion started yesterday by Maureen Holland that several people commented on, including me. Some highlights from Maureen’s post:

“The legal eDiscovery process is like a leaky pipe. Not because it doesn’t work, but because we expect it to solve business challenges it was never designed to solve for. It is a reactive, not proactive, legal review-based process that is being pushed well beyond what it is capable of handling.”

“A core assumption driving the eDiscovery industry right now is the idea that all data is legal data. It isn’t. Data is business data first, and only becomes legal data when legal risk escalates. There should be less data flowing through the eDiscovery process. Not more.”

“Million-dollar question, and it quite literally could be worth millions in savings: Why are businesses using a costly process, built specifically for legal, to address their non-legal business challenges?”

Fair question – as long as we agree when eDiscovery should be used. As I’ve said many times before, eDiscovery isn’t just about litigation anymore – it’s appropriate for several other use cases as well. That includes investigations, audits, regulatory response, incident response, privacy requests (e.g., DSARs) and HSR Second Requests. Each involves legal, each requires a workflow and each requires technology that can provide insights into data quickly.

It’s not just me saying that. If you look at the last three State of the Industry reports, many agree with me as 40% or more respondents said they apply eDiscovery workflows and technology to support each of these use cases.

Soapbox put aside.

Having said that, Maureen and several others make a valid point: there are a lot of business challenges that have nothing to do with eDiscovery, or even legal. And I think the real relationship between EDRM and IGRM isn’t conveyed in the EDRM model. While the IGRM model is shown in the EDRM model at the beginning to illustrate that information governance is the foundation for effective eDiscovery (and every other business function involving data), InfoGov is really all around eDiscovery. The lifecycle of data shown in the middle of the IGRM model covers data from the time it’s created or received to disposition. Included within that is the use of that data for eDiscovery purposes.

Zooming into the middle of the IGRM model, here is my opinion of the real relationship between EDRM and IGRM (note that I used the old EDRM model because it was easier to remove the IGRM from it with its primary color scheme):

Sure, it can be argued that there are elements of protection and retention in eDiscovery and data is certainly transferred during the eDiscovery process – multiple times including Production, of course. So, you could make an argument that the EDRM model covers all four of those center boxes. But certainly, the use of data for eDiscovery fits within that IGRM life cycle.

Of course, it’s impractical to actually put the EDRM model into the IGRM model there for public consumption – it would be too small to see. And it’s just one use of the data. The IGRM must stand alone to reflect all organizational uses of data, not just those for eDiscovery. So, the best way to illustrate the relationship between EDRM and IGRM is the way it’s being done today – with an eDiscovery perspective because it’s an eDiscovery model. I wouldn’t change that.

That’s why I’m a proponent of keeping the IGRM model in the EDRM model – it helps reinforce the importance of information governance to the success of eDiscovery. Before the IG circle (and eventually the entire IGRM model) was added, legal people weren’t focused enough on the big picture of data governance best practices. Emphasis on IGRM helps keep that in mind.

Keeping the IGRM model in the EDRM model is one of the few instances of a model within a model in legal (or most other disciplines, for that matter). It makes perfect sense to do so, even if the real relationship between EDRM and IGRM is somewhat different. That’s OK.

So, what do you think? Do you agree with me that this is the real relationship between EDRM and IGRM? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.