6 guidelines for restarting corporate records programs
Restarting your records program? As the economy begins to improve, many companies are either revamping or in some cases restarting their corporate records programs.
March 04, 2013 at 06:47 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Restarting your records program? As the economy begins to improve, many companies are either revamping or in some cases restarting their corporate records programs. The information governance landscape has changed in the past five years; technology can help you manage through the growing amount of information and new regulatory and compliance issues that you face. If you are doing a “reboot” then consider it as an excellent opportunity to rethink your practices so your program can add more value to the organization. Here are some key areas to consider:
1. Make electronic documents a central focus
Many older records programs were created in an era dominated by paper documents. Today, in most organizations more than 96 percent of all information and more than 90 percent of all records are either created or received in electronic format. Paper-based paradigms and processes don't always map well to electronic. Take an electronic-centric approach, and start treating paper more as an exception.
2. Determine program scope
Is your program only about records compliance, or does it include e-discovery, IT risk compliance, privacy and data security? Few organizations starting new programs focus exclusively on records. Increasingly, companies can achieve economies of scale when managing documents and data by combining compliance initiatives. Doing so, however, can make the establishment of roles and responsibilities challenging, especially in larger organizations. Think this through.
3. Organize your steering committee
Who will own policy development and program execution? In a world of digital information, we find this is often a shared responsibility among legal, compliance, IT and the business units. There is a “win” for all stakeholders, so why “go it alone”? Form a cross-functional committee to guide the effort, especially if your program requires a new technology component.
4. Assess your internal skills
If your current records team is used to dealing only with paper, then relaunching your program exclusively with this team is likely to generate a continuation of a paper-based approach. Take a skills inventory of your team and consider additional training, recruiting or enlisting outside help to develop necessary expertise.
5. Decide when to relaunch
Timing is important, both in life and when relauching your program. Synchronize the launch with other initiatives, and create realistic timelines. Break big projects into small pieces.
6. Get tactical in an imperfect world
While timing is important, it is also true that rarely is the timing ideal. Too often companies wait for either the perfect time frame or until they've developed perfect policies. Information governance is an inherently imperfect process, so striving for perfection often leads to never really starting. It's better to put a good (albeit imperfect) program in place today, and work to improve it over time.
Key Takeaways
- Many companies are restarting or revamping their records programs.
- Be sure that your program focuses on electronic information.
- Don't do these alone – create a steering committee with legal, IT and other stakeholders.
- Make sure you have the right internal skills.
- Be smart on your timing and execution, but don't wait for the perfect moment which may never arrive.
Legal Information Is Not Legal Advice
Contoural provides information regarding business, compliance and litigation trends and issues for educational and planning purposes. However, legal information is not the same as legal advice — the application of law to an individual or organization's specific circumstances. Contoural and its consultants do not provide legal advice. Readers should consult with competent legal counsel for professional assurance that our information, and any interpretation of it, is appropriate to each reader's particular situation. Copyright © Contoural, Inc. 2013
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFatal Shooting of CEO Sets Off Scramble to Reassess Executive Security
5 minute readBen & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute readShareholder Activists Poised to Pounce in 2025. Is Your Board Ready?
Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
Trending Stories
- 1As 'Red Hot' 2024 for Legal Industry Comes to Close, Leaders Reflect and Share Expectations for Next Year
- 2Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 3Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 4Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 5Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250