MGI Policy Renewal Consultations, September 18-20, 2006

Table of Contents

September 18

IM Policy Renewal Consultation: IM Community

Introduction and Results of Consultations on the New IM Policy

Highlights of the New IM Policy

Key Issues for Discussion Related to Tools and Guidelines to Support the Implementation of the Policy

September 20

IM Policy Renewal Consultation: IM Community

Introduction, Results of Consultations, and Highlights of the New IM Policy

Group Discussion on the Presentations and the September 11 Draft Policy

Table Discussion on Key Issues Identified

September 18

IM Policy Renewal Consultation: IM Community

Facilitator: Paul Castonguay

This meeting hosted by the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada (TBS) was part of the second set of consultations with information management (IM) specialists. The focus was to discuss the requirement for policy instruments, namely guidelines, tools, standards, and best practices, which will support the implementation of and compliance to the new IM Policy.

Introduction and Results of Consultations on the New IM Policy

A plenary discussion followed Hélène Valin's introduction and presentation on the results of the consultations. Referring to the common message, "Culture shift required so that information is seen as belonging to the Government of Canada (GoC)," a participant strongly recommended including in the policy a statement stipulating that all information created, collected, or received by the GoC belongs to the GoC.

A delegate suggested borrowing ideas from the implementation experiences of other TBS policies and building on successes. Another delegate noted that the IM Policy is difficult to implement because it not only involves Deputy Ministers (DMs) but also ordinary public service employees. Another participant asked what was done to measure whether the implementation of the 2003 Management of Government Information Policy (2003 MGI Policy) was successful.

A participant suggested forming an ongoing IM working group within each department. Another delegate raised the Human Resources department as an example. This department adopted a working group approach to ensure the new act and requirements were implemented within a short timeframe. There is now an ongoing Human Resources Advisory Committee that makes plans for the department and addresses employment equity and other issues. Another participant added that such a working group must be visible and have senior-level involvement.

The next participant suggested leveraging and capitalizing on what departments need, to successfully implement the IM Policy. Human resource shortage is one significant issue. She suggested obtaining people and expertise from universities and other sources.

Another delegate commented on the lack of capacity, observing that libraries appear not to have this problem. Libraries do have resource issues, she said, but they also have job positions and classifications that require specific competencies at the point of hiring. The IM area generally, however, does not seem to be as professionalized in this regard. Job classification can be very frustrating and should be a priority for government. She also agreed with partnering with educational institutions to produce graduates who have the required competencies. However, she expressed concern that universities seem to have no interest, even though government is the largest employer in the country.

Highlights of the New IM Policy

To start the plenary discussion following Gregory Renaud's presentation on the highlights of the new IM Policy, a delegate commended him for a "great job." Another participant said it is hard to evaluate, audit, and monitor the IM function since much of IM work cannot be measured. Another participant emphasized the need for clear definitions of the roles and responsibilities of IM specialists, and clear boundaries between the IM and information technology (IT) functions.

A delegate disagreed with the first point on the Consequences slide stating that DMs who are doing a good job should be rewarded by having decreased reporting requirements. He stressed that consistency of reporting is critical to advancing any issue in government. There should not be a situation in which some DMs have greater reporting requirements and others less.

The next participant asked for clarification of the second point on the slide on Monitoring and Reporting: "Deputy heads report information management concerns to the TBS." Renaud explained that this requirement makes explicit that DMs must inform TBS if experiencing problems in their department, or if there are needs to be addressed. This reporting is separate from the audit and general reporting. It may relate to issues such as performance, capacity, classification, and others.

A participant referred to the Sustainable Development Strategy. The Office of the Auditor General has a commission on sustainable development in the environment, and this initiative has led to the development of a harmonized way for departments to do regular reporting every three years and to move forward on objectives. With the amount of money spent on IT and IM, he said, there must be a horizontal approach to ensure that reporting is done every two or three years and to evaluate whether objectives are being met. Senior staff must be involved in such an evaluation, moreover.

Valin responded to the earlier question about whether the implementation of the 2003 MGI Policy was successful. She noted that implementation was very slow, for several reasons. One is that the policy was seen as not having visibility. Another is that it was difficult to implement the policy without adequate resources and capacity.

Valin added that at the previous week's consultation with Information Management Committee (IMC) and Management of Government Information (MGI) Leads participants recommended looking at the policy section-by-section in order to help departments with implementation. She expressed hope that those criteria, once identified, will allow implementation to move forward more smoothly for the new policy. Moreover, some departments, although not many, have successfully implemented parts of the 2003 policy. One is Natural Resources Canada. All departments and agencies need to share successes and build on them. Valin invited the participants to share any success stories they know of with the 2003 policy.

Valin also remarked that having the new policy focus accountabilities at the DM level will better allow capacity issues to be addressed. The targeted and graduated approach will also contribute toward successful implementation.

A delegate expressed concern that the IM Policy is not in the Federal Accountability Act (FAA). Valin replied that TBS still sees it as a priority and will be raising IM as a key issue at the upcoming DM Roundtables.

Another participant noted that things have changed from the past. Currently every government employee can create his or her own documents, memos, and other information – not only IM professionals. Thus it is a culture shift. Government needs to train public servants at the point of arrival on their responsibility to manage information.

A delegate raised the issue of IM's relationship with other domains. For example, Human Resources should ensure that every job description has qualification requirements for IM, and departments must follow up on these requirements as part of employees' performance appraisals.

Valin agreed that it is essential for all employees to be made aware that they are responsible for information. Moreover, they must have effective tools and training.

Key Issues for Discussion Related to Tools and Guidelines to Support the Implementation of the Policy

Following Denise Charbonneau's presentation of key issues for discussion related to tools and guidelines to support the implementation of the policy, the large group broke into five small groups to discuss a generic set of questions related to policy instruments. Each table focused on a specific audience:

• IM specialists
• Users of IM: general employees
• Business managers: operational/program/project
• Common service providers: Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC), Corporate Administrative Shared Services (CASS)
• Senior executives: DMs, senior designated IM official, IM functional leads

The questions are summarized as follows:

1. What kinds of direction are required for this audience in terms of general or specific subject matter and type of instrument?
2. What are the priority instruments to be developed first?
3. Who should develop the direction?
4. How can TBS learn about and harvest existing policy instruments that many departments have developed for themselves?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having complementary government-wide and departmental instruments versus having only one set of instruments either government-wide or for each department?
6. Should policy instruments reside in one spot – for example, the IM Portal, Framework for the Management of Information (FMI), departmental website, etc.?
7. What kinds of timelines and costs need to be applied?
8. How should the instruments be communicated to this audience?

Table 1 – IM Specialists

For question a), participants emphasized that the IM vision must be both department-wide and government-wide. Standards need to be developed for each IM community and be consistent across communities. In particular, standards are "okay" in the library domain but lacking in other IM domains. For example, records classification methods vary across the GoC.

What types of tools are needed? Participants said they should be technical and practical tools that reflect the reality in departments, such as following subject organization rather than functional organization, or helping departments map functions to subjects. Moreover, a common IM structure is needed across all organizations. Each must have the same "core team." Currently some departments are very structured while others, especially small departments, are very unstructured.

For question b), participants said standards have the highest priority and should be GoC-wide, although departments may tailor them for their own use. Next are departmental-specific guidelines. Third are central agency "templates" that departments can tailor for themselves. Lastly, participants noted that IM specialists are not responsible for the communication strategy but need to work closely with each department or agency's communication specialists.

For question c), participants said central agencies should take the lead. However, they should develop direction in partnership with IM specialists within the departments and agencies as well as with IM specialists external to the GoC.

For questions d) and e), participants reiterated that high-level directives, standards, and policies should be government-wide, with guidelines explaining how these instruments should be applied to specific organizations. Consistency is what ensures and aids "buy-in."

For question f), the group indicated a need for new electronic tools for sharing and disseminating government-wide policy instruments so that all can reuse and benefit from them. Even while these instruments are being developed continually, there should be ongoing access to them. There is also a need to disseminate national and international activities to develop tools and other instruments. Moreover, participants emphasized that "one-stop shopping" is important; there should be a central location from which all users can access resources.

For question g), in terms of timeline for implementation, participants said, "Sooner rather than later! So we aren't here again in 10 years time discussing the same recurring IM problems." As for costs, participants said funding should be ongoing, rather than one-time, to ensure sustainability of the tools and other instruments being developed.

For question h), participants pointed to the newsletter produced by the TBS's Chief Information Officer Branch (CIOB); the IM Portal website, which is a single point of access to IM-related resources for use in the GoC; as well as the TBS website and the Library and Archives Canada (LAC) website. In addition, the group noted that the TBS website should be made "more current, active, and alive."

In the large group, a delegate remarked that each department has its own distinct levels of IM specialists, and it has often been raised that the IM profession needs to be redefined. In particular, with technological advances and greater specialization, it is becoming more professionalized and moving toward ever-higher levels of job positions.

Table 2 – Users of IM: General Employees

For question a), the participants said central agencies, at the very highest levels, need to provide direction through policies, standards, and guidelines. The obligations and entitlements must be clear and specific. Functional authorities such as LAC then must provide the tools, for example models to develop classifications, as well as make available the infrastructure and licensing for electronic tools.

For question, b), participants emphasized that defining obligations and the reasons for them was a high priority.

For question c), participants suggested that central agencies develop direction with input from an interdepartmental committee structure.

For question e), this group said there should be complementary government-wide and departmental instruments, but each department must review the frameworks and definitions within the instruments as to how they apply to its own requirements.

For question f), delegates commented that employees naturally will approach their own departmental authority to help them access the instruments. Their own IM specialist is the functional authority who needs to make that information and those tools available. Each set of instruments should be stored in a central location, such as the IM Portal, but each department should have an intranet to allow employees to access the consolidated guidance information and tools.

For question h), participants said the policy and instruments need to be conveyed to employees through both training and access to the documents themselves. All employees need the same messages Canada-wide, and there should be a formal communication strategy to deliver these messages, similar to the way communication is done for other government-wide targeted initiatives funded by central agencies.

Table 3 – Business Managers

Participants emphasized that all direction and instruments must serve business processes. They must also have commonality at the highest levels and consistency across departments. In particular, greater standardization will make it easier for business managers to adapt when they transfer to other departments.

Moreover, the policy and instruments must be able to answer the key question that business managers ask – "What's in it for me?" The focus should not be on rules but why IM is an important component and how implementation will benefit programs.

Who should be involved? Delegates said central agencies should be the integrator but should obtain input from all parts of the community as to what instruments need to be developed. IM specialists should be the interface between middle managers and the tools, standards, and directives. Central agencies must develop basic communication tools that departments can complement via customized approaches.

Managers need management training in their respective fields – such as human resources, finance, etc. – with IM integrated into the content, just as IM should be integrated into program requirements. Managers also need tools to assess their program's IM performance. Additionally, they need access to IM advice and services from departmental IM specialists at every stage of the process – at start-up time, on an annual basis (or as needed), as well as at wind-down time.

In the large group, participants raised the issue that in 10 years many of the attendees at this meeting will be retired. Government needs to give attention to the younger people who will be entering the public service and determine how they will relate to the IM Policy. They have a different culture and can be more quickly placed in higher-level positions. Government must also take into consideration employees from other countries.

Table 4 – Common Service Providers

Instead of developing new instruments, participants suggested integrating IM elements into corporate administrative instruments that are already in place and are common across established policies, such as in the human resources and finance areas. It is important to tap into the knowledge of those currently managing common services.

The delegates also recommended bringing IM representation to business tables in a continuous, ongoing fashion. There should be an IM component and IM expertise represented at any service delivery planning discussion. Communication, awareness, and education can take place through work assignments linking IM with the different disciplines.

For question e), this group supported having complementary government-wide and departmental instruments. For question f), participants suggested having all policy instruments reside in one spot, preferably on a dedicated GoC IM website as opposed to the TBS website. For question g), in terms of timelines, they said "as soon as possible."

For question h), delegates said communication and marketing are key, and government must also take into account the scope and diversity of employees. Using plain language at the Grade 8 or 10 level is best, in both English and French.

Lastly, the group noted that, to raise IT expertise some years ago, government provided formal training programs to IT managers and professionals. Now it needs to provide training for the IM function as a professional career path. It is necessary to raise the profile of IM.

Table 5 – Senior Executives

This group discussed tools and how to obtain attention for IM. The participants first noted that standards and consistency are very important, as is ensuring IM audiences have a clear understanding of defined standards. Moreover, organizations need clear direction as to what needs to be done and what the consequences are, if any.

The delegates said it is difficult to decide what senior executives need without having asked them. They need to be asked, in particular in the context of how IM can help them do their job and what their day-to-day as well as policy-related requirements and priorities are.

The group also cautioned against reinventing the wheel in terms of providing IM training. There are library schools, IM schools, bilingual training and education programs across Canada at colleges, universities, and other educational institutions, a delegate said. Government must approach these institutions to convey Canada's needs for IM professionals. Now is the time to ensure they have the programs to meet these needs.

September 20

IM Policy Renewal Consultation: IM Community

Facilitator: Hélène Valin

Introduction, Results of Consultations, and Highlights of the New IM Policy

In a plenary discussion following Hélène Valin's and Gregory Renaud's presentations, the group discussed the IM Policy's monitoring and reporting requirement that stipulates a departmental audit of the IM function every three years. One delegate commented that without independent third-party involvement senior management may give lip service to a review. Another delegate said the audit criteria must be very clear. Renaud agreed that a well-defined audit instrument is needed. A participant suggested conducting an evaluation as a compromise between a review and an actual audit.

The group then discussed the definitions section. A participant emphasized the importance of consistency across all policies. A delegate noted that there are many different definitions of "record" and "information." Renaud said the approach of TBS is to use the same definition if the concept is the same, and otherwise state that the definition provided is to be used for the specific purpose only.

A participant remarked that the policy should promote the improvement of content. The requirement to document decisions and activities should be about ensuring reliable and accurate information. The fundamental issue is quality, yet no instrument exists that promotes this concept. Another delegate agreed that emphasizing the quality of record content, context, and structure, etc. are key. Information quality then becomes one of the objectives when developing instruments.

Renaud said the context relates to the how as well as the why. Documenting for its own sake is pointless unless the information is used. The purpose of IM is to meet business needs, allowing one to reference past information and understand why a decision was made in order to make better future decisions. He invited suggestions of wording changes to clarify this idea.

A participant pointed out that the policy's expected results do not support the context statements about serving business needs. Instead, they emphasize records, documentation, storage, etc. It must be made clearer that DMs are accountable for using the information to make decisions, while IM specialists are accountable for information integrity, storage, access, sharing, etc.

She added that the context refers to "specialized information management services" as being provided though "recordkeeping, library, and data services," yet IM disciplines encompass other domains that are important.

Another delegate pointed to the need to conform to trust and legal obligations. She also asked about external standards, something the IT area relies greatly on. Renaud agreed that they are a key issue. Canada has various standards programs, he said. However, the current focus is the work of the CIOB of the TBS. Generally speaking TBS is prepared to rely on external standards wherever appropriate for the IM community.

A participant commented that there is a great deal of struggle around the definition of IM. The International Standards Organization (ISO) definition encompasses not just documents but also the actual data. This draft has undone that, she said, by putting "document" in brackets under the definitions for "records" and "essential records."

Valin said TBS plans to release a new draft by September 29 and is continuing to invite comments.

Group Discussion on the Presentations and the September 11 Draft Policy

Group 1

Section 6.1.2 stipulates that the DM appoint a senior official representative for the purposes of the IM Policy. Participants requested greater clarity on the context and responsibilities this appointment entails.

This group also suggested adding a section specifying that DMs are responsible for ensuring and promoting the application of sound IM principles to their department's IM and IT plans and day-to-day business. Moreover, participants referred to Section 5.2.3 and noted that GoC employees should not only understand their roles and responsibilities with respect to IM but also apply them.

Participants commented that the consequences section is very important for obtaining senior management's attention. They agreed with the monitoring and reporting requirements in Section 6.3.1.2, although their view was that the review activity was more a compliance function than an audit function.

This group will provide additional suggestions in writing.

Group 2

Participants requested adding a reference to e-records and clarifying the requirements around "audit" and "review." They also suggested refining the expected results. Specifically, the policy must clearly define the assessment methodology. It could be compliance, for example, or may require developing an IM accountability framework.

If the intention is not to refer to other legislations in this policy, this group recommended removing Section 8, since TBS is accountable for this policy, not LAC, Statistics Canada, or other government organizations. Renaud clarified that Section 8 is for information purposes only; there is no inference to authority.

Delegates also cautioned that the definitions must be clear and refer only to things that people understand. In particular, participants requested greater clarity around "records," "record administration," and "recordkeeping."

Group 3

This group advised against setting up a timeframe for instruments without having directives and standards to support them and without discussing impact. Moreover, information is an asset and must also be funding-supported and sustainable. Participants recommended that the policy use stronger wording, such as "shall" and "must," to ensure it gains the attention of DMs, program heads, and business managers. The policy should be more directed and prescriptive toward changing the GoC's business environment.

Delegates noted a disconnect between the recordkeeping function and how it supports businesses. IM processes must be reviewed and renewed. As the GoC becomes more horizontal and business more agile, the policy and instruments must bridge this gap. The endorsement of central agencies is critical. The policy should give greater resonance to these concepts, perhaps via a supporting statement, and to the key message that the policy is enterprise-wide.

Group 4

This group commented that the expected results may not be sufficiently connected to the DMs' responsibility to achieve those results. Renaud said the results depend on how the instruments are defined. The instruments and policy need to be as close as possible.

Group 5

This group suggested that the focus on DM accountability might have caused some of the focus on other employers to be lost. The original policy developed a focus around the accountability of Canadians. This focus needs to be restored. Overall, the ideas are there; the language just needs to be refined and made more consistent, precise, and strong.

Group 6

Participants recommended that the context section put greater emphasis on how IM is integrated with business, drives business, and optimizes business requirements. Moreover, the expected results section still focuses on the records aspect. It should state more clearly the importance of sharing information across government.

Referring to Section 6.1.4, this group also noted that "mechanisms" might be an appropriate word to describe the methods and procedures DMs must provide to support departmental IM governance. Funding is another appropriate resource.

In terms of budget allocation, this group recommended that DMs clearly distinguish the IM budget from the IT budget to avoid losing the IM focus.

A participant suggested that the policy provide a definition for "information management services."

Table Discussion on Key Issues Identified

Following Denise Charbonneau's presentation of the key issues for discussion related to tools and guidelines to support the implementation of the policy, the large group broke into five small groups to discuss a generic set of questions related to policy instruments. Each table focused on a specific audience:

• IM specialists
• Users of IM – general employees
• Business managers – operational/program/project
• Common service providers – PWGSC, CASS
• Senior executives – DMs, senior designated IM official, IM functional leads

The questions are summarized as follows:

1. What kinds of direction are required for this audience in terms of general or specific subject matter and type of instrument?
2. What are the priority instruments to be developed first?
3. Who should develop the direction?
4. How can TBS learn about and harvest existing policy instruments that many departments have developed for themselves?
5. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having complementary government-wide and departmental instruments versus having only one set of instruments either government-wide or for each department?
6. Should policy instruments reside in one spot, for example the IM Portal, FMI, departmental website, etc.?
7. What kinds of timelines and costs need to be applied?
8. How should the instruments be communicated to this audience?

Table 1 – IM Specialists

For question d), this group recommended that departments post their documents on the IM Portal to share with others. The portal should also include a shared discussion space in a secure area, not for the general public but with a members' login feature.

For question f), this group agreed that all policy instruments should reside in one spot – not only signed-off documents but also work in progress.

For question h), the delegates suggested developing an IM awareness package, from the government-wide perspective, that explains the importance of IM to departments. It should include best practices as well as exceptional situations that do not fit the standard.

For question c), participants agreed that central agencies must provide high-level direction. Each department must then do its own business consultation. Each department's IM specialists are responsible for making the information available to users.

For question g), this group recommended that each department allocate a minimum of 2% to 3% of its budget to IM each year. The implementation needs to be carried out as soon as possible.

In the large group, a delegate said the capacity and resource issue may be a barrier. Another participant noted the need to address IM staff classification issues.

Table 2 – Users of IM: General Employees

This group suggested developing a government-wide IM awareness program, along with a "what" guide, especially for orienting new employees to IM. At the departmental level, there should be a "how to" guide to explain about record retention, document types, information lifecycle, where to go for help, etc. Another important tool is a clear definitions chart describing the roles and responsibilities for all employees. The participants also noted that some departments have fact sheets on email and other topics. The general idea is to provide tools, guides, and handbooks on IM issues.

The group suggested looking at change management as part of the communication strategy – to change the way employees view IM. The delegates also recommended developing a government-wide directive on document scanning. It should outline the definition of "official," the types of records to keep, length of retention periods, legal requirements, etc.

The group agreed that employees, as users of IM, must have the necessary IT tools and systems available to them to facilitate IM practices. Government-wide resources should reside on the IM Portal and be organized and presented to accommodate average employees rather than IM specialists. Departments must help ensure that employees have knowledge of the resources available on the portal.

In the large group, a delegate emphasized that employees need solid guidance on standards, guidelines, and best practices, properly documented. It is also important to have references for finding additional information. Another delegate said departments must share the instruments they have available, as there are a surprising number of similarities across departments.

Participants next discussed the huge challenge of classifying and filing information. Two related problems are how to make it easier for business people whose primary job is not IM, and how to file information so that other users can retrieve it. Part of the solution hinges on raising IM awareness, facilitating a culture shift, and demonstrating how IM helps people do their jobs. The awareness program must emphasize the message that "I am IM" – i.e., everyone is responsible for IM.

Table 3 – Business Managers

This group noted that clear guidelines are lacking on how to deal with the information created by departing employees. Providing mandatory training and a handbook for all new employees will help address this problem. There should also be a managers' handbook outlining all TBS policies, and guidelines stipulating what decisions must be documented. The training for managers should include walking them through the handbook to explain how to apply the information in their organization. Moreover, managers need performance contracts and appraisals checklists for every role in the organization.

A standard should be set defining IM requirements for IT systems. From the risk management viewpoint, another useful standard or directive would be one that addresses the integration of IM into corporate areas, including the planning and ongoing management of programs and projects. For example, who is accountable for saving and maintaining information should be built into the approval process.

This group also suggested developing a standard process mapping or business analysis methodology to highlight where recordkeeping occurs within the business process and to identify the risks for not doing IM.

Another suggestion was to have simple guidelines for organizing shared drives. This is especially important since most organizations only have desktop computers and a shared device and do not have a corporate electronic document and records management system (eDRMS).

Lastly, practical means and guidance are needed for managing briefing notes, which often contain classified information and present a huge security challenge across government.

In the large group, a delegate noted that security is an area in which IM and IT must collaborate. Participants discussed the need to develop better government-wide partnerships between IM and IT so that policies are workable. In particular, whether or not the technology exists today, IM must be bold enough to challenge the IT community by clearly stating its needs. In terms of requesting funding, both communities can approach higher management jointly. Participants also expressed concern that more and more responsibilities are being put on program managers in an increasingly complex world, without providing clear directions on how to integrate those responsibilities.

Table 4 – Common Service Providers

This group suggested a number of priority instruments. First is an instrument addressing email services as a common tool across government. Next are standards on metadata, data, and storage; standard rules for recordkeeping; and retention and disposition rules that are based on IM and not IT. Also useful would be an archive directive, directives for essential records, directives for privacy and personal information, and directives for access to information (ATI). Providing these IM directives will also contribute toward helping software and other technology providers develop the next versions of their products. Moreover, the participants said application services should have the same standards and rules as the IT operation.

This group noted the need for an Information Access Policy to address issues such as information retrieval, access, and sharing. Another recommendation was to develop a directive for cross-jurisdictional data-sharing agreements.

Lastly, from the CASS perspective, participants said that all services must include IM components and adopt common IM processes, such as in terms of metadata standards, website structure, privacy rules, etc.

In the large group, a delegate from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) noted that PHAC is developing an Information Sharing Agreement template for the health domain based on numerous agreement documents and issues collected from other departments. PHAC's experience may help other departments looking to build on existing standards, she said.

Table 5 – Senior Executives

This group emphasized that senior executives need a simple, clear definition of IM and the reasons it is important. In terms of policy instruments, some may be generic, but they cannot be "one size fits all." Individual departments need their own versions applicable to their own environment. The focus should be on best practices and models.

The participants had a lengthy discussion on IM champions. They noted that guidelines must be developed on how to choose and build champions and how to measure results, and tools are needed to help champions effectively transmit key messages and build an IM culture.

Other priority instruments include an accountability framework, an information architecture, briefing book materials, a legal framework that addresses the spectrum of situations from having no act to having multiple acts, and a governance instrument that identifies the roles and responsibilities of individuals and committees.

In the large group, a delegate noted that with growing needs in terms of legislation, every department needs guidelines in this regard.

The participants further discussed about IM champions. They agreed that the Chief Information Officer (CIO) should not be in this role. Rather, a champion should be someone at a high level in business, someone clearly linked to the overall initiative of IM Policy renewal. Furthermore, his or her accountability must be clear. Valin noted that the new version of the CIO's role and deputy CIO's role emphasizes IM a great deal more than before.