iCompli by LegalRM | Building an information governance strategy that fits: A practical, phased approach

Information governance is key to any firm's operation. It enables progress and initiates innovation.

In this whitepaper, Peter Lamb outlines the details of how good firms deal with information governance as a tool rather than an inhibitor to progress and how to best utilise good governance.

Once a firm understands what information governance truly is - and accepts that it enables rather than restricts progress - the next question is immediate:

Where do we begin?

For many firms, this is the moment where momentum slows. Governance feels expansive. It touches every system, every practice group, and multiple operational teams. There is concern that “doing governance properly” requires a dedicated department, a major technology overhaul, or a multi-year transformation programme. That assumption is often what prevents action.

In reality, the most effective governance strategies are not comprehensive from day one. They are phased. They are pragmatic. And they are designed around the firm’s operational maturity rather than an idealised future state.

A governance strategy that fits is not the one that looks most ambitious. It is the one that can be sustained.

Why 'one-size-fits-all' governance fails

Large international firms may have formal governance offices and global compliance frameworks. Smaller regional firms may operate with simpler system environments and informal oversight. Mid-sized firms sit in a more complex position. They often:

Operate across multiple offices or provinces
Serve sophisticated clients in regulated industries
Manage growing digital repositories
Work with lean operational teams
Lack dedicated governance headcount

Adopting a framework designed for a global firm can overwhelm resources. Attempting to manage governance informally can leave structural gaps. Your strategy must reflect reality.

It must consider how matters actually open and close in your firm. How classification decisions are made. How financial systems interact with document repositories. How access is granted in practice, not just in policy.

Governance design that ignores operational culture will stall.

The first stage of a practical governance strategy is not reform. It is visibility.

Before implementing new workflows or introducing system adjustments, firms need a clear picture of their current lifecycle landscape. This often involves answering questions such as:
In many firms, the answers reveal predictable patterns. Closure may depend on manual reminders. Retention categories may not always be validated. Access permissions may remain static long after activity ends.

This stage is not about identifying fault. It is about identifying misalignment. Without visibility, strategy becomes speculative. With visibility, it becomes targeted.
Once the firm understands its operational landscape, the next phase involves defining responsibility. Some firms do not have an information governance team. Instead, governance responsibilities are distributed across:
A strategy that fits does not attempt to centralize everything immediately. It clarifies roles.

Who is responsible for maintaining retention policy integrity?
Who ensures system rules reflect policy updates?
Who approves disposition?
Who reports governance metrics to leadership?

Shared ownership works when it is structured. Without clarity, important decisions stall. Retention enforcement hesitates because no one wants to authorize deletion. Closure reviews become inconsistent and access validation is postponed.

Defining governance structure does not require new titles. It requires defined decision rights.
A practical strategy does not attempt to address every governance issue simultaneously.

Instead, it prioritises areas that:
For many Canadian mid-sized firms, this often means focusing first on:
These areas typically deliver measurable impact without significant disruption.

For example, aligning financial matter status with document repository lifecycle can immediately surface inactive content. Validating retention classification at intake reduces downstream ambiguity and introducing structured disposition approvals improves defensibility.

Early wins build internal confidence.
Governance strategies fail when they remain project-based. Periodic clean-up campaigns may temporarily reduce data volumes, but without embedded workflow controls, accumulation resumes.

A strategy that fits must integrate governance into routine operations:
When governance becomes part of existing processes, it stops feeling like an initiative and starts functioning as infrastructure. For mid-sized firms, this is critical. Limited headcount means governance must operate efficiently within established workflows.
A practical governance strategy also includes executive visibility. This does not require complex dashboards at the outset. It requires consistent reporting of a small number of meaningful indicators:
When leadership reviews governance metrics alongside operational performance metrics, it reinforces importance. This leads to governance becoming part of firm management - not an isolated compliance activity.

Avoiding the perfection trap

One of the most common reasons governance strategies stall is the pursuit of completeness before action. Firms attempt to design a fully mature governance framework before implementing initial controls which can delay progress.

A phased strategy recognizes that maturity evolves. Incremental alignment — improving closure discipline, clarifying ownership, validating classification, embedding retention enforcement — creates cumulative improvement.

Perfection is not required at launch. Direction and consistency are.

Designing for sustainability

The most important test of a governance strategy is sustainability.

Can the firm maintain it with existing resources? Can workflows support it without constant oversight? Can leadership monitor it without excessive reporting burden?

If the answer to these questions is no, the strategy is misaligned.

Firms benefit from governance strategies that respect operational bandwidth while improving control and a measured, phased approach is more durable than ambitious transformation.

Recognizing cultural warning signs

Before you can shift culture, you need to understand it honestly. These patterns indicate where culture and governance are not yet aligned. These are gaps that policy alone will not bridge. 

The strategic outcome

A strategy that fits achieves more than compliance.

It provides leadership with clarity.
It reduces operational friction.
It strengthens defensibility.
It builds readiness for innovation.

It allows the firm to demonstrate structured lifecycle control - internally and externally.

And importantly, it creates a stable foundation for the next stage of maturity because once strategy is defined and phased implementation is underway, the next challenge becomes execution at scale — ensuring governance operates consistently across systems.

In the next article, we will explore the role of technology in making information governance work in practice, and why system alignment is essential for sustainable enforcement.

Building an information governance strategy that fits: A practical, phased approach

Why 'one-size-fits-all' governance fails

Phase one: Establishing visibility before change

Phase two: Clarifying governance structure and ownership

Phase three: prioritising high-impact controls

Phase four: Embedding governance into workflow

Phase five: Executive oversight without bureaucracy

Avoiding the perfection trap

Designing for sustainability

Recognizing cultural warning signs

Before you can shift culture, you need to understand it honestly. These patterns indicate where culture and governance are not yet aligned. These are gaps that policy alone will not bridge.

The strategic outcome

Get in touch

Building an information governance strategy that fits: A practical, phased approach

Why 'one-size-fits-all' governance fails

Phase one: Establishing visibility before change

Phase two: Clarifying governance structure and ownership

Phase three: prioritising high-impact controls

Phase four: Embedding governance into workflow

Phase five: Executive oversight without bureaucracy

Avoiding the perfection trap

Designing for sustainability

Recognizing cultural warning signs

Before you can shift culture, you need to understand it honestly. These patterns indicate where culture and governance are not yet aligned. These are gaps that policy alone will not bridge.

The strategic outcome

Before you can shift culture, you need to understand it honestly. These patterns indicate where culture and governance are not yet aligned. These are gaps that policy alone will not bridge. 