You are not logged in. Please log in or become a member to unlock your benefits.

The Information Governance Conference 2017: Ready For Impact

Learn More

Information Coalition Community Blog

Information Coalition: Resources For Your Enterprise Information Success.

Locky Ransomware Virus Is on the Rise

Locky does not hesitate encrypting files on any PC it has managed to compromise. In the case of landing into a network computer, the virus tries to reach every drive available in that network. The aim is obvious: the rogue tries to prevent access to as many items as possible. That makes it especially dangerous for corporate networks. 

The infection has been propagating in the wild at varying intensity. Quiet conditions could last for long. They are always replaced with periods of increased activities. 

The virus hits users worldwide. Observations reveal it may abstain from encrypting files for the computers registered in certain regions. 

As the Locky virus is available as a service, its distributors may adjust malware behavior. The developers of this ransomware sell it to their affiliates. The infection is available at a number of darknet forums. Access to those forums is restricted, but basically, even kids manage to get there. It is but a matter of some simple tricks and persistence. 

The forums offer the infection on pre-paid and affiliate conditions. There is also an option to adjust a range of presets determining the malware behavior. For instance, the virus anyway detects IP of the affected machine. A distributor of the infection may disable its installation for IP's corresponding to certain locations. 

Distributors of Locky are also free to set the ransom amount, payment deadline, encryption details etc. 

The ransom virus applies a complex scrambling algorithm. That involves generating a key. The key gets destroyed after having being used to encode data on the affected machine. Its only copy is available on the remote server. 

Besides, the key applied to encrypt data may differ from that required to decrypt it. If that is the case, we deal with asymmetric encryption. The encryption key becomes useless in terms of decrypting the data. 

Once Locky completes its encoding campaign, it issues a file with instructions for the victims. The users are prompted to purchase the decryption key. The key is to be purchased with Bitcoins. The transaction shall complete in TOR browser. 

There is no guarantee the crooks are to provide the victims with the key. Too many intermediaries are involved, scrupulosity of each being very poor. Needless to say, transferring the ransom provides further incentives for the scam development. 

Locky removal is recommended. However, it shall follow only after proper recovery campaign has completed. The suggestion is to stick to ransom-free methods.

Rate this blog entry:

When Paper is the Best Technology

Picking up where we last left off

You know that I'm a huge proponent of using electronic technology instead of paper to improve process efficiency and collaboration. But recent experiences with various eldercare institutions have again reminded me that sometimes the best technologies are no technologies at all.

Physician, Heal Thyself

The particular use cases I am talking about involve getting particular pieces of contact and care information to stick in my father's medical chart. Procedures are scheduled but I am not notified; doctors' orders are written but nurses don't know about them. And each time I call to rectify the situation, I am told "I will put it in his chart so this doesn't happen again."

Well, guess what I learned the other day? His chart is electronic. You would think this would make everybody's job easier, but it doesn't. What they really need is a simple yellow sticky note that they can scribble on and tape to the inside of the case folder. But what they have is fancy new technology that makes it well-nigh impossible to add or access such a thing on the screen.

The result is a constant revisiting of the same issues, with different people all promising the same (ineffective) fix.

"Less Paper" Good, "Paperless" Maybe Not So Much

It's hard to tell whether the underlying cause is a lack of training, an absence of awareness, an underpowered system, or a simple dearth of creativity (how about we write things on the whiteboard in his room?). Whatever the case, it's another great reminder that there's plenty of room for paper in our future, and we shouldn't rush to eliminate it just because maybe we can.

Steve Weissman | 617-383-4655
- The Info Gov Guy™
- Member, AIIM Company of Fellows
- Co-Founder, Information Coalition
- Follow me on Twitter! @steveweissman


Rate this blog entry:

Information Management and Backwards-Compatibility: Just the Fax, Ma’am

​What does it tell you about the latest information management disciplines that my big success this week was sending a 10-page fax to a doctor's office?

It tells me is that we should never forget that much of the world consists of people who are just trying to get stuff done – and many of these are not equipped with anything resembling the cutting-edge infogov solutions we usually focus on. (There's a much more significant example here.)

The Back Story

About a year ago, I cut the cord to my cable service, sacrificing hundreds of channels I never watched and phone services I hardly used for a high-speed Internet connection. And all was perfectly well until the other day, when I needed to send a document to my elderly father's physician and learned that they are only allowed to communicate via fax.

Lacking a phone line, I knew there was no dial tone to feed to my MFP. I also knew I didn't want to sign up for an online service (too much work considering I probably won't have to fax again for years). So I ended up buying a gadget, subscribing to a free VOIP offering, and faxed happily ever after.

The Moral

I tell this story because I don't want you to hold the same mistaken assumption I did (albeit unwittingly), which is that anyone I need to share information with lives in the same scan/PDF/email world I do. The truth is, there are plenty of technical, philosophical, economic, and legal reasons for them not to, and yet it still somehow surprised me when they surfaced.

I still firmly believe that the latest information disciplines have the power to transform our businesses, and I know they are doing so in a great many cases. But we must always remember that the old ones have a staying power of their own, and we overlook them only at our peril.

Steve Weissman | 617-383-4655
- The Info Gov Guy™
- Member, AIIM Company of Fellows
- Co-Founder, Information Coalition - Follow me on Twitter!

Rate this blog entry:

Knowledge Management Rises From The Dead

Knowledge Management Rises From The Dead

Knowledge Management, like a zombie, is returning from the dead due to the rise of Enterprise Social Networks. In the mid-90s through the early 2000s, all of the rage was Knowledge Management. The dream of pulling together the individual knowledge of workers across an enterprise ruled the day, ruled the pundits, ruled the discussion, rules the purchasing departments. It ended, however, as mostly a lost cause, primarily because of the available tools in the 90s and early 2000s.

Despite the efforts of many to keep the dream of Knowledge Management alive, the concept had tarnished with age. What seemed like the promise of an enterprise embrace was met with a yawn for results of most of the KM efforts of the day. The dream of Knowledge Management was just that, a dream... until now.

With the rise of Enterprise Social Networks like Yammer, Jive, Chatter, etc., Knowledge Management has "snuck" back into the enterprise software discussion. Through the serendipitous sharing of information as "knowledge workers" discuss projects, ideas, and initiatives on ESNs, the knowledge of the individual is becoming the knowledge of the enterprise.

Despite finally having the mechanisms to finally capture enterprise-wide knowledge, companies are just now coming to the realization that all of this serendipitous knowledge has real value. This has presented several problems to companies attempting to re-embrace Knowledge Management.

Knowledge Capture

In the world of ESNs, Knowledge is captured serendipitously. One of the greatest benefits of ESNs are their ability to 'morph' around the organization. The problem with this is that knowledge that is captured in ESNs is often untamed and feral. "Feral Knowledge" (the term coined here) has diminished value compared to its cousin Classified Knowledge. Classified Knowledge can be migrated and discovered, brought to the fore in other systems through its metadata and categorization and can emerge when needed. Feral Knowledge has difficulty in its ability to become Emergent Knowledge (Emergence is a key part of Dion Hinchcliffe's early enterprise social FLATNESSES model).

ESN Current Structure:

ESN Future Structure:

Many ESNs have taken steps to move their content towards Classified Knowledge. Through the use of tagging, a folksonomy develops in which the collective user base's tags create an adhoc taxonomy. This can be combined with the hierarchy of "Groups" to form a classification scheme (admittedly a mediocre one by enterprise standards, but much better than the non-existent classification schemes of today).

The problem is that most group hierarchies in ESNs only go one level deep (as shown in the picture "ESN Current Structure"). In this model we have the primary ESN and then groups reside and are created in a single tier under the primary ESN. This will need to change so that a true hierarchy can help in classification (as shown in the picture "ESN Future Structure"). In the proposed future structure, the ESN has enterprise defined groups at however many levels are necessary to align with the enterprise structure. User created (or non-enterprise) groups are provisioned (yes, provisioned through a process determining whether the group should exist or not) in an area under the enterprise groupings so that consistency and alignment with enterprise policies and structures can be passed hierarchically to these new "children" sites. When ESNs can move towards a more traditional model for groups with a true enterprise hierarchy with extension of the enterprise hierarchy with user-driven groups, Knowledge Management can benefit through the passing of ESN knowledge in alignment with other enterprise systems.

Knowledge Transfer

One major problem that ESNs have is not the capture of knowledge, but the transfer of knowledge from the individual to the collective. Yes, ESNs are searchable, but they often live in a disconnected space, separate from primary systems for managing information. To move from Capturing Knowledge to Transferring Knowledge throughout an organization, ESNs need to continue their march from fringe outlier systems (see this 2012 article in Information Week about Yammer's freemium trap strategy for context) to connected enterprise systems.

Since ESNs are disconnected from other enterprise systems, there is no means for transferring knowledge from the ESN to the primary systems of the "knowledge workers". Since there is no Knowledge Transfer, there cannot be emergent knowledge within those systems being fed through the ESN knowledge that is being captured.

Continued enterprise connectedness will be necessary to derive the true value of ESNs for Knowledge Management.

Knowledge Analysis

The last issue that I'll discuss in this piece is that of Knowledge Analysis. Metrics and reporting are abysmal in most Enterprise Social Networks and that will need to change (or be augmented by a partner like ViewDo). Knowledge value needs to be measurable to ensure usefulness prior to Knowledge Transfer. In a free-for-all environment like an ESN (a critique and a benefit), establishing what knowledge has value will become necessary.

The first round of analysis and metrics tools for ESNs can provide Yammer Analytics, Jive Analytics, or Chatter Analytics, etc.. This is necessary in the move from ESNs as rogue applications to becoming established enterprise systems, measurability continually proving the validity, value, and usefulness of the platforms.

As ESNs continue to mature, content analysis will integrate and establish knowledge value through Knowledge Analysis. It will then be possible to validate individual knowledge value and align with an enterprise strategy for Knowledge Transfer.

Knowledge Management, Welcome Back

ESNs have brought Knowledge Management back from the dead. By leveraging the knowledge that is created within ESNs organizations are able to achieve the early promises of Knowledge Management of increased productivity, reduced costs, improved organizational efficiency, and better decision making. It is through early investments in the ESNs themselves and ESN analytics tools like Viewpoint Enterprise, that companies will gain competitive advantage. CIOs, CTOs, and other enterprise decision makers that are forward looking now, stand to move their corporate cultures forward faster and ready themselves for the return of Knowledge Management.

A special thank you to Naomi Moneypenny for suggesting I write out my thoughts on this topic.

Rate this blog entry:

The BA and the Shiny Objects

A few weeks ago I was approached about working with an organization to help them put together a new SharePoint 2013 site to replace the one they currently have (SP2010). The business unit that approached me is responsible for engaging with stakeholders when the company wants to build infrastructure in their operating region; let's call the unit EE (external engagement) for the sake of discussion.

Now, before I get all ranty and critical, you should know that EE wasn't getting much love and attention from IT; this post is not about assigning blame to EE or their Business Analyst, with whom I'll be working pretty closely. The fact is that there are problems in how IT engages with the business that are way beyond the scope of this post. As you read this post, keep in mind that a business case has been prepared and approved by IT (a VP) and EE (a Director and an SVP).

"To enable [EE] to capture the benefits of SharePoint in our department, we need to revisit our existing 2010 [EE] Team site." That quote is the first sentence of the main body of the approved business case for the project. The case goes on, in excruciating detail, to describe in non-quantifiable terms how implementing various features and functions available in SharePoint 2013 will benefit the department. What the case doesn't contain is any sort of goal or objective from the business indicating why the project is necessary and what the measurable business outcomes ought to be. Nor does the case contain any criteria upon which project success will be based.

If I were to summarize the business case as it's currently written, it would be something like "There's a bunch of cool SP2013 stuff that isn't being used and we think we can use it to make our site look pretty and show people what we're doing and we've started a Proof of Concept (PoC) that we're going to finish soon to show you just how pretty those SP2013 things will look on our site and we're going to do whatever we want whether it's standard or not even if it's stuff that other projects and departments are really responsible for. Okay?"

In addition to containing a shopping list of SP2013 features to be deployed, the business case also makes assumptions about the way in which many of the features will be deployed. Now, having some insight into the organization, I can tell you unequivocally that many of those assumptions are incorrect because they don't comply with standards and guidelines that the organization has adopted. To be fair, had IT paid more attention, these deviations would have been caught and much time and money would have been saved.

I, and others, have advocated for trying to get the most out of the technology organizations have on hand. However, that doesn't mean that organizations should invent requirements that provide no discernable business benefits simply to make use of some feature that's currently sitting on a shelf. What it means is that, once real business needs and benefits have been identified, organizations should look at the tools they have on hand before going out to acquire something else. Of course, this should all be bound by an organization's standards and guidelines.

Fortunately, the business case has been approved only to get the business requirements done. The organization uses a pure waterfall, gated SDLC so I'm going to use that to our advantage and try to get things back on the right track. I'm also going to try and get the PoC descoped or killed altogether. Things aren't so far down the path that they can't be corrected, but it will take a fair bit of cajoling and coaching of the BA. We'll also have to get IT more engaged but I have a pretty decent PM to help with that bit.

Things to take away from this story:

  • 1.Only deploy technology based on identified and accepted business needs;
  • 2.Have measurable outcomes defined so you can actually determine whether or not you're succeeding;
  • 3.Business and IT are partners and must work together;
  • 4.If your BA isn't that strong, make sure they are properly coached and supported;
  • 5.Don't sign off on a business case that doesn't contain business objectives, business drivers, or success criteria;
  • 6.If you're not going to comply with corporate standards and guidelines, cool, but have solid justification for not complying[1];
  • 7.If the first sentence in your business case is something like "To enable [EE] to capture the benefits of SharePoint in our department, we need to revisit our existing 2010 [EE] Team site.", you don't actually have one;
  • 8.Shiny Object Disease is both preventable and curable.

[1] Many years ago I had a contract gig with a major airline. My sole responsibility was to evaluate non-standard IT requests to determine whether or not the provided justification was sufficient enough to warrant approving the request. I.e.: Standards and guidelines can occasionally be broken if there is valid justification.

Rate this blog entry:

Paul Revere & InfoGov: Rebels of Action & Collaboration

Listen My Children and You Shall Hear 
of the Midnight Ride of Paul Revere"

Paul Revere's Ride,
by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Question: what does Paul Revere's ride have to do with information governance? Answer: it illustrates well that regardless of the success of this or that particular effort, what's important is that you do something and work with others to get the job done.

Revere is, well, revered, for alerting the good people of Lexington and Concord to the presence of approaching Redcoats. But did you know that he was captured en route and never actually finished the journey? That honor goes to Dr. Samuel Prescott, who had met up with Revere, managed to escape, and rode on to Concord in Revere's stead.

This success was a function of both men's commitment to action and to the assembly of a dedicated team. Revere and his associates (who also included one William Dawes) could have worried that "it's too risky, it's not my job, what if we're wrong, blah blah blah" and sat back and done nothing. But they didn't, and the rest – quite literally – is history.

To be sure, good infogov isn't as significant to global affairs as Revere's ride turned out to be. But achieving it requires the same sort of dedication. Getting started necessitates that you do something – do anything – even if you're not sure precisely how it will turn out. And getting finished demands a cooperative effort of like-minded individuals who believe in a good greater than themselves.

So don't just sit there – do something!

Steve Weissman | 617-383-4655
- The Info Gov Guy™
- Member, AIIM Company of Fellows
- Co-Founder, Information Coalition
- Follow me on Twitter! @steveweissman

Rate this blog entry:

Unformation: The Difference is Clear

​Show of hands: who here remembers the old ad campaign for "7-Up: The Uncola"? Of those of you who do, how many can connect it to a critical piece of information management? Stay with me; I'll explain.

A Delicious Lesson From the Past
I'm a big believer in not reinventing the wheel. So as I am wont to do, I turned to the past while helping a client figure out how best to "sell" the concept of infogov to senior executives who love to throw technology at problems. And that led me to one of the most effective bits of marketeering in history.

7-Up's breakthrough program was crafted to breathe life into what was already a 40-year old brand, primarily by differentiating it from the market-dominating colas of the day. Strange though it may first sound, our client is seeking something quite similar: a means to revive the pursuit of information betterment, primarily by differentiating "good" content from "bad."

So …
Where 7-Up gave us the Uncola,
I bring you Unformation.

Information Good, Unformation Bad
Infogov is most powerful when it is used not just to protect and leverage the information that's most needed, but also to scrap what's not. You know: all the document drafts and copies that clutter your inboxes and shared drives, the emails to customers that may promise things your established policies prohibit, the boxes of old paper that block the fire exit in your basement, the old records than serve no purpose but to delight opposing counsel in a discovery process.

All this is what I mean by Unformation: not the "good" content we (think we) can so readily identify, but all the other stuff that needs to be culled, categorized, and either kept or ditched according to your business rules.

A Taste of Something New
And isn't that really the point? Not just to use technology to care for and feed your daily data – something that's getting to be fairly commodity – but to bring discipline to the way you deal with everything else. 7-Up changed people's thinking by embracing its "un"-ness and reframing the conversation. Like my client, you now can do the same, by countering the typical fixation on technology with a refreshing new message of your own.

Just for fun ...

Steve Weissman | 617-383-4655
- The Info Gov Guy™
- Member, AIIM Company of Fellows
- Co-Founder, Information Coalition
- Follow me on Twitter! @steveweissman

Rate this blog entry:

Technology Doesn't Guarantee Success

There's an old saying in car racing that goes something like "you can't win the race in the first corner, but you can lose it."There is a similar truth when talking about software. The right software will not fix your problems, but the wrong software will surely exacerbate them. This, then, is a little story about choosing the wrong software.

Just prior to Christmas 2015 I took on a small project in Vermont. It was a bit of a weird situation in that the project was a mashup of two projects I'd done the previous year; the client was in the same business as another client, and the project was the same as a different client. No matter.

The client wanted to find out why their staff wasn't in love with the Enterprise Content Management (ECM) solution they'd deployed a few years earlier and why things were failing. With a few exceptions this could have been a copy of an assessment I did for a university (detailed in this post & case study). The key differences were the technology chosen and the business the two organizations are in. In the case of the university, at least they chose the right type of technology for their needs. The folks in Vermont kinda, sorta, almost made the right choice, but not quite.

Back in 2008/09 their legal folks decided that they needed something to manage all their documents, so they went out and sourced a document management product targeted to professional services organizations. At the time no one was thinking holistically about what the organization needed. Whatever, it'll all work out. Uhm, no.

As they were researching what to buy, they determined that their compliance and procurement departments had similar document management needs, so decided to deploy whatever they bought to those groups as well. There's nothing wrong with trying to get more bang for your buck, assuming that the fit is right. Right?

My client went out and selected a product and got it implemented. Now, the implementation did not go smoothly, but that was nothing to do with the product and everything to do with selecting a less than stellar implementation partner. However, that's not what this story is about, though you really need to be careful about selecting an implementation partner.

Once they got the implementation under way, they decided that the product they chose would be their ECM standard. There was a tiny problem; the product they selected was not an ECM product. As stated on their website [name withheld] "is the global leader in professional work product management". The vendor's target market is primarily law firms. Over the course of the project I spoke to the vendor and a couple of peers that work for organizations that use the vendor's tools. They all agree that the product is not suitable as an ECM platform. The two peers I spoke to said that the product is very good if you use it for what it's designed to do, but you'd be mad to try and use it as an ECM platform. To get back to my race car analogy; it'd be like trying to compete in the Dakar with a Formula One car.

But really, how bad could it be? Well, prior to implementing the product, everyone in the company knew where to find stuff, even though it was a pain. While they weren't thrilled about using file shares, FTP, and email to store and share content, they knew how to work with the tools they had, regardless of how prehistoric they were. Now that they have the new platform, most people in the company are more than a little fed up:

  • They file stuff and can't find it again;
  • They're supposed to send links to colleagues, but have to rely on email because security is borked;
  • Where previously there were standards, now many have their own way of doing things;
  • Irritation with previous tools has been replaced, in many cases, with hostility;
  • This list is not complete.

It's gotten so bad that my client is seriously considering ripping out the solution they implemented and going back to using file shares. I wish I were kidding.

As my university client found out, choosing the right technology is no guarantee of success. However, as my Vermont client found out, choosing the wrong technology is a guarantee of failure. Choose wisely and do all those other things that come before selecting and implementing technology. After all, a solution / system is a combination of people, processes, and technology.

Rate this blog entry:

Using Social Network Analysis to Transform Organizations

I haven't thought this all the way through, and there are a lot of people (Jon Husband, Harold Jarche, and a guy I had beer with on Monday who is the founder of Simplexity Systems and the inspiration for this post, for example) who are way more knowledgeable about Social Network Analysis (SNA) than I am. I'm really just riffing a bit here.

Monday evening I had beer with a couple of people, one of whom I'd just met (thanks for buying, by the way). His official title is something like Manager of Enterprise Architecture, but his real mandate is to shake things up and make some changes for the good of the organization (a client of mine, BTW). Anyways, after a bit of chit chat, and my two companions finishing up with what they were talking about before I got there, the conversation turned to the topic of Social Network Analysis. What the heck is SNA? Well, my very simple understanding of it is something like …

Analytics and algorithms are used to mathematically prove the strength of relationships between nodes (people) in a network. For example; by examining aspects of an email chain between multiple people it is possible to map the relationships between the various participants and to see how strong those relationships are. One thing that's really cool about the whole SNA thing is that it not only measures the numbers of emails flying about and their sources and destinations, it also measures and evaluates elapsed time. What's missing (or we just didn't talk about it) is the sentiment of the relationship, since the analysis is focused on emails going back and forth and not the content and tone of the emails.

Before I forget … you ought to check out Wirearchy for some more in-depth stuff about SNA and how it can be applied …

Anyway, after chatting for a couple of hours, and the conversation being cut short (babysitters, feeding kids, family nonsense) I went into head scratching mode for a bit. I started thinking about other types of connections that could be mapped, using SNA principles. Could we map relationships between people and content, and then make inferences about those relationships? Could we make suggestions about potential relationships? For example, could we make inferences and suggestions about a relationship between two people (content author and content consumer) based on the consumer's relationship (activity) with the author's content, even though the people may not know each other? To what end would we apply these insights?

I also started thinking about what would happen if we added content and semantic analysis to the mix. Could we draw conclusions about the tone of the relationships? Could we figure out if a relationship between individuals was positive or negative? What else could we infer about the relationship?

What if, instead of looking at relationships between individuals, we aggregated the findings to look at relationships between departments in an organization? Could we identify relationships and dependencies where we previously assumed none existed? If we could, could we also then use this information to restructure certain elements and systems in the organization? In effect, could we use the combined results of Social Network Analysis, Content Analytics, and Semantic Analysis to tear down silos and improve information flows, thereby positively impacting the organization? My gut says we can.

As I said, I know very little about SNA though I am convinced that if it were applied in concert with other analytic approaches there's a lot of good stuff we could do. For the moment I'd really like to spend more time with my new drinking buddy, some wine or beer, and a whiteboard to learn more about this whole Social Network Analysis thing.


Rate this blog entry:

Introducing Information Coalition

Introducing Information Coalition

I believe in the strength of the information community.

The Information Governance Conference team has been providing resources to the community for nearly three years now, resources like the Conference itself, the Information Governance Model, Information Symposium, and now Research.

It is now time to unify and bring together the community once again, this time bringing every resource, event, and educational offering under one new banner...

Information Coalition.

Information Coalition is focused on your needs as an information professional. We're the same team that crowdsources conference sessions, makes your voice heard through community awards chosen by you, and now we're taking that community connection to the next level.

Information Coalition is your resource for Enterprise Information success and we have a ton of resources for you.

  • We've got unlimited education for our Professional Members, along with facilitated Peer Groups that are focused on your specific information challenges.

  • We've got an online community, and you're reading from our community blogs right now. It is a new, strong forum for the exchange of ideas.

  • We've got exclusive, foundational resources just for you, from The Information Governance Model to the Enterprise Information Management Maturity Model.

So you see, we're the Information Coalition, and so are you.

Join us by becoming an Information Coalition Member, at the level most appropriate for you:

  • Essentials Members: Free membership for life. IC Essentials Membership gives you access to many of the resources you'll need for your Enterprise Information success. Nominate for #InfoGov Awards, Vote in #InfoGov Awards, Download Research, Join the Community, Download Resources, Register for Events, and more.

  • Professional Membership: Low cost annual membership. IC Professional Membership is unmatched in its' benefits including our Peer Groups and Unlimited Education. All of the benefits of Basic Membership plus... Expert Facilitated Mentoring Peer Review Group, Early Access to Research, Special Bi-Annual Analyst Briefing, Discounts on Events, Access Research Archive, Access Webinar Archive, and Unlimited Education.

  • Enterprise Membership: IC Enterprise Membership is available for organizations with an ongoing commitment to their information. We offer a group discount for Professional Memberships under our Enterprise Membership. All of the benefits of Professional Membership for your employees, available at a progressive group discount.

  • Underwriters: IC Underwriters are vendor organizations that have a commitment to the Enterprise Information community. Underwriters put their support and their money behind this effort, in return they are featured in our Solutions Directory, get discounts across all sponsorship products, unlimited education access, and loads more. Contact us to become an IC Underwriter as we begin rolling out Underwriter status and features in the coming weeks.

Information Coalition is focused on your needs, not the next shiny new distraction. We are invested in your enterprise information success. We thank you for your support.

Rate this blog entry:

Supporting Organizations

  • Adlib
  • Box
  • GlassIG
  • IBM
  • iManage
  • Optismo
  • Seclore
  • Valora Technologies
  • William B. Meyer
  • Zia

Get Our Email

Follow Us On Twitter