The Digital Dilemma: Lessons in Cloud Storage from an old Relic

What modern workspaces can learn from the filing cabinet  

With all the offerings of today’s technology, you would think that data management would be easier and provide more benefits than the processes used when storing data in a metal filing cabinet, right?  

Then why is it that today, data stored within electronic formats is becoming more difficult to group, analyse and secure? 

If you ask me, it comes down to one very prominent differentiator – the framework.   

The metal filing cabinet took up whole rooms, and had distinct processes, frameworks and personal in charge of managing and maintaining the data. 

Comparatively, electronic storage promised reduced maintenance, reduced physical space requirements, and easier data access. 

Unfortunately, the result of this promise has been less data governance, with many organisations taking an “out of sight, out of mind” approach. A misunderstanding that has now caused data management chaos for organisations trying to regain control and adopt emerging technology – like AI.  

Both traditional and modern approaches to data management come with their own strengths and weaknesses, however progress means little if we don’t take the time to reflect on what came before. In this blog, I’ll explore what today’s digital workspaces can learn from the tried-and-true practices of traditional file management. 

Benefits of the Filing Cabinet 

1. Egress of information was tightly controlled  

Information that was allowed into the filing system was tightly controlled through a designed framework, that only allowed data that was required to be kept and had a business value to the organisation. The drivers behind this could be seen as: 

1. Storage space was limited. There wasn’t an easy way, as there is with electronic systems, to just add storage. What was kept was regularly reviewed: was it required to be kept? Did it add value to the organisation in its functionalities or business-making decisions? 
2. Regular reviews of current standards or legislative requirements were done to ensure the organisation was keeping the data it was required to. These regular reviews not only reinforced what information was required, but also created disposal processes to ensure data wasn’t kept longer than needed. A process that is not as well managed in electronic information management for certain internal environmental reasons.

2. Information was searchable 

As egress was tightly controlled, the information managers would categorise information as it went into its storage system. This would mean a number of practices made information much more searchable and useful to analyse. 

Metadata was added to information as it went into the storage system. Key information such as types of information (meeting minutes, team and meeting type it was taken from), date, author, and any compliance-related information would be added. Accessing types of information would be similar to a library system, where one would only need to access the management system of the storage repository to find areas that could assist with a business requirement. 

Information was grouped on its use and categorised based on the context the organisation would need the information for. An example scenario of this would be a fashion retail brands management of its design blueprints, over time keeping the unique attributes of the brand, as well as monitoring the cost to manufacture the product. In the ‘filing cabinet’ era, this high value data would be centralised and accessible, allowing strategic business decisions to be made on reliable and authentic information. 

Comparing this to common practices today, information sprawl would likely be evident making the tracking of common information types difficult and reviewing trends and company efficiency a much harder task. 

3. Access to information was controlled 

Some may argue this is a disadvantage of the ‘filing cabinet’ era, and indeed there is some logic to this argument. However, it cannot be denied that an environment where authorisation (who holds the key to the filing cabinet) is tightly controlled is a much safer approach than what can be seen today: sensitive information is not treated in the manner it deserves due to internal and external environmental reasons. In summary, robust access controls result in far fewer data loss scenarios. 

The Digital Dilemma   

Looking back at information management in the ‘filing cabinet’ era highlights the big risks in modern electronic information management systems today:  

• Electronic system designs are enabling data sprawl and duplication. Typically, a person will have access to their own personal area and company areas that contain multiple folders with business data. Unlike the filing cabinet where egress was controlled, this scenario results in information not being grouped in a structured manner, creating data sprawl, and the chaos we see so much of today in organisational information storage. 
• Data distrust is emerging due to data sprawl and no clear central data authority. Who is to say the data that people are reading is the most up-to-date information and that the information is true and correct as stated? Lack of authenticity and duplication of files means people spend more time and effort finding and ensuring the information is accurate. And if they don’t, business decisions could risk being made on inaccurate or out of date data.  
• Data is not easily located within the electronic file structure. Electronic systems generally lack the detailed data management framework seen in the filing cabinet system - where data was not only controlled, but it also had metadata recorded, and an established data categorisation process when data types were stored. The result of this being, people struggle to find the data they need efficiently in an electronic system.   
• The control and security of sensitive data is poorly managed. Having collaborative systems, as we do today, is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can make it easier to share information with people who need it. However, the negative effect is that sensitive information which should have guardrails around it, often does not.  

Lessons from the past   

What can we learn from the filing cabinet? It all comes down to standards - either the standards you are held accountable for of the data you hold, or the standards you are willing to accept.  

Organisations need to take ownership of what is required to achieve these standards and having an information management framework that the organisation is accountable to makes this task a lot easier to implement. Some areas to look at when reviewing what your standards should be: 

• What data is needed to support the functions of the organisation?   

• What data is required to be kept from a legislative/standards point of view? 

• Do we have clear processes to manage data in line with legal and regulatory requirements? 
• What decisions need to be made in the next 12 months and what data would support the decision-making process?  

Knowing the answers to this will indicate areas that require work to create a more productive and structured environment, and access to data will have the correct control measures in place. Lastly, once data has been finalised or in a published state, delete the unpublished versions to ensure only the true and accurate data is being utilised. 

2. Minimise your digital footprint - remove the clutter! We are currently holding onto more data than we need. This is making it harder to manage what is and isn’t useful or requires protective measures. If data no longer presents a use to an organisation, or is not required to be kept, archive or delete the data.   

3. Make data searchable. If we were to go back to the case of the filing cabinet, information management did not find data from the title of the document, it was located via metadata; this indicated information around the document that would make it searchable in a weeks, months or years’ time. Metadata is such a powerful tool within electronic storage, especially when you look at the search capability of the cloud technology we have today. However, it is not used half as much as it should be, and the lack of use is adding to the sprawl and duplication of data. 

All these points come down to the accountability of the organisation. To create a well maintained, structured environment that has guard rails around its information. It requires organisations to take ownership of information management and be accountable for the data it’s responsible for.  

The points outlined in this post, can be achieved by designing and implementing standards around information management. These standards will help you dictate what actions you need to take within your organisation and make the governance of data a much easier process. 

If you're thinking it’s time to get a handle on your organisation’s information management, please reach out to start a conversation about how we can help bring structure and clarity to your digital workspace.