This is the trend I'm seeing at the moment.
I keep talking to program leaders who have reached the limits of what they can achieve with just "information and records" - which really means less structured data.
I'm really pleased.
I've always thought it was pretty nonsensical that we would have "information governance" or "records" or "information management" programs that didn't involve structured data.
If you don't think that idea is ridiculous, imagine a conversation in which you try to explain to an "information commissioner" that you didn't have a "data breach" because they only took your "information" or "records."
That's a very short conversation, followed by a large fine.
Information, data and recors coming together is both an opportunity and a threat.
It's an opportunity for people who recognise that they are all linked to the performance of the organisation in the same way, regardless of their format.
It's a threat for the people who just want to keep doing what they're doing.
It's a threat and an opportunity because someone in every organisation is going to have to win.
The person who wins, is going to be the one who understands what information and data mean to the organisation in terms of its performance and has the credibility to assert that they're the best person to maintain and improve performance.
I agree with your point regarding the need to understand and manage information, data and records under one programme. But I've recently noticed the rise of separate data governance projects which appear to be parallel universes to IM with the same roles but different names.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that "short" conversation!