{ "object_name": "Information Ownership Register", "object_type": "LPM Knowledge Object", "version": "1.0", "last_reviewed_date": "2026-06-24", "owner": "LPM / Lapemo", "lpm_layers": [ "Information Ecology", "Ownership Map", "Governance Architecture", "AI Amplification" ], "connected_layers": [ "Decision Architecture", "Communication Architecture", "Platform Structure", "Identity & Incentives" ], "purpose": "Assign accountable ownership, stewardship, freshness, evidence, access, lifecycle, and AI usage rules to critical enterprise information assets.", "intended_audience": [ "Executives", "Transformation leaders", "Data leaders", "AI governance leaders", "Product operations", "Risk and compliance", "Business owners", "Platform owners" ], "required_fields": [ { "field": "Information asset ID", "definition": "Unique identifier for the document, record, data object, dashboard, metric, policy, evidence set, knowledge object, prompt, model context, or AI-readable asset", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Information asset name", "definition": "Plain-language name of the asset being governed", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Asset type", "definition": "Document, dashboard, metric, data product, policy, control evidence, decision record, knowledge object, process guide, prompt, dataset, model output, or system record", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Business domain", "definition": "Function, product, region, capability, operating layer, or enterprise system category the asset supports", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Primary LPM layer", "definition": "The LPM layer most affected by the asset", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Purpose / business use", "definition": "What the information exists to support, explain, decide, measure, control, or automate", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "System / repository", "definition": "Where the asset currently lives: SharePoint, Confluence, Jira, ServiceNow, BI tool, CRM, HRIS, data catalog, GRC, Lapemo, etc.", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Source of truth link", "definition": "Authoritative location for the current approved version or record", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Accountable business owner", "definition": "Role accountable for accuracy, relevance, use, lifecycle, and dispute resolution", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Information steward", "definition": "Role responsible for metadata, freshness, formatting, quality checks, review hygiene, and update coordination", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Technical owner", "definition": "Role responsible for platform, permissions, integrations, automation, and reliability when system-backed", "required": "Required when system-backed" }, { "field": "Data owner / content owner", "definition": "Role that governs definitions, data quality, content standards, and downstream usage", "required": "Required when applicable" }, { "field": "Primary consumers", "definition": "Roles, teams, workflows, dashboards, AI agents, vendors, controls, or decisions that depend on the asset", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Decision dependency", "definition": "Decisions, approvals, risk events, customer commitments, or operating reviews that rely on this asset", "required": "Required when material" }, { "field": "AI access rule", "definition": "Whether AI can retrieve, summarize, classify, recommend, update, or act on this asset", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Human review rule", "definition": "When a person must validate the asset before use, publication, decisioning, or AI action", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Freshness window", "definition": "How current the information must be to remain usable", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Review cadence", "definition": "Monthly, quarterly, semiannual, annual, event-triggered, or retired", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Confidence state", "definition": "High, medium, low, provisional, stale, disputed, superseded, or retired", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Sensitivity / classification", "definition": "Public, internal, confidential, restricted, regulated, customer-sensitive, employee-sensitive, legal-sensitive, or security-sensitive", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Access rule", "definition": "Who can view, edit, approve, export, automate, train on, or supersede the asset", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Evidence standard", "definition": "Proof required to treat the asset as decision-grade, audit-grade, or AI-usable", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Lineage / dependencies", "definition": "Upstream sources, linked records, dashboards, integrations, approvals, transformations, and downstream consumers", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Exception path", "definition": "Where conflicts, stale information, missing owners, or unauthorized use should escalate", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Supersession rule", "definition": "How prior versions are replaced, retired, archived, or marked obsolete", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Last reviewed date", "definition": "Date of last human review", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Next review date", "definition": "Date or trigger for next review", "required": "Yes" }, { "field": "Change history", "definition": "What changed, who approved it, and why", "required": "Yes" } ], "information_asset_types": [ { "asset_type": "Strategic artifact", "examples": "Strategy memo, roadmap, operating model, annual plan", "typical_owner_roles": "Executive, transformation, product, finance", "failure_risk": "Outdated strategic context drives wrong prioritization" }, { "asset_type": "Decision record", "examples": "Decision log entry, approval record, governance outcome", "typical_owner_roles": "Decision owner, governance lead, portfolio leader", "failure_risk": "People reinterpret old decisions or ignore supersession" }, { "asset_type": "Metric / KPI", "examples": "Dashboard, metric registry item, BI semantic definition", "typical_owner_roles": "Business owner, data owner, BI steward", "failure_risk": "Competing definitions create false performance views" }, { "asset_type": "Policy / control", "examples": "Policy, standard, control, exception, audit evidence", "typical_owner_roles": "Control owner, risk owner, legal/compliance", "failure_risk": "Old controls get reused by AI or bypassed by teams" }, { "asset_type": "Knowledge object", "examples": "LPM artifact, playbook, SOP, onboarding guide, framework asset", "typical_owner_roles": "Artifact owner, steward, methodology owner", "failure_risk": "Stale guidance becomes institutional memory" }, { "asset_type": "Data product", "examples": "Curated dataset, data contract, data mart, semantic layer", "typical_owner_roles": "Data product owner, domain owner, platform owner", "failure_risk": "AI and dashboards rely on weak lineage" }, { "asset_type": "Process artifact", "examples": "Process map, workflow guide, operating procedure", "typical_owner_roles": "Process owner, function leader, system owner", "failure_risk": "Teams follow unofficial process variants" }, { "asset_type": "Customer / employee record", "examples": "CRM record, HRIS profile, entitlement record, account file", "typical_owner_roles": "Domain owner, data steward, system owner", "failure_risk": "Wrong routing, access, commitments, or personalization" }, { "asset_type": "AI context asset", "examples": "Prompt, retrieval corpus, model card, evaluation set, agent memory", "typical_owner_roles": "AI product owner, risk owner, content steward", "failure_risk": "AI produces confident output from unapproved context" }, { "asset_type": "Evidence pack", "examples": "Source extract, audit proof, validation log, risk assessment", "typical_owner_roles": "Evidence owner, control owner, reviewer", "failure_risk": "Decision or audit cannot be defended" } ], "owner_roles": [ { "role": "Accountable business owner", "owns": "Owns business accuracy, relevance, lifecycle, and risk acceptance", "accountable_for": "Approves use, resolves disputes, sets review expectations, accepts consequences if wrong" }, { "role": "Information steward", "owns": "Maintains asset hygiene and review discipline", "accountable_for": "Tracks metadata, freshness, links, formatting, versioning, and owner follow-up" }, { "role": "Technical owner", "owns": "Owns platform reliability, integrations, access, and automation boundaries", "accountable_for": "Manages repository, permissions, APIs, retention, and technical controls" }, { "role": "Data / content owner", "owns": "Owns definitions, data quality, content quality, and approved usage", "accountable_for": "Validates quality, resolves definition conflicts, reviews downstream dependencies" }, { "role": "Risk / control owner", "owns": "Owns policy, compliance, audit, and exception requirements", "accountable_for": "Defines evidence standard, control needs, review checkpoints, and escalation triggers" }, { "role": "AI usage owner", "owns": "Owns how AI is allowed to read, summarize, recommend, or act on the asset", "accountable_for": "Defines retrieval rules, human review rules, prohibited uses, and evaluation expectations" } ], "scale_versions": { "500_plus": [ { "category": "Design intent", "guidance": "Create visible ownership before knowledge becomes scattered across documents, chat, spreadsheets, and founder memory." }, { "category": "Minimum register", "guidance": "Track critical documents, dashboards, decision records, policies, process guides, customer records, and AI initiative artifacts." }, { "category": "Biggest risk", "guidance": "Useful information exists, but no one owns keeping it current, trusted, or safe for AI retrieval." }, { "category": "Ownership pattern", "guidance": "One business owner and one steward per critical asset. Technical owner added when the asset lives in a managed system." }, { "category": "Review cadence", "guidance": "Quarterly for core assets, monthly for AI-accessible or customer-impacting assets, event-triggered for major org or system changes." }, { "category": "AI focus", "guidance": "Do not let AI retrieve from unowned repositories, stale playbooks, or duplicate documents without review and confidence labels." }, { "category": "Operating rule", "guidance": "If an asset influences decisions, customers, employees, controls, or AI, it must be in the register." } ], "5000_plus": [ { "category": "Design intent", "guidance": "Create cross-functional stewardship across functions, shared platforms, data domains, governance forums, and AI programs." }, { "category": "Minimum register", "guidance": "Track enterprise knowledge objects, metric definitions, policies, controls, data products, process artifacts, decision records, and AI context assets." }, { "category": "Biggest risk", "guidance": "Each function manages its own information standards, producing conflicting truths and inconsistent AI outputs." }, { "category": "Ownership pattern", "guidance": "Business owner, steward, data/content owner, technical owner, and risk/control owner assigned by domain and asset class." }, { "category": "Review cadence", "guidance": "Quarterly domain reviews, monthly AI/risk asset reviews, and automated stale-asset alerts through platform metadata." }, { "category": "AI focus", "guidance": "AI retrieval and agent workflows must use registered assets with owner, freshness, confidence, sensitivity, and allowed-use metadata." }, { "category": "Operating rule", "guidance": "High-use assets and AI-accessible assets require owner validation, source-of-truth mapping, and evidence standards." } ], "10000_plus": [ { "category": "Design intent", "guidance": "Operate information ownership as an enterprise control layer across regions, business units, platforms, vendors, and AI agents." }, { "category": "Minimum register", "guidance": "Maintain enterprise asset classes for data, knowledge, policy, control, metric, decision, model, agent, vendor, and regulated information." }, { "category": "Biggest risk", "guidance": "AI scales stale or conflicting institutional knowledge across thousands of employees, systems, and automated workflows." }, { "category": "Ownership pattern", "guidance": "Federated domain ownership with enterprise metadata standards, stewardship councils, data governance, model governance, and audit traceability." }, { "category": "Review cadence", "guidance": "Risk-tiered review: monthly for regulated/AI/customer/employee-impacting assets, quarterly for operational assets, annual for stable reference assets." }, { "category": "AI focus", "guidance": "AI systems must check ownership, classification, confidence, lineage, and review status before retrieving, summarizing, recommending, or acting." }, { "category": "Operating rule", "guidance": "Unowned, stale, disputed, or superseded assets are blocked from decision-grade use and flagged for governance action." } ] }, "confidence_states": [ { "state": "High", "definition": "Owner confirmed, source mapped, review current, lineage visible, evidence standard met", "use_rule": "Can support decisions and approved AI retrieval within defined boundaries" }, { "state": "Medium", "definition": "Owner known, source usable, minor gaps in lineage, evidence, or freshness", "use_rule": "Can support operational use with caution and owner review for high-impact decisions" }, { "state": "Low", "definition": "Owner unclear, stale metadata, weak evidence, or unresolved definition issues", "use_rule": "Cannot support critical decisions or AI action without review" }, { "state": "Provisional", "definition": "New asset not fully governed yet", "use_rule": "Time-boxed use only; owner and review rules required" }, { "state": "Stale", "definition": "Freshness window missed", "use_rule": "Flag for review; do not use for AI outputs or executive decisions until refreshed" }, { "state": "Disputed", "definition": "Conflicting owners, sources, definitions, or interpretations", "use_rule": "Escalate through information governance or decision rights path" }, { "state": "Superseded", "definition": "Replaced by a newer source, artifact, metric, or policy", "use_rule": "Archive or redirect users and AI to the current source" }, { "state": "Retired", "definition": "No longer active or approved for use", "use_rule": "Remove from active workflows and AI retrieval scope" } ], "workshop_flow": [ { "step": "1. Inventory", "instruction": "List critical information assets by domain, system, workflow, decision, metric, policy, and AI use case." }, { "step": "2. Classify", "instruction": "Assign asset type, sensitivity, business domain, LPM layer, and primary consumers." }, { "step": "3. Assign ownership", "instruction": "Name the accountable business owner, steward, technical owner, data/content owner, and risk/control owner where applicable." }, { "step": "4. Map source and lineage", "instruction": "Identify authoritative location, upstream dependencies, downstream consumers, and related decision/evidence objects." }, { "step": "5. Define AI rules", "instruction": "Specify whether AI can retrieve, summarize, recommend, update, train on, or act on the asset." }, { "step": "6. Set review rules", "instruction": "Define freshness window, review cadence, human validation trigger, and supersession rule." }, { "step": "7. Score confidence", "instruction": "Rate ownership clarity, freshness, evidence, lineage, sensitivity, AI readiness, and lifecycle control." }, { "step": "8. Resolve gaps", "instruction": "Create actions for missing owners, stale records, duplicate assets, unauthorized channels, or AI exposure issues." }, { "step": "9. Publish register", "instruction": "Store the approved register in a durable system and link it to the source-of-truth map, decision log, and evidence checklist." }, { "step": "10. Operate as living object", "instruction": "Review when systems, owners, policies, workflows, metrics, or AI use cases change." } ], "scoring_logic": [ { "dimension": "Ownership clarity", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Is there a named accountable business owner and steward?" }, { "dimension": "Source clarity", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Is the authoritative source location known and linked?" }, { "dimension": "Freshness control", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Does the asset have a review date, freshness window, and stale-state handling?" }, { "dimension": "Evidence strength", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Can the asset support decisions with traceable evidence?" }, { "dimension": "Lineage visibility", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Are upstream sources and downstream consumers known?" }, { "dimension": "Access governance", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Are sensitivity, permissions, export, and edit rules defined?" }, { "dimension": "AI use readiness", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Are AI retrieval, summarization, and action boundaries defined?" }, { "dimension": "Lifecycle discipline", "score_range": "0-5", "question": "Is there a supersession, archive, retirement, and change-history rule?" } ], "validation_rules": [ { "condition": "No owner assigned", "rule": "Asset is not decision-grade, audit-grade, or AI-usable until an accountable business owner is assigned." }, { "condition": "No steward assigned", "rule": "Asset may exist, but hygiene and review accountability are incomplete." }, { "condition": "No source-of-truth link", "rule": "Asset cannot be treated as authoritative." }, { "condition": "Stale review date", "rule": "Asset must be flagged and removed from AI retrieval for critical use until refreshed." }, { "condition": "AI access enabled without rule", "rule": "Block AI use until retrieval, summarization, update, and human review boundaries are defined." }, { "condition": "Sensitive asset without access rule", "rule": "Escalate to technical owner, risk owner, or data governance." }, { "condition": "Decision dependency without evidence standard", "rule": "Require evidence checklist completion before the asset supports critical decisions." }, { "condition": "Duplicate asset found", "rule": "Assign one source of truth and mark duplicates as copies, references, or superseded assets." }, { "condition": "Disputed owner or definition", "rule": "Escalate through decision rights model and information governance path." }, { "condition": "Retired or superseded asset still in use", "rule": "Redirect users and AI to current source and log the supersession." } ], "ai_prompts": [ { "name": "Classify information asset", "prompt": "Classify this asset by type, LPM layer, sensitivity, business domain, primary consumers, and likely owner roles." }, { "name": "Detect missing ownership", "prompt": "Review this register and identify assets missing accountable owners, stewards, technical owners, or risk owners." }, { "name": "Score AI readiness", "prompt": "Score each asset for AI retrieval readiness using ownership, source clarity, freshness, sensitivity, evidence, and human review rules." }, { "name": "Find duplicate truths", "prompt": "Identify assets that appear to govern the same object, metric, policy, decision, or process and recommend one source-of-truth path." }, { "name": "Generate review actions", "prompt": "Create prioritized actions for stale, disputed, unowned, sensitive, or AI-exposed assets." }, { "name": "Create source-of-truth mapping", "prompt": "Map each information asset to its authoritative source, system role, owner, evidence standard, and AI usage rule." }, { "name": "Draft owner outreach", "prompt": "Draft a short message asking an accountable owner to confirm accuracy, allowed use, freshness, and AI access rules for this asset." } ], "mapping_rules": [ { "from": "Information asset ID", "to": "Lapemo information asset object" }, { "from": "Accountable business owner", "to": "Ownership map" }, { "from": "Source of truth link", "to": "Source-of-truth map" }, { "from": "Decision dependency", "to": "Decision log and decision rights model" }, { "from": "Evidence standard", "to": "Evidence checklist" }, { "from": "AI access rule", "to": "AI amplification control boundary" }, { "from": "Exception path", "to": "Escalation map" }, { "from": "Confidence state", "to": "Executive control plane" } ], "render_targets": [ "DOCX", "PDF", "Markdown", "JSON", "Interactive form", "CSV import template", "Lapemo in-app workflow" ], "review_cadence": "Quarterly for normal information assets; monthly for AI-accessible, regulated, executive, customer, employee, or control-impacting assets; immediate review when systems, owners, policies, workflows, metrics, or AI use cases change." }