Developing information policies and guidelines is a key for information governance (IG) and information management (IM) in any government.However, this task is becoming more difficult to perform in governments where misunderstanding or ambiguity of who are exactly responsible for IG and IM is leading to ineffective control of information assets.This paper investigates where responsibility for IG and IM lies in the context of Gov 2.0 by a quantitative research that explores employees" perceptions and current experiences of these two areas in two different contexts of Gov 2.0 adoption, Australia and Vietnam.This paper"s main contribution is indicating differences in IG and IM responsibilities between Australia and Vietnam as well as expounding these differences.This paper also indicates the role of each employee position in IG and IM of organization, particularly in the context of Gov 2.0 adoption.Future research will examine how to develop IG policies and IM guidelines in the context of Gov 2.0.

The rapid development of technology and interactive nature of Government 2.0 (Gov 2.0) is generating large data sets for Government, resulting in a struggle to control, manage, and extract the right information. Therefore, research into these large data sets (termed Big Data) has become necessary. Governments are now spending significant finances on storing and processing vast amounts of information because of the huge proliferation and complexity of Big Data and a lack of effective records management. On the other hand, there is a method called Electronic Records Management (ERM), for controlling and governing the important data of an organisation. This paper investigates the challenges identified from reviewing the literature for Gov 2.0, Big Data, and ERM in order to develop a better understanding of the application of ERM to Big Data to extract useable information in the context of Gov 2.0. The paper suggests that a key building block in providing useable information to stakeholders could potentially be ERM with its well established governance policies. A framework is constructed to illustrate how ERM can play a role in the context of Gov 2.0. Future research is necessary to address the specific constraints and expectations placed on governments in terms of data retention and use.

Provision of quality information is key in demonstrating accountability and transparency in organisations. However, this task is becoming more difficult to perform in organisations where misunderstanding or ambiguity of information governance (IG) and information management (IM) is leading to ineffective control of information assets. This paper investigates differences between IG and IM in definitions, components, measurement factors, and frameworks by reviewing a significant amount of IG and IM literature and identifies the key building blocks of IG and IM as being the effective control of the information lifecycle to ensure the availability of quality information. This paper’s main contribution is the development of a unified framework combining IG and IM to enhance effectiveness and efficiency of organisational performance. Future research will examine IG and IM in the context of Web 2.0 and social media adoption, where information overload and immediate and constant accessibility to information are exacerbating the situation.