Marcus Belke
CEO of 2B Advice GmbH, driving innovation in privacy compliance and risk management and leading the development of Ailance, the next-generation compliance platform.
In operational data protection practice, a communication medium is still predominantly used that was not originally designed for structured governance processes: email. What began as a flexible and low-threshold tool for exchange has developed into a central vehicle for data protection-relevant processes in many organizations - with considerable legal and organizational consequences. Particularly in the context of accountability pursuant to Art. 5 para. 2 GDPR and the general organizational duties pursuant to Art. 24 GDPR it becomes clear that e-mail as a primary control instrument has structural deficits.
E-mail as a governance problem
In practice, email is often used as a central control instrument for data protection-relevant processes. Its apparent efficiency is based on simple Availability and flexibility. However, it is precisely these characteristics that encourage the emergence of informal processes that elude systematic control. Data protection issues are often addressed by email as the situation arises, without any structured recording or clear process management.
This kind of approach is in tension with the requirements of the GDPR. Accountability requires not only actions that comply with the rules, but also reliable evidence of these actions. Documentation. However, communication processes that are distributed across individual mailboxes and do not follow a uniform structure can only be transferred to verifiable governance structures to a limited extent. Reliable standards and consistent processes remain difficult to enforce in this way.
Added to this is the pronounced personal nature of email communication. Knowledge, responsibilities and decision statuses are often linked to individual mailboxes. In the event of absences or changes of responsibility, breaks occur that can only be compensated for with considerable effort. This leads to a loss of efficiency and increases the risk of incorrect or inconsistent decisions.
Lack of transparency with e-mail
Processing data protection procedures by email makes it difficult to maintain an overview of the overall process. Requests, notifications and reconciliations are usually spread across several communication threads that run in parallel or are fragmented by forwarding. The current processing status of a process is therefore often difficult to reconstruct.
This has significant consequences for operational management. For example, it is not readily apparent which processes are open and it is also not possible to reliably determine the stage at which they are being processed. Responsibilities also often remain implicit. The result is an increased coordination effort, which ties up resources and slows down processing.
This deficit is particularly relevant with regard to legal deadlines. The timely processing of data subject rights in accordance with Art. 12 para. 3 GDPR and compliance with the reporting deadlines in the event of data breaches in accordance with Art. 33 GDPR require information to be available in full and in a timely manner. Fragmented email communication, on the other hand, increases the risk of delays and misjudgements.
Email histories as an audit trap
While the Transparency the current status of a process, the question of retrospective traceability also arises. Here too, the structural weakness of email becomes apparent. As a rule, communication processes are not designed to systematically map decision-making processes. Relevant information is lost in long threads, intermediate steps remain unclear and parallel coordination leads to contradictory documentation statuses.
This becomes a particular problem in inspection and audit situations. This is because supervisory authorities expect a clear presentation of how decisions were made and what measures were taken. Email histories regularly do not provide a reliable basis for this. They are difficult to evaluate, often incomplete and only audit-proof to a limited extent.
The result is a de facto restriction of accountability. Without structured Documentation data protection requirements can only be verified to a limited extent. This not only affects individual cases, but also the functionality of the entire data protection management system. This increases the risk of regulatory complaints.
Reading tip: The right audit preparation in data protection
Removing processes from e-mail communication
Against this backdrop, a system-based approach is becoming increasingly important. The aim is to remove data protection-relevant processes from email communication and transfer them to specialized systems. Such systems enable the structured recording of processes, clear assignment of responsibilities and seamless data protection. Documentation of all relevant steps.
A system-based approach creates the conditions for standardized workflows. Incoming requests or messages are recorded centrally, categorized and processed according to defined processes. Status information can be called up at any time. Deadlines can be monitored automatically. Decisions are documented consistently and can be traced in an audit-proof manner.
In addition, such a system facilitates integration into existing compliance and risk management structures. The Data protection is no longer managed in isolation via individual communication channels, but is seen as an integral part of company-wide governance.
Collaboration model for role-based collaboration
In addition to the technical dimension, an adapted collaboration model is also required. As data protection is a cross-divisional function, various departments such as IT, legal, HR and operational units are involved. Primarily email-based coordination often leads to unclear responsibilities and inefficient communication structures.
A system-supported collaboration model, on the other hand, enables role-based collaboration. The actors involved work within a common context and access the relevant information in a targeted manner. Communication takes place directly in the respective process and thus remains permanently assignable.
In this way, coordination processes can be accelerated and information losses reduced. At the same time, such a model promotes the establishment of clear responsibilities and standardized processes. As a result, data protection is not only organized more efficiently, but is also structurally more resilient.
Smart solution: Ailance as a central process model
The structural deficits of an email-based data protection organization described above can only be sustainably remedied in practice through a systematic approach. Ailance shows what this can look like in practice.
Ailance transfers data protection-relevant processes into a central, system-supported process model. Requests, incidents and review processes are no longer controlled via distributed communication channels, but are processed along clearly defined workflows. Responsibilities are clearly assigned, processing statuses are transparent at all times and all measures are documented in an audit-proof manner.
Ailance develops your company's data protection from a reactive email process to a controllable component of corporate governance. We would be happy to show you exactly how this works in a demo.
In particular, we illustrate how Transparency of all ongoing processes, how decision-making processes remain transparent and how deadlines can be reliably met. At the same time, it becomes clear how cooperation between data protection, specialist departments and other stakeholders can be structured and efficient.
Marcus Belke is CEO of 2B Advice as well as a lawyer and IT expert for data protection and digital Compliance. He writes regularly about AI governance, GDPR compliance and risk management. You can find out more about him on his Author profile page.
German 
English 
Italian 
French