Better coverage outside Microsoft 365 is a feature I wish Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management had that it does not offer today. If I could change one thing about Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management, I would simplify the policy and label interaction model. The flexibility is powerful, but the complexity is a barrier. A simplified mode for organizations that do not need the full depth of configurations would lower the barrier to entry and get more organizations to a good baseline faster. Currently, you either go deep or you risk getting it wrong.
There is no specific improvement I would suggest for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management, but I think if they can work on policy design and usability, adding more granular control for the organization regarding controlling the movement of data outside would definitely improve the solution. For example, there was one external recipient who was unable to download attachments from emails or reply to emails due to the granularity of controls in Microsoft Purview. This was because of the sensitivity label application and confidentiality restrictions. If the support or development team could quickly identify those policies, it would definitely enhance the solution further. I believe there are multiple ways the IFS Cloud platform could be improved. One recommendation is to develop it into a decision support platform, not just another control. If IFS can become a decision support platform with stronger integration into the cloud security stack, it can certainly improve. There is currently a gap with the IFS platform operating partly isolated from certain cloud solutions like identity management systems. Improvements in identity access from Azure AD and other platforms are essential, as is better data lifecycle management and retention awareness to reduce high-severity alerts without business context. Coveo is already advanced in utilizing user behavior patterns, but more transparency in machine learning decisions and clearer user-friendly explanations for recommendations could enhance its functionality further.
One of the requirements is to have data leak policies and data access policies. This is very critical to enforce data governance standards, which relate to data classification, access control, data protection, and retention. It covers the entire lifecycle, helping us to protect, detect, and classify the documents. Challenges are mostly related to the security products onboarded into the bank; they have challenges in terms of those products complying with the internal standards. Sometimes, we cannot just use the DLP across the state. For example, using Microsoft products has been easy to adopt, such as OneDrive and SharePoint on-premise, but it becomes a challenge when it comes to AWS, as data also exists in S3 buckets. Testing is still ongoing, but it will eventually be done. The time it takes to scan is one issue; when we raise high-volume issues and tickets related to scanning failures, it relates to permission errors, which are technical challenges. These take time because we have high volume tickets in terms of connectivity, scanning failures, and related matters. There are also frequent change requests, especially regarding scoping or rescoping due to complexities, creating several challenges. In both organizations I work with, there are gaps, and there is no enterprise-wide data classification available. However, there are pockets of implementations for various products. Some agencies are using it, but otherwise, there's no product existing across the enterprise. Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management is definitely a good solution, but there is significant room for improvement from a product perspective. Reporting is another area that needs improvement.
Microsoft's Purview Data Lifecycle Management preview features can be unreliable, hindering their usefulness. More thorough testing before release would improve user experience and ensure previews showcase the intended functionality.
Learn what your peers think about Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: June 2026.
Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management helps businesses manage data effectively, enhancing compliance and control while optimizing data usage across the organization.
Designed for comprehensive data governance, Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management aids businesses in automating data retention, labeling, and protection policies. It integrates seamlessly with existing systems, facilitating robust data management, which supports compliance and risk management efforts. Suitable for...
Better coverage outside Microsoft 365 is a feature I wish Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management had that it does not offer today. If I could change one thing about Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management, I would simplify the policy and label interaction model. The flexibility is powerful, but the complexity is a barrier. A simplified mode for organizations that do not need the full depth of configurations would lower the barrier to entry and get more organizations to a good baseline faster. Currently, you either go deep or you risk getting it wrong.
There is no specific improvement I would suggest for Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management, but I think if they can work on policy design and usability, adding more granular control for the organization regarding controlling the movement of data outside would definitely improve the solution. For example, there was one external recipient who was unable to download attachments from emails or reply to emails due to the granularity of controls in Microsoft Purview. This was because of the sensitivity label application and confidentiality restrictions. If the support or development team could quickly identify those policies, it would definitely enhance the solution further. I believe there are multiple ways the IFS Cloud platform could be improved. One recommendation is to develop it into a decision support platform, not just another control. If IFS can become a decision support platform with stronger integration into the cloud security stack, it can certainly improve. There is currently a gap with the IFS platform operating partly isolated from certain cloud solutions like identity management systems. Improvements in identity access from Azure AD and other platforms are essential, as is better data lifecycle management and retention awareness to reduce high-severity alerts without business context. Coveo is already advanced in utilizing user behavior patterns, but more transparency in machine learning decisions and clearer user-friendly explanations for recommendations could enhance its functionality further.
I think labeling could use a lot more AI assistance. AI implementation into labeling would be beneficial.
One of the requirements is to have data leak policies and data access policies. This is very critical to enforce data governance standards, which relate to data classification, access control, data protection, and retention. It covers the entire lifecycle, helping us to protect, detect, and classify the documents. Challenges are mostly related to the security products onboarded into the bank; they have challenges in terms of those products complying with the internal standards. Sometimes, we cannot just use the DLP across the state. For example, using Microsoft products has been easy to adopt, such as OneDrive and SharePoint on-premise, but it becomes a challenge when it comes to AWS, as data also exists in S3 buckets. Testing is still ongoing, but it will eventually be done. The time it takes to scan is one issue; when we raise high-volume issues and tickets related to scanning failures, it relates to permission errors, which are technical challenges. These take time because we have high volume tickets in terms of connectivity, scanning failures, and related matters. There are also frequent change requests, especially regarding scoping or rescoping due to complexities, creating several challenges. In both organizations I work with, there are gaps, and there is no enterprise-wide data classification available. However, there are pockets of implementations for various products. Some agencies are using it, but otherwise, there's no product existing across the enterprise. Microsoft Purview Data Lifecycle Management is definitely a good solution, but there is significant room for improvement from a product perspective. Reporting is another area that needs improvement.
Microsoft's Purview Data Lifecycle Management preview features can be unreliable, hindering their usefulness. More thorough testing before release would improve user experience and ensure previews showcase the intended functionality.