As part of its focus on offerings and opportunities that impact certifications, careers, contacts, and competence, ACEDS recently conducted a comprehensive online survey of individuals currently working in the field of the eDiscovery. The goal of the survey, the ACEDS Community Survey, was to gain an actionable understanding of industry perception regarding four key areas. Those areas being respondent awareness and possession of industry certifications, respondent valuation of ACEDS offerings to include the CEDS certification, respondent view of the evolution of eDiscovery, and respondent competence in technology. While the individual respondent answers to the survey are confidential, key results from each of the six topic areas are provided for your consideration.
Understanding that a provider’s organizational character is made up of more than capabilities, it seems reasonable that a common set of descriptive elements for competency, attributes, and distribution frameworks might be beneficial for the provider comparison process.
This updated article highlights one approach to evaluating the selection of eDiscovery vendors that may help decision makers by providing an objective framework useful for the competitive comparison and contrasting of subjective evaluation elements. While the components and ratings used in the approach may be adjusted and weighted based on the experiences and preference of evaluators, the framework is beneficial for ensuring a holistic evaluation process for determining vendor viability.
Just as there are many tasks in electronic discovery, many times there are multiple technologies and platforms involved in the complete electronic discovery process. When there are multiple technologies and platforms involved, data must be transferred from disparate technologies and platforms to other disparate technologies and platforms. This data transfer can be considered a risk factor that impacts the overall electronic discovery process.
The Concise Framework for Discovery Automation takes the overall process of discovery, breaks it down into a data discovery component and a legal discovery component, aligns these components with insight and intelligence, and then highlights four key processes and eight key tasks that appear to be important in the discovery process across the lifecycle of information and litigation.
Desktop as a Service (DaaS) providers are becoming important contributors to eDiscovery technology solutions as they allow for the deployment of virtualized desktop experiences delivered to end users on demand from remotely hosted locations. While the providers enabling the delivery of these virtualized environments to those in the eDiscovery ecosystem are typically not called out in the descriptions of the solutions they enable, understanding who those providers are is becoming increasingly important for those sourcing eDiscovery solutions for remote users as the underlying attributes and enhancements the providers deliver form the basis for comparing and contrasting the differences in DaaS-delivered capabilities from eDiscovery providers.
The annual eDiscovery Market Size Mashup estimates the combined worldwide eDiscovery software and services market spend in 2018 to be approximately $10.11B, growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of approximately 13.09% to $18.7B by 2023.
A working knowledge of electronically stored information (ESI) is foundational for effective, efficient, and comprehensive planning and execution of all electronic discovery tasks. This short, non-all inclusive overview highlights key definitions, descriptions, and attributes related to ESI and may be beneficial for legal and information technology professionals as they consider ESI in the conduct of data and legal discovery.
Balancing the business drivers of cost, time, and complexity in the conduct of electronic discovery continues to be one of the greatest challenges faced by legal professionals today.
While an understanding of decisions from definitions and elements to cornerstones and classifications is important, ultimately, for any decision to be optimally implemented, it is important to give those who have decision making accountability and responsibility the authority and control to make decisions.