Considering Fourth Generation eDiscovery Technology Offerings: Two Approaches (Part Two)

In looking beyond an offering’s general design focus, integration, and automation, it is important to understand specific technology differentiation in order to truly compare offerings.


Author’s Note: Expanding on the original article, Considering Third Generation Discovery? Two Approaches for Evaluating eDiscovery Offerings1, this update comprehends the expansion of design focus, capabilities, and flexibility for eDiscovery technology offerings since 2009. This is part two of a two-part update. Click here for part one.

Beyond Design Focus, Integration, and Automation

In looking beyond an offering’s general design focus, integration, and automation, it is important to understand specific technology differentiation in order to truly compare offerings. While there are many ways to compare and contrast specific offerings, the following questions pertaining to a technology offering’s capability, flexibility, delivery method, pricing model, and security approach may be helpful in understanding offering differences.

What are a technology offering’s capabilities?2

Does the offering help address planning requirements for eDiscovery?

  • Legal Hold Readiness
  • Triggering Event Management
  • Legal Hold Process
  • Information Governance
  • Litigation Readiness

Does the offering help address preservation requirements for eDiscovery?

  • Identification
  • Preservation
  • Collection
  • Hold Notices
  • Interviews

Does the offering help address preparation requirements for eDiscovery?

  • Filtering
  • Converting
  • Processing
  • Cooperating

Does the offering help address review requirements for eDiscovery?

  • Review
  • Analysis
  • Culling
  • Computer-Assisted Review
  • Protections

Does the offering help address sharing requirements for eDiscovery?

  • Disclosure
  • Form of Forms
  • Presentation
  • Production
  • Evidence

How flexible is the technology offering in integrating and automating eDiscovery tasks?

  • Does the offering support task integration within a single platform?
  • Does the offering support task to task automation within a single platform?
  • Does the offering support task integration with other eDiscovery offerings?
  • Does the offering support task to task automation with other eDiscovery offerings?

What is the technology offering’s delivery model?

  • Is the offering delivered as software for installation on organizational hardware?
  • Is the offering delivered as an appliance (hardware/software/firmware?
  • Is the offering delivered as Software as a Service (SaaS)?
  • Is the offering delivered as a managed service?

What is the technology offering’s pricing model?

  • Does the offering require purchasing of hardware, software, and/or an appliance?
  • Does the offering require payment for licensing and/or maintenance?
  • Does the offering require payment for usage via a subscription?
  • Does the offering require payment for usage by users, time, and volume?

What is the technology offering’s security approach?

  • Is the offering deployed and maintained on-premises?
  • Is the offering deployed and maintained off-premises as part of the public cloud?
  • Is the offering deployed and maintained off-premises as part of a private cloud?
  • Is the offering deployed and maintained off-premises as part of a protected cloud ( a hybrid of public and private cloud approaches)?

Taking the understanding of an offering developed through consideration of the previous questions, one can then begin to compare and contrast eDiscovery technology offerings through the use of a simple generation model of eDiscovery Classification.

Tying It All Together: The Generational Model of eDiscovery Technology Offerings

In looking at a technology offering’s design focus, integration approach, automation approach as well as being able to determine the offering’s capability, flexibility, delivery model, pricing model, and security approach, one can visually compare and contrast different technology offerings using the Generational Model of eDiscovery Technology Offering Classification (Figure 3).

Figure 3 – Generational Model of eDiscovery Technology

This model portrays in a general fashion where most generational offerings fall in relation to capability, flexibility, delivery method, affordability, and security.

Hopefully, with the considerations provided in the complete offering and generational model approaches shared in this two-part update, legal and information technology professionals will have some new and useful tools they can use as they seek to consider and compare eDiscovery technologies.

Click here for part one of this two-part update.

1 Robinson, W. R. (2009). Considering Third Generation eDiscovery? Two Approaches for Evaluating eDiscovery Offerings. Austin, TX: Orange Legal Technologies.

2 A Basic eDiscovery Framework: One Way To Align Three Differing Approaches. (2012, November 30). Retrieved from http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2012/11/30/a-basic-ediscovery-framework-one-way-to-align-three-differing-approaches/

 

Have a Request?

If you have information or offering requests that you would like to ask us about, please let us know and we will make our response to you a priority.

ComplexDiscovery is an online publication that highlights data and legal discovery insight and intelligence ranging from original research to aggregated news for use by business, information technology, and legal professionals. The highly targeted publication seeks to increase the collective understanding of readers regarding data and legal discovery information and issues and to provide an objective resource for considering trends, technologies, and services related to electronically stored information.

ComplexDiscovery OÜ is a technology marketing firm providing strategic planning and tactical execution expertise in support of data and legal discovery organizations. Registered as a private limited company in the European Union country of Estonia, one of the most digitally advanced countries in the world, ComplexDiscovery OÜ operates virtually worldwide to deliver marketing consulting and services.

A (Brand) New Approach? Considering the Framework and Structure of eDiscovery Offerings

Today’s eDiscovery providers may benefit from the lessons learned in the creation of the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album by creating a concept for branding and packaging their offerings within that brand in a connected, theme-based way that represents the offerings’ promise and capability in a way that is easy to understand and remember.

This fictionalized branding approach was developed from the intellectual exercise of trying to figure out a reasonable and memorable way to descriptively highlight the promise and capabilities of offerings typically delivered by full-service eDiscovery providers. It may not be completely comprehensive or fully normalized. However, the hope of sharing this branding example is that it might help those involved in the branding and communication of eDiscovery provider services and solutions.

First Legal Acquires eDiscovery Provider Redpoint Technologies

According to Alex Martinez, CEO of First Legal, “Both First Legal...

Veristar Acquires Planet Data

According to Veristar company founder, CEO, and president Rick Avers, “We...

Questel Acquires doeLEGAL

doeLEGAL today announced that it has been acquired by intellectual property...

Following the Money? Mike Bryant Provides a SOLID Look at Legal Tech Merger and Acquisition Activity

From seed and venture capital investments to private equity and Special...

A New Era in eDiscovery? Framing Market Growth Through the Lens of Six Eras

There are many excellent resources for considering chronological and historiographical approaches...

An eDiscovery Market Size Mashup: 2020-2025 Worldwide Software and Services Overview

While the Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) for worldwide eDiscovery software...

Resetting the Baseline? eDiscovery Market Size Adjustments for 2020

An unanticipated pandemeconomic-driven retraction in eDiscovery spending during 2020 has resulted...

Home or Away? New eDiscovery Collection Market Sizing and Pricing Considerations

One of the key home (onsite) or away (remote) decisions that...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for February 2021

From litigation trends and legal tech investing to facial recognition and...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for January 2021

From eDiscovery business confidence and operational metrics to merger and acquisition...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for December 2020

May the peace and joy of the holiday season be with...

Five Great Reads on eDiscovery for November 2020

From market sizing and cyber law to industry investments and customer...

HaystackID Recognized in IDC MarketScape for eDiscovery Services

According to HaystackID CEO Hal Brooks, “We are proud to once...

A Generational View of Remote Security? HaystackID™ Releases 3.0 Security Enhancements to Review Technology

According to HaystackID's Senior Vice President and General Manager for Review...

Only a Matter of Time? HaystackID Launches New Service for Data Breach Discovery and Review

According to HaystackID's Chief Innovation Officer and President of Global Investigations,...

It’s a Match! Focusing on the Total Cost of eDiscovery Review with ReviewRight Match

As a leader in remote legal document review, HaystackID provides clients...

Cold Weather Catch? Predictive Coding Technologies and Protocols Survey – Spring 2021 Results

The Predictive Coding Technologies and Protocols Survey is a non-scientific semi-annual...

Out of the Woods? Eighteen Observations on eDiscovery Business Confidence in the Winter of 2021

In the winter of 2021, 85.0% of eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey...

Issues Impacting eDiscovery Business Performance: A Winter 2021 Overview

In the winter of 2021, 43.3% of respondents viewed budgetary constraints...

Not So Outstanding? eDiscovery Operational Metrics in the Winter of 2021

In the winter of 2021, eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey more...