Sun. Oct 2nd, 2022
    en flag
    nl flag
    et flag
    fi flag
    fr flag
    de flag
    he flag
    ja flag
    lv flag
    pl flag
    pt flag
    ru flag
    es flag

    Content Assessment: Objectifying the Subjective: Evaluating eDiscovery Vendor Viability

    Information - 94%
    Insight - 100%
    Relevance - 96%
    Objectivity - 95%
    Authority - 93%

    96%

    Excellent

    A short percentage-based assessment of the qualitative benefit of one of the most popular articles posted on ComplexDiscovery and on the topic of vendor comparisons.

    Editor’s Note: From time to time, ComplexDiscovery highlights publicly available or privately purchasable announcements, content updates, and research from cyber, data, and legal discovery providers, research organizations, and ComplexDiscovery community members. While ComplexDiscovery regularly highlights this information, it does not assume any responsibility for content assertions.

    To submit recommendations for consideration and inclusion in ComplexDiscovery’s cyber, data, and legal discovery-centric service, product, or research announcements, contact us today.


    Article

    Objectifying the Subjective: Evaluating eDiscovery Vendor Viability

    Definition: Viable – capable of success or continuing effectiveness. (The Free Dictionary)

    eDiscovery is rife with risk. Multiple parties, many jurisdictions, numerous ESI formats, various technologies, and competing vendors are all elements that can contribute to potential risk in an eDiscovery matter. With the inherent risk of eDiscovery influenced by these elements, it is essential that organizational eDiscovery decision-makers both understand the risk of these elements and seek to mitigate as much risk as possible as early as possible.

    One area that has the potential to impact the risk of an eDiscovery matter is an organization’s selection of an eDiscovery provider. There are many providers with many technologies and many ways in which they deliver their people, processes, and products to clients. In considering vendor selection, much is often shared about the specific capability and cost of technology and people to solve client challenges. This sharing on specific capability and pricing is usually presented in a manner that:

    1. Speaks to the capability of a vendor’s technology and people to perform specific tasks as needed by the client.
    2. Specifies the pricing for the delivery of the technology and talent to support the client’s stated need.

    This focus on the technology and talent elements of a vendor’s capability is undoubtedly warranted as these elements ultimately provide the cutting edge for the knife of eDiscovery task execution. However, just as there is much more to the utility of a knife than its edge (especially if you want to use it more than once), there are additional areas worthy of consideration in vendor selection if one is considering the long-term strategic utility and viability of a vendor.

    Strategically Comparing Vendors

    To help eDiscovery decision-makers evaluate and compare both the immediate and long-term success potential of electronic discovery vendors, the following considerations, shared in a formulaic manner to allow for objective comparison of subjective evaluation criteria, are provided for your review. The author is well aware that there are many considerations required to comprehensively evaluate electronic discovery vendors and the following considerations represent only one view of how one can evaluate and compare vendors beyond just the “feature, function and pricing” of services and products.

    Baseline Definitions and Rating Criteria:

    Capability Criteria

    • Technology = Demonstrated ability of product/service offering’s technical contribution to solving specific electronic discovery challenges. Simplistically rated in this model as below market expectations = 0, at market expectations = 2, or exceeding market expectations = 4.
    • Security = Demonstrated historical and continuing commitment to security and privacy-based audits, investigations, certifications, and attestations. Simplistically rated in this model as below market expectations = 0, at market expectations = 2, or exceeding market expectations = 4.
    • Domain Knowledge = Demonstrated ability of an organization to utilize technology to solve specific electronic discovery challenges. Simplistically rated in this model as below market expectations = 0, at market expectations = 2, or exceeding market expectations = 4.

    Communication Criteria

    • Reputation = The confidence level customers have in the actual or perceived ability of an organization to solve electronic discovery challenges viewed in relation to other organizations. Simplistically rated in this model as having a reputation for not satisfactorily meeting electronic discovery challenges = 0, having a reputation for sometimes satisfactorily meeting electronic discovery challenges = 2, or having a reputation for satisfactorily accomplishing electronic discovery challenges a majority of the time = 4.
    • Integrity = Demonstrated honest interaction and market messaging based on topical due diligence of organizational leadership, leadership assertions, and market messaging based on searches of business and legal databases for incongruencies between representation and reality. Simplistically rated in this model as representations do not represent reality = (-2), no real evidence congruency representations and reality = 0,  or representations are congruent with reality = 2.
    • Awareness = An organization’s mindshare in the eyes of the customer in relation to other organizations seeking to solve similar electronic discovery challenges. Simplistically rated in this model as awareness not prevalent = 0, awareness among the majority of legal and corporate law professionals on a regional level = 1, or awareness among the majority of legal and corporate law professionals on a national level = 2.

    Commerce Criteria

    • Customers = The number of active entities that have paid for electronic discovery products/services in the current calendar year. Simplistically rated in this model as having less than 20 customers = (-4), having between 20 and 100 customers = 0, and having greater than 100 customers = 4.
    • Free Cash Flow = Net Income + Depreciation/Amortization – Changes In Working Capital – Capital Expenditure. Simplistically rated in this model as negative free cash flow = (-2), as no free cash flow = 0, and as positive free cash flow = 2.

    Authenticity Criteria

    • Motive = The stimulus causing an organization to determine product/service strategies and tactics. Simplistically rated in this model as continuing to provide products/services based on purely financial reasons = (-1), continuing to provide products/services based purely on senior leadership interest in solving electronic discovery challenges = 0, or continuing to provide products/services based on a combination of financial reasons and senior leadership interest in solving electronic discovery challenges = 1
    • Sincerity = Congruence or lack thereof between an organization’s stated market desires and actual leadership actions. Simplistically rated in this model as a lack of agreement between internal messaging to senior leadership and messaging to market = (-1) or an agreement between internal messaging to senior leadership and messaging to market = 1.
    • Employee Turnover = The rate at which an organization gains or loses staff. Simplistically rated in this model as a turnover rate higher than 50% annually = (-1), and turnover rate between 25% and 49% annually = 0, or a turnover rate less than 25% annually = 1.

    Combined Ratings From Baseline Definitions

    • Total Success Predictor Rating (TSPR):  The rating of a vendor’s potential for long-term viability.  (TSPR = SPR1 + SPR2 + SP3) This can be used to compare a vendor’s potential for long-term viability.
    • Success Predictor Rating (SPR):  The rating of a vendor’s capability, communication, commerce, and authenticity for a specific time frame.  (SPR = C1 + C2 + C3) This can be used to compare a vendor’s performance (past or current) or potential performance (future) for a specified annual period.
    • Capability Rating (C1): The rating of a vendor’s capability based on technology, security, and domain knowledge.   (C1 = Technology Rating + Security + Domain Knowledge Rating) This can be used to compare a vendor’s technology, security, and domain expertise in relation to market expectations.
    • Communication Rating (C2): The rating of a vendor’s capability based on reputation, integrity, and awareness. (C2 = Reputation Rating + Integrity Rating + Awareness Rating) This can be used to compare a vendor’s ability to share its capability with others and to fulfill the promise of such sharing.
    • Commerce Rating (C3): The rating of a vendor’s financial stability based on customer activity and free cash flow.  (C3 = Customer Rating + Free Cash Flow Rating) This can be used to compare a vendor’s financial stability through the lens of cash flow and customer base.
    • Authenticity Rating (A1):  The rating of a vendor’s authenticity based on motive, sincerity, and employee turnover.  (A1 = Motive Rating + Sincerity Rating + Employee Turnover Rating)  This can be used to compare the alignment of a vendor’s vision with its internal and external actions.

    Comparison Formula Quick Look

    • TSPR + SPR1 + SPR2 + SPR3
    • SPR1 = (C1 + C2 + C3 + A1) Past Calendar Year
    • SPR2 = (C1 + C2 + C3 + A1) Current Calendar Year
    • SPR3 = (C1 + C2 + C3 + A1) Next Calendar Year (Forecast)
    • C1 = Capability = Technology + Security + Domain Knowledge
    • C2 = Communication = Reputation + Integrity + Awareness
    • C3 = Commerce = Customers + Free Cash Flow
    • A1 = Authenticity = Motive + Sincerity + Employee Turnover

    Comparison In Action: Practical Comparison

    This example represents an application of the aforementioned comparison formulas and any similarity to specific electronic discovery vendors is purely coincidental. The context for this specific evaluation/comparison is a client’s need to select a viable vendor for the completion of a time-limited immediate electronic discovery task.

    Vendor #1 Description: A Top National Electronic Discovery Vendor is being compared with other electronic discovery vendors for the execution of a time-limited immediate task. This vendor has the technology, security, and domain knowledge that meets market expectations, has strong national awareness and a reputation for satisfactorily meeting electronic discovery challenges, and vendor messaging appears to be in alignment with actual capabilities. The vendor has more than 100 customers but is experiencing negative cash flow. Vendor’s motive is continuing to provide products and services purely for financial reasons, and the vendor does not have congruence between stated market desires and actual leadership actions. Additionally, this vendor has an employee turnover rate between 25% and 49% annually.

    Vendor #1 Success Predictor Rating:

    • Time Limited Immediate Task = SPR2
    • Equation Choice: SPR2 = (C1 + C2 + C3 + A1) Current Calendar Year
    • Equation Components: Technology = 2, Security = 2, Domain Knowledge = 2, Reputation = 4, Integrity = 0, Awareness = 2, Customers = 4, Free Cash Flow = (-2), Motive (-1), Sincerity (-1), Employee Turnover = 0
    • SPR2 Rating: (2+2+2) + (4+0+2) + (4 + -2) + (-1 + -1 + 0) = 12

    Vendor #2 Description: A Leading Regional Vendor is also being compared with other electronic discovery vendors for the execution of a time-limited immediate task. This vendor has the technology, security, and domain knowledge that meets market expectations and has a regional awareness and a reputation for satisfactorily accomplishing electronic discovery challenges a majority of the time. However, some past assertions on service features by a key senior leader may be questionable. The vendor has positive free cash flow with more than 20 and less than 100 customers. Vendor’s motive is to provide products and services based on a combination of financial reasons and senior leadership interest in solving electronic discovery challenges, and the vendor has congruence between stated market desires and actual leadership actions. Additionally, this vendor has an employee turnover rate of less than 25%.

    Vendor #2 Success Predictor Rating:

    • Time Limited Immediate Task = SPR2
    • Equation Choice: SPR2 = (C1 + C2 + C3 + A1) Current Calendar Year
    • Equation Components: Technology = 2, Security = 2, Domain Knowledge = 2, Reputation = 2, Integrity -1, Awareness = 1, Customers = 2, Free Cash Flow = 2, Motive = 1 Sincerity = 1 Employee Turnover = 1
    • SPR2 Rating: (2+2+2) + (2+-1+1) + (2+2) + (1 + 1 + 1) = 15

    Assessment

    Vendor #2 in comparison to Vendor #1 appears to have the capability to execute the task however does not have quite as good a reputation, integrity, or quantity of customers rating as Vendor #1. This reputation and integrity characteristic however may be offset by the stability of Vendor #2 based on its commerce and authenticity ratings. As Vendor #2 has over 20 customers and Vendor #1 has less than 100 customers, it may be assumed that the customer volume differential between Vendor #2 and Vendor #1 may be inconsequential.

    Recommended Choice

    For the execution of a time-limited immediate task = Vendor #2. If the desire was to compare vendors for potential partnerships and long-term tasks, one would need to work through the Total Success Predictor Rating formula (Success Predictor Ratings For Past, Present, and Future (Forecast)) to determine ratings for comparison/decision.

    Additional Considerations

    The aforementioned formulaic approach for objectively comparing subjective elements should be viewed as one of many tools available to help determine appropriate choices in eDiscovery vendor selection.  Within this approach, specific areas can be broken down into further sub-components (i.e., technology can be broken down into collections, analytics, processing, review, managed review, etc.) and weighted appropriately to provide further detail in vendor comparisons/evaluations.

    References

    • “Viability”. Thefreedictionary.Com, https://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/viability. Accessed 26 August 2022.
    • “Free Cash Flow”. En.Wikipedia.Org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_cash_flow. Accessed 26 August 2022.
    • “EDRM”. Edrm.Net, https://www.edrm.net/. Accessed 26 August 2022.

    Additional Reading

    Source: ComplexDiscovery

     

    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 cyber, data, and legal discovery insight and intelligence ranging from original research to aggregated news for use by cybersecurity, information governance, and eDiscovery professionals. The highly targeted publication seeks to increase the collective understanding of readers regarding cyber, 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 cyber, data, and legal discovery organizations. Focused primarily on supporting the ComplexDiscovery publication, the company is registered as a private limited company in the European Union country of Estonia, one of the most digitally advanced countries in the world. The company operates virtually worldwide to deliver marketing consulting and services.

    Data Corpus Minimization? IDC Recognizes DISCO as Early Case Assessment Software Leader

    “As innovation continues to impact and disrupt the legal world, we’ve...

    Building a Cybersecurity Workforce? The European Cybersecurity Skills Framework

    According to ENISA's Executive Director, Juhan Lepassaar, "The future security of...

    Leaning Forward? The CISA 2023-2025 Strategic Plan

    The purpose of the CISA Strategic Plan is to communicate the...

    Continuous Risk Improvement? Q3 Cyber Round-Up From Cowbell Cyber

    According to Manu Singh, director of risk engineering at Cowbell, "Every...

    eDiscovery Mergers, Acquisitions, and Investments in Q3 2022

    From HaystackID and Relativity to Exterro and TCDI, the following findings,...

    Allegations and Denials? Nuix Notes ASIC Enforcement Proceedings

    The recent investor news update from Nuix on 29 September 2022,...

    Revealing Response? Nuix Responds to ASX Request for Information

    The following investor news update from Nuix shares a written response...

    Revealing Reports? Nuix Notes Press Speculation

    According to a September 9, 2022 market release from Nuix, the...

    On the Move? 2022 eDiscovery Market Kinetics: Five Areas of Interest

    Recently ComplexDiscovery was provided an opportunity to share with the eDiscovery...

    Trusting the Process? 2021 eDiscovery Processing Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    The Year in Review? 2021 eDiscovery Review Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    A 2021 Look at eDiscovery Collection: Task, Spend, and Cost Data Points

    Based on the complexity of cybersecurity, information governance, and legal discovery,...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for September 2022

    From privacy legislation and special masters to acquisitions and investigations, the...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for August 2022

    From AI and Big Data challenges to intriguing financial and investment...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for July 2022

    From lurking business undercurrents to captivating deepfake developments, the July 2022...

    Five Great Reads on Cyber, Data, and Legal Discovery for June 2022

    From eDiscovery ecosystem players and pricing to data breach investigations and...

    Bubble Trouble? eDiscovery Operational Metrics in the Fall of 2022

    In the fall of 2022, 89 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey participants...

    Cooler Temperatures? Fall 2022 eDiscovery Business Confidence Survey Results

    Since January 2016, 2,874 individual responses to twenty-eight quarterly eDiscovery Business...

    Inflection or Deflection? An Aggregate Overview of Eight Semi-Annual eDiscovery Pricing Surveys

    Initiated in the winter of 2019 and conducted eight times with...

    Changing Currents? Eighteen Observations on eDiscovery Business Confidence in the Summer of 2022

    In the summer of 2022, 54.8% of survey respondents felt that...

    A Significant Operational Defeat? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 27 – October 1, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    Perception and Reality? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 22 – 26, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    Nuclear Options? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 17 – 21, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...

    Mass Graves and Torture Chambers? Ukraine Conflict Assessments in Maps (September 12 – 16, 2022)

    According to a recent update from the Institute for the Study...