@ComplexD http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info Sat, 25 May 2013 14:52:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 PII, Presentism and Persistence: The Enron Data Set http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/25/pii-presentism-and-persistence-the-enron-data-set/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/25/pii-presentism-and-persistence-the-enron-data-set/#comments Sat, 25 May 2013 14:38:29 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6306 Enron Logo 220x220

Based on an aggregation of online content from eDiscovery commentators ranging from legal experts to technology practitioners, provided below is a non-all inclusive overview of recent articles, comments and posts in regard to the presence of personally identifiable information (PII) in the EDRM Enron Email Data Set.  This overview includes an reverse chronological overview of online articles, comments and posts as well as a listing of the individuals and entities references in the online articles, comments and posts.

Articles/Comments/Posts

April 30, 2013 – Lessons From PII Data Breaches by FERC and EDRM – http://bit.ly/ZVVWBB (BeyondRecognition)

  • While working with the EDRM Data that we downloaded from the EDRM website, BeyondRecognition discovered that there were over 7,500 instances of unredacted social security numbers, credit card numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and phone numbers – a startling breach of privacy. Most of the data breach victims were Enron employees, but the victims also included spouses or children of the employees as well as third party contractors. Read more.

May 2, 2013 - Wow. EDRM/FERC/Enron Data Privacy Breaches - http://bit.ly/10YIaRR (@SharonNelsonEsq)

  • It is a startling revelation when you learn that a dataset that has been public for years and contains over 7,500 instances of unredacted social security numbers, credit card numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and phone numbers. Read more.

May 3, 2013 – Lessons from EDRM/FERC/Enron Data Privacy Breaches (Updated) - http://bit.ly/11OHqKj  (Office of Inadequate Security)

  • I am posting this with some hesitation, as the data may still be live. But after days of getting no response from Amazon Web Services who were informed of this problem last week, I think it’s time to call attention to the failure of all involved parties to respond promptly. Read more.

May 6, 2013 - Roundup of Thoughts on the Enron Data Set PII - http://bit.ly/11bnAhf (@SharonNelsonEsq)

  • In the end, it became apparent that a good number of people knew about the PII. However, Martin’s “discovery” was unknown to many – including me. Others in the EDD field wrote to concur that they too had not known about the PII. The story generated a lot of discussion – and that’s a good thing. As valuable as the Enron dataset is, I agree with Withers that the legal outcome might differ today. Read more.

May 6, 2013 - Amazon Web Services Takes Down Enron Email Data Set - http://bit.ly/13ZyFyB (Beyond Recognition)

  • Today Amazon Web Services informed BeyondRecognition that AWS has taken down the Enron Email Data Set. This is the message we received.  Read more.

May 7, 2013 - Enron’s Toxic Sandbox: Does The Public Enron Email Database Have Too Much PII? http://bit.ly/ZGLU7D (Monica Bay)

  • CEO John Martin announced on Tuesday that he had “discovered” personally-identifiable information while working in the Enron sandbox with his company’s namesake document analysis software, BeyondRecognition. Read more.

May 7, 2013 - Amazon Web Services Takes Down Enron Email Data Set  -http://bit.ly/15mYyNw (@SharonNelsonEsq)

  • If you’ve been watching the last two RTL posts, you are aware of the personally identifiable information (PII) that is contained in the Enron Email Data Set. Responding to a report from BeyondRecognition’s CEO John Martin, Amazon Web Services wrote to John yesterday and advised him that the Data Set had been taken down. Read more.

May 9, 2013 - Reporting from the EDRM Annual Meeting and a Data Set Update http://bit.ly/15s23SU (Doug Austin)

  • In the past several days, there has been much discussion about the personally-identifiable information (“PII”) available within the FERC (and consequently the EDRM Data Set), including social security numbers, credit card numbers, dates of birth, home addresses and phone numbers.  Consequently, the EDRM Data Set has been taken down from the AWS site. Read more.

May 9, 2013 - Update: Background on EDRM/FERC/Enron PII Disclosures - http://bit.ly/128wbwl (BeyondRecogition)

  • This posting reviews FERC’s actions in the light of what was technically possible at the time and comments on Enron’s appeal of the disclosure decision to the Fifth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Read more.

May 10, 2013 - EDRM Remains Vital to eDiscovery - http://bit.ly/10mO48l (Albert Barsocchini)

  • I participated in the Data Set group led by Michael Lappin, director, archiving strategy at Nuix Pty Ltd, where it was decided to address high-risk documents — personally identifiable information (PII), personal health information (PHI), etc. This was inspired by the recent discovery of PII in the EDRM Enron Email Data Set, which he was involved in cleansing. Read more.

May 15, 2013 - Nuix and EDRM Republish Enron Data Set Cleansed Of More Than 10,000 Items - http://www.edrm.net/archives/17490  (EDRM)

  • Nuix, a worldwide provider of information management technologies, and EDRM, the leading standards organization for the eDiscovery and information governance market, have today republished the EDRM Enron PST Data Set after cleansing it of private, health and personal financial information. Read more.

May 15, 2013 - EDRM Enron PST Data Set – Legal Disclaimer - http://bit.ly/ZkwiIU (Nuix)

  • This legal notice applies to the cleansed version of the Enron data set, originally published by EDRM (edrm.net), provided by Nuix under the website Nuix.com (“Data Set”). Please read these terms carefully before using the Data Set.  Using the Data Set indicates that you accept these terms.  If you do not accept these terms, do not use the Data Set. Read more.

May 15, 2013 - EDRM Enron Data Set Cleansed of Private, Health and Financial Information – (With Download Links) http://bit.ly/13xz2lv (Nuix)

  • Nuix specialists cleansed the EDRM Enron data set of private information. We identified and removed more than 10,000 items. Read more.

May 16, 2013 - EDRM’S Enron PST Data Set Cleansed of Personal Information - http://bit.ly/12gEwhz (@SharonNelsonEsq)

  • Yesterday, I received a press release from Nuix (and a similar release was sent out by EDRM) saying that Nuix and EDRM had republished the EDRM Enron PST Data Set after cleansing it of private, health and personal financial information. Read more.

May 16, 2013 - Version 1 of the EDRM Enron Data Set NOW AVAILABLE - http://bit.ly/12DjOJp (Doug Austin)

  • Last week, we reported from the Annual Meeting for the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) group and discussed some significant efforts and accomplishments by each of the project teams within EDRM.  That included an update from the EDRM Data Set project, where an effort was underway to identify and remove personally-identifiable information (“PII”) data from the EDRM Data Set.  Now, version 1 of the Data Set is completed and available for download. Read more.

May 23, 2013 - Index Engines Finds More Dirt on Nuix’s ‘cleansed’ Enron Data Set - http://bit.ly/1abEU41 (IndexEngines)

  • Enron’s republished PST data set still contains numerous personally identifiable information violations despite Nuix’s ‘efforts,’ Index Engines finds. Read more.

May 23, 2013 – Personally Identifiable Information in Enron Data Redux - http://bit.ly/16cZk0e (Sean Doherty)

  • After Nuix re-released Enron data sets, PII persists. Read more.

May 23, 2013 – Moving Forward – Dealing with the Aftermath of the EDRM/FERC/Enron PII Breaches - http://bit.ly/1acqGQj (BeyondRecognition)

  • Four specific suggestions to use these PII breaches as a learning experience and, co-incidentally, to help achieve data breach notification for the victims. Read more.

May 24, 2013 - The Cleansing Process: Enron Data Set Discussion By Nuix/EDRM - http://bit.ly/18bFVwn (@ComplexD)

  • The string of Twitter posts from participants in the Nuix/EDRM led online discussion on 5.23.13 at #NuixChat (Twitter Hashtag) concerning personally identifiable information (PII) and the re-released Enron data sets.  Read more.

Individuals/Entities (Referenced in Articles)

Individuals/Entities who have made comments and/or have been referenced in aforementioned articles, comments and posts.

Individuals

  • Ady Cassidy – eDiscovery Consultant, Nuix
  • Albert Barsocchini – Discovery Counsel/Director of Strategic Consulting, NightOwlDiscovery (Author)
  • Doug Austin, Director of Marketing, CloudNine Discovery (Author)
  • Craig Ball – Attorney and Forensics Expert
  • Deborah Baron – Chief Marketing Officer, Nuix
  • Eddie Sheehy – CEO, Nuix
  • Eric Robi – President, Elluma Discovery
  • George Socha – Socha Consulting and Co-Founder, EDRM
  • Jim McGann – VP of Information Discovery, Nuix
  • Joe Howie – VP of Corporate Communications, BeyondRecognition
  • John Martin – CEO, BeyondRecognition
  • Kenneth Withers – Director of Judicial Education, The Sedona Conference
  • Matthew Westwood-Hill – eDiscovery Consultant, Nuix
  • Michael Lappin – Director of Archiving Strategy, Nuix
  • Monica Bay – Law Technology News, Editor-in-Chief (Author)
  • Sean Doherty – Law Technology News, Technology Editor (Author)
  • Sharon Nelson – President, Sensei Enterprises (Author)
  • Tom Gelbmann – Gelbmann & Associates and Co-Founder, EDRM
  • William Hamilton – Partner, Quarles & Brady and Founder of E-Discovery Adjunct Professor ListServ (GroupSpaces)

Entities

Click here to provide additions, corrections and/or updates.

Updated 5/25/2013

Source:  Public Domain Information

LinkedInTwitterFacebookShare

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/25/pii-presentism-and-persistence-the-enron-data-set/feed/ 0 Actionable Intelligence: Weekly “Quick 10″ Corporate Risk Review – 5.24.13 http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/24/actionable-intelligence-weekly-quick-10-corporate-risk-review-5-24-13/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/24/actionable-intelligence-weekly-quick-10-corporate-risk-review-5-24-13/#comments Fri, 24 May 2013 10:25:11 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6300 SpeedLimit10

Providing in-house counsel with a weekly overview of ten significant legal and technology related stories centered around the corporate risk topics of compliance, information governance, privacy and security.

Weekly “Quick 10″ Stories

Alphabetical Order

  1. Can We Make The Expenditure In The First Place? Advice For Navigating Gift, T&E Issues - http://bit.ly/10LutPo (Brian Chilton)
  2. Distress Must be Directly Linked to Data Breach for Consumers to Claim Compensation Rules Court of Appeal - http://bit.ly/14wC5tM (Pinsent Masons)
  3. Do You Know the Seven Factors That Comprise “Just Cause”? | Labor & Employment Law Perspectives - http://bit.ly/10JyZ0G (David Froiland)
  4. Focus on the “Tone of the Organization” http://bit.ly/13NkfmN (Jim DeLoach)
  5. Law in the Boardroom - http://bit.ly/13Gqclf (Kimberly Crowe)
  6. Telling the FBI Your Company Has Been Hacked – http://bit.ly/10LpWwb (Catherine Dunn)
  7. Top Compliance Risks Facing Health Care Professionals - http://bit.ly/10CKcQv (Todd Kerr)
  8. U.S. International Trade Commission Adopts e-Discovery Rules – Electronic Discovery Law -http://bit.ly/1acuZLC (K&L Gates)
  9. New USPTO After Final Consideration Pilot Program | PharmaPatents - http://bit.ly/10IU6US (Courtney Brinckerhoff)
  10. When Employee Taunts Employer via Facebook to “FIRE ME…” NLRB Memo Concludes Employer Can Go For It - http://bit.ly/14BJPut (Sara Jodka)

Latest Actionable Intelligence

For a running record of Actionable Intelligence “Quick 10″ Weekly Updates – click here.

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/24/actionable-intelligence-weekly-quick-10-corporate-risk-review-5-24-13/feed/ 0 A List from Lists: 100+ Electronic Discovery Providers http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/23/a-list-from-lists-100-electronic-discovery-providers/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/23/a-list-from-lists-100-electronic-discovery-providers/#comments Thu, 23 May 2013 17:15:52 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6286 100 Sign - Original

Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the electronic discovery arena, the following “100+Provider” list provides a short listing that may be useful in the consideration of electronic discovery providers.

This listing is taken directly from eDiscovery provider mentions in selected key formal industry reports and surveys published between August 2011 and March 2013. Where appropriate, the list has been adjusted for industry mergers and acquisitions, with the primary company listed as the recognized eDiscovery provider.

Reports considered in the compilation include:

  • 451 Research:  E-Discovery and E-Disclosure 2013 – March 2013. (US Centric)
  • Allvision (with Legal IT Insider):  eDisclosure Systems – Buyer’s Guide – 2013 Edition – March 2013. (UK Centric)
  • Got Technology-Assisted Review: A Short List of Providers and Terms – January 2013 (Updated)
  • 2012 Q4 Market Update Report, eDJ Group, December 2012.
  • 2012 eDiscovery Early Case Assessment Software Buyer’s Guide, DCIG, July 2012.
  • Assisted Review Technologies: eDiscovery’s ‘Brave New World’ of Predictive Coding and TAR, 451 Research, July 2012.
  • Magic Quadrant for E-Discovery Software, Gartner, May 2012.
  • The Future of Review: E-Discovery Market Landscape Report, ESG, December 2011.
  • IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Standalone Early Case Assessment Applications 2011 Vendor Analysis, IDC, September 2011.
  • E-Discovery and E-Disclosure – 2011, The 451 Group, August 2011.

This listing certainly is not all inclusive of either research firms and/or capable vendors – but does provide an aggregate overview of notable vendors that several industry researchers and experts consider leading technology providers in the field of eDiscovery.

Updated: 5/24/2013

The “Aggregated List”of eDiscovery Providers

Alphabetically Ordered

  1. 7Safe (A PA Group Company)
  2. AccessData
  3. AlixPartners
  4. AlphaLit
  5. Altep
  6. Altlaw
  7. Anya Designs Ltd
  8. Applied Discovery
  9. Aurix
  10. Backstop
  11. Beyond Recognition
  12. Business Intelligence Associates (BIA)
  13. C2C Systems
  14. CCL Group
  15. Catalyst Repository Systems
  16. CloudNine Discovery
  17. CommVault
  18. Compiled Services
  19. Consilio (Formally First Advantage Litigation Consulting)
  20. Content Analyst
  21. Control Risks
  22. CY4OR
  23. D4 Discovery
  24. Daegis
  25. DATAssimilate Systems
  26. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu LTD / Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP
  27. DiscoverReady
  28. Driven
  29. DTI (Fios)
  30. EMC
  31. eDiscovery Tools
  32. Elijah
  33. eMag Solutions
  34. Epiq Systems
  35. Equivio
  36. Ernst & Young (Cataphora)
  37. Exterro
  38. FTI Consulting
  39. GGO Digital WarRoom
  40. Grant Thornton UK LLP (Formally Legal Inc)
  41. Guidance Software
  42. H5
  43. HP – Autonomy
  44. Hobs Legal Docs
  45. Hudson Legal
  46. Huron Legal
  47. IBM (StoredIQ)
  48. iCONECT
  49. i-Lit Limited & i-Lit Paralegals Ltd
  50. Index Engines
  51. Integreon
  52. InterLegis
  53. IPRO
  54. kCura
  55. KOFAX
  56. KOOBY
  57. Kroll Ontrack
  58. KPMG
  59. LDM Global
  60. Legastat
  61. LexisNexis
  62. Lighthouse
  63. Liquid Litigation Management
  64. LitSavant Ltd
  65. MD5 Limited
  66. Merrill Corporation
  67. Millnet Limited
  68. Mindseye Solutions
  69. Mitratech
  70. Navigant Consulting
  71. Nexidia
  72. Nextpoint
  73. NightOwl Discovery
  74. Nuix
  75. Orange Legal Technologies
  76. OrcaTec
  77. Palmer Legal Technologies (Now Part of Proven)
  78. Planet Data
  79. Prolorem
  80. PureDiscovery
  81. PwC PricewaterhouseCoopers
  82. Rational Retention
  83. Recommind
  84. Renew Data
  85. Servient
  86. SHMSoft
  87. Stroz Friedberg
  88. Symantec
  89. TCDI
  90. The Oliver Group
  91. Thomson Legal
  92. Transperfect (Digital Reef)
  93. Tymetrix
  94. UBIC
  95. UHY Advisors
  96. Unified
  97. Valora Technologies
  98. Venio Systems
  99. X1 Discovery
  100. Xerox Litigation Services (Lateral Data)
  101. Zapproved
  102. ZL Technologies
  103. ZyLAB

Source: Public Domain Research

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/23/a-list-from-lists-100-electronic-discovery-providers/feed/ 0 Weekly eDiscovery Top Story Digest – May 22, 2013 http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/22/weekly-ediscovery-top-story-digest-may-22-2013/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/22/weekly-ediscovery-top-story-digest-may-22-2013/#comments Wed, 22 May 2013 10:03:56 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6260 Compiled by @ComplexD from online public domain resources, provided for your review/use is this week’s update of key industry news, views, and events highlighting key electronic discovery related stories, developments, and announcements.

Follow @ComplexD

Weekly eDiscovery Top Story Digest Update

eDiscovery Issues

Corporate Risk

Technology Considerations

Vendor News

2013 Events

MAY

CEIC 2013
May 19 – 22, 2013
Orlando, FL
Click here for more information.

MER ’13 – The National Conference on Managing Electronic Records
May 20 – 22, 2013
Chicago, IL
Click here for more information.

LegalTech West Coast
May 21-22, 2013
Los Angeles, CA
Click here for more information.

JUNE

The Fifteenth Annual International Techno Security Conference
June 2-5, 2013
Myrtle Beach, SC
Click here for more information.

7th Annual Governance and eDiscovery Summit
June 12-13, 2013
Sydney, Australia
Click here for more information.

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 10 – 14, 2013
Rome, Italy
Click here for more information.

AUGUST

American Bar Association Annual Meeting
August 8-13, 2013
San Francisco, CA
Click here for more information.

ILTA 2013 Annual Conference
August 18-22, 2013
Las Vegas, NV
Click here for more information.

OCTOBER

EDRM 2013-2014 Midyear Meeting
October 9-11, 2013
Saint Paul, MN
Click here for more information.

ACEDS 2013 Corporate E-Discovery Summit
October 10-11, 2013
San Francisco, CA
Click here for more information.

Innovate
October 17-18, 2013
Orlando, FL
Click here for more information.

LawTech Europe Congress 2013
October 21 – 22, 2013
Prague, Czech Republic
Click here for more information.

ACC 2013 Annual Meeting
October 27-30, 2013
Los Angeles, CA
Click here for more information.

NOVEMBER

KMWorld 2013
November 6-8, 2013
Washington, DC
Click here for more information.

The Advanced eDiscovery Institute
November 21-22, 2013
Washington, DC
Click here for more information.

For the latest eDiscovery news, visit ComplexDiscovery.

Icon For eDiscovery News, Views, and Events

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/22/weekly-ediscovery-top-story-digest-may-22-2013/feed/ 0 Vendor Clips | May 21, 2013 http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/21/vendor-clips-may-21-2013/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/21/vendor-clips-may-21-2013/#comments Tue, 21 May 2013 13:45:31 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6252
Clips of Industry News

Provided for your review/use is a weekly consolidated listing of Vendor Clips – compiled from online public domain industry news and updates from electronic discovery-centric vendors and commentators.

Follow @ComplexD

May 21, 2013

Vendor Clips

For a running record of Vendor Clips – click here.

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/21/vendor-clips-may-21-2013/feed/ 0 Actionable Intelligence: Weekly “Quick 10″ Corporate Risk Review – 5.17.13 http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/17/actionable-intelligence-weekly-quick-10-corporate-risk-review-5-17-13/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/17/actionable-intelligence-weekly-quick-10-corporate-risk-review-5-17-13/#comments Fri, 17 May 2013 09:58:47 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6237 SpeedLimit10

Providing in-house counsel with a weekly overview of ten significant legal and technology related stories centered around the corporate risk topics of compliance, information governance, privacy and security.

Weekly “Quick 10″ Stories

Alphabetical Order

  1. 6 Things In-House Counsel Must Know About E-Discovery - http://bit.ly/10x9m35 (Catherine Dunn)
  2. Could Social Media Ruin Your Company? http://bit.ly/19skrHT (Jeremy Mishkin)
  3. eDiscovery and the M&A Deal - http://bit.ly/11NJBxK (Dera Nevin)
  4. Expert’s View On Containing Litigation Costs In The Insurance Industry - http://bit.ly/15Osoe2(Taylor Smith)
  5. FTC Warns Companies of Children’s Privacy Violations – http://bit.ly/13yKcX4 (Jenna Greene)
  6. Hit Product Pirates Where it Hurts - http://bit.ly/13yIvc9 (Robert Youill)
  7. New Site Indexes Contracts from SEC Database - http://bit.ly/17x4rHO (@BobAmbrogi)
  8. ‘Seven Level Wipe’ Leads To Federal Charges, Blogger Threats -  http://bit.ly/12CjXwo(@ITLexOrg)
  9. The Importance Of Business Continuity Planning: Dealing With Inevitable Risk -  http://bit.ly/15OsEK9 (Eric Kreuter)
  10. You’d Think We’d All Know the Dangers of ‘Reply All’ by Now -  http://bit.ly/16vc3uj (Jon Hyman)

Latest Actionable Intelligence

For a running record of Actionable Intelligence “Quick 10″ Weekly Updates – click here.

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/17/actionable-intelligence-weekly-quick-10-corporate-risk-review-5-17-13/feed/ 0 Weekly eDiscovery Top Story Digest – May 15, 2013 http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/15/weekly-ediscovery-top-story-digest-may-15-2013/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/15/weekly-ediscovery-top-story-digest-may-15-2013/#comments Wed, 15 May 2013 09:43:05 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6218 Compiled by @ComplexD from online public domain resources, provided for your review/use is this week’s update of key industry news, views, and events highlighting key electronic discovery related stories, developments, and announcements.

Follow @ComplexD

Weekly eDiscovery Top Story Digest Update

eDiscovery Issues

Corporate Risk

  • 26(a)(2)(B) Expert Reports – Permissible Supplementation or Clarification v. Impermissible Sandbagging - http://bit.ly/15s7mSm (Gregory Joseph)
  • A Look at Two Approaches to Oil and Gas Regulation | Energy & the Law - http://bit.ly/10wWKJk (Charles Sartain)
  • An Aging Workforce: the Risks Associated with Succession and Transitional Planning – http://bit.ly/10w0lHu (Strikeman Elliott)
  • Apple’s Customer Data-Privacy Rules Struck Down by German Court - http://bloom.bg/16YMRMN (Karin Matussek)
  • Bloomberg Names Compliance Chief After Client Data Breach - http://bit.ly/10ns0OI (Catherine Dunn)
  • Bloomberg: Through the Looking Glass | @WiredGC - http://bit.ly/19k5I1u (John Wallbillich)
  • Canadian Tech and IP Status Update: Social Media and the Service of Documents - http://bit.ly/10ivtKt (Roland Hung, Jeremy Busch-Howell)
  • CopyTele Is a ‘Patent Troll’ With No Apologies – http://bit.ly/10ksrWe (Lisa Shuchman)
  • Cybersecurity Debate Continues of Privacy Concerns – http://bit.ly/13vb36n (Dawn Livingston)
  • EY Survey Finds CFO Insanity Everywhere - http://bit.ly/10bjfr1 (Richard Cassin)
  • FAQ: What You Need to Know About Cloud Computing’s Hidden Tax Hit - http://bit.ly/15pAidF (Ellen Messmer)
  • Flexible Work Schedule Not a Reasonable Accommodation under ADA When Punctual, Regular Attendance is an Essential Function - http://bit.ly/10w0Gdg - (Michael Soltis)
  • In FCPA Enforcement Sometimes Truth is Stranger than Fiction – The Cilnis Complaint - http://bit.ly/10w0YRx (Thomas Fox)
  • International Cloud Computing and the Protection of Personal Data - http://bit.ly/11V13QV (Paul Van den Bulck)
  • Judge Opens Toyota’s Secrets to Additional Attorneys - http://bit.ly/173sYUK (Amanda Bronstad)
  • Making the Bottom Line Case for Compliance: The ROI of a Robust Compliance Department - http://bit.ly/10w1aQD (Ron Schwartz)
  • Managing Business Risks of Social Media - http://bit.ly/15scHZZ (Nicole Galli, Sarah Stafford)
  • New FCPA Resource Guide – 10 Things for Legal and Compliance Officers to Consider (PDF) http://bit.ly/173qupi (Deloitte Forensic Center)
  • Patent Exhaustion and Self-Replicating Technologies - http://bit.ly/19k6H1A (Antoinette Konski)
  • Protecting Privacy or Enabling Fraud? Employee Social Media Password Protection Laws and FINRA - http://bit.ly/10d1dom (Jessica Goldenberg)
  • Software Patents Are “The Plaything Of The Judges” | Litigation & Trial Lawyer Blog - http://bit.ly/13vYZlq (Max Kennerly)
  • The SEC Does Not Care about Your FINRA Document Request -  http://bit.ly/10sUIe5 (David Smyth)
  • Survey Says – Recent FCPA Related Surveys - http://bit.ly/13TFHWq (Mike Koehler)
  • Up to 160,000 Social Security Numbers Exposed in Washington State Court Hack - http://bit.ly/1957aop (Elaine Porterfield)
  • You’d Think We’d All Know the Dangers of ‘Reply All’ by Now - http://bit.ly/16vc3uj (Jon Hyman)

Technology Considerations

Vendor News

2013 Events

MAY

CEIC 2013
May 19 – 22, 2013
Orlando, FL
Click here for more information.

MER ’13 – The National Conference on Managing Electronic Records
May 20 – 22, 2013
Chicago, IL
Click here for more information.

LegalTech West Coast
May 21-22, 2013
Los Angeles, CA
Click here for more information.

JUNE

The Fifteenth Annual International Techno Security Conference
June 2-5, 2013
Myrtle Beach, SC
Click here for more information.

7th Annual Governance and eDiscovery Summit
June 12-13, 2013
Sydney, Australia
Click here for more information.

International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 10 – 14, 2013
Rome, Italy
Click here for more information.

AUGUST

ILTA 2013 Annual Conference
August 18-22, 2013
Las Vegas, NV
Click here for more information.

OCTOBER

EDRM 2013-2014 Midyear Meeting
October 9-11, 2013
Saint Paul, MN
Click here for more information.

ACEDS 2013 Corporate E-Discovery Summit
October 10-11, 2013
San Francisco, CA
Click here for more information.

Innovate
October 17-18, 2013
Orlando, FL
Click here for more information.

LawTech Europe Congress 2013
October 21 – 22, 2013
Prague, Czech Republic
Click here for more information.

ACC 2013 Annual Meeting
October 27-30, 2013
Los Angeles, CA
Click here for more information.

NOVEMBER

KMWorld 2013
November 6-8, 2013
Washington, DC
Click here for more information.

The Advanced eDiscovery Institute
November 21-22, 2013
Washington, DC
Click here for more information.

For the latest eDiscovery news, visit ComplexDiscovery.

Icon For eDiscovery News, Views, and Events

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/15/weekly-ediscovery-top-story-digest-may-15-2013/feed/ 0 Vendor Clips | May 14, 2013 http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/14/vendor-clips-may-14-2013/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/14/vendor-clips-may-14-2013/#comments Tue, 14 May 2013 15:23:47 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6205
Clips of Industry News

Provided for your review/use is a weekly consolidated listing of Vendor Clips – compiled from online public domain industry news and updates from electronic discovery-centric vendors and commentators.

Follow @ComplexD

May 14, 2013

Vendor Clips

For a running record of Vendor Clips – click here.

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/14/vendor-clips-may-14-2013/feed/ 0 Focus, Influence, Frequency and Synchronization: Considering Social Media http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/14/focus-influence-frequency-and-synchronization-considering-social-media/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/14/focus-influence-frequency-and-synchronization-considering-social-media/#comments Tue, 14 May 2013 13:02:05 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6175 First published in ILTA’s January 2010 white paper titled “Social Networking: Learn the Rules of Engagement” (www.iltanet.org), this updated and enhanced article shares an overview of how social media focus, influence, frequency and synchronization can significantly enhance the awareness of individuals and organizations.

Networking

Considering Social Media

In today’s “sound-bite” environment in which professional organizations compete for client attention through a variety of conduits and communications, it is increasingly important for individuals and organizations to consider and coordinate the use of all communications and communications tools in order to maximize their impact and influence on potential clients.  One of the tools that is increasingly important to consider is the tool of social media.  

Wikipedia defines “Social Media” as . . .

“media designed to be disseminated through social interaction, created using highly accessible and scalable publishing techniques. Social media use Internet- and Web-based technologies to transform broadcast media monologues (one to many) into social media dialogues (many to many). It supports the democratization of knowledge and information, transforming people from content consumers into content producers.”

From a practical point of view, social media leverages online tools and techniques to reach, inform, engage, encourage and influence clients interactively.

However, to properly leverage the benefit of social media, one must understand that social media tools are just that –– tools. Social media tools should be used with a clear objective in mind and with the consistent application of well-known but often overlooked communications principles. Furthermore, these tools will have the most impact when used in conjunction with other social and nonsocial media communications tools in a coordinated manner.  Synchronizing social media usage with all client contacts and communications can truly help individuals and organizations accelerate the impact and influence they have on potential clients

Communicators seeking to maximize the efficacy of social media tools should consider key areas that include marketing focus, behavioral influence and contact frequency. These considerations can be applied within a communications continuum using specific social media tools to help communicators effectively close the deal with current and potential customers. Social media tools can bring new opportunity in this final phase of the marketing process commonly referred to as “the last three feet,” where personal contact with the customer turns opportunity into business.

Marketing Focus

In order to truly optimize social media capabilities, communicators must clearly identify and understand exactly what it is they are trying to achieve and ensure that their communication efforts are focused on supporting their objectives. In the business arena, one of the best ways to frame one’s focus is to view potential objectives in relation to marketing and traditional marketing categories.

According to the American Marketing Association, “Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large.”

There are four key areas considered to be part of an overall marketing mix, often referred to as the “4 P’s.” These are:

• Product (Service): The product aspects of marketing deal with the specifications of the actual goods or services and how these relate to the end user’s needs and wants. The scope of a product or service also generally includes supporting elements such as warranties, guarantees and support.

• Pricing: This refers to the process of setting a price for a product, including discounts. The price need not be monetary; it can simply be what is exchanged for the product or services (e.g., time, energy or attention). Methods of setting prices optimally are in the domain of pricing science.

• Promotion: Advertising and sales promotion include promotional education, publicity and personal selling. Branding refers to the various methods of promoting the product, brand or company.

• Placement (Distribution): Placement refers to how the product gets to the customer including point-of-sale placement or retailing. This fourth “P” has sometimes been called “Place,” referring to the channel by which a product or service is sold (e.g., online vs. retail), the geographic region or industry in which it is sold and to which segment (young adults, families, business people).The environment in which the product is sold can also affect sales.

In addition, there is the overshadowing category of People. This category –– typically omitted from traditional marketing category descriptions but certainly relevant in light of the relationship component of social media –– plays an integral role in increasing the importance of marketing messages developed around and focused on the “4 P’s.”

To maximize the use of social media, it is necessary to define and develop a focused message that addresses client needs through the lens of one or more elements of the overall marketing mix. Intentionally and proactively determining which marketing elements to leverage and developing coordinated communications to support the sharing of those client-centric elements should increase the chance for success with social media. Delivering a dynamic message that will gain and maintain client influence is essential for optimal use of social media tools.

Behavioral Influence

In order to influence a customer, it is prudent to first become familiar with the components of customer behavior. There are both emotional and logical elements to client decisions –– and the impact of these elements changes over time.

Figure 1 illustrates a predictable flow to customer decisions that follows this general sequence:

• Initially a potential customer is stimulated through emotion to consider a change in behavior.

This emotion, resulting from a high motivation to consider change, progresses toward the need to justify the considered change with logic over time.

Example of Need for Emotional Stimulus: I am using legacy software for CRM, and my firm wishes to improve its client relationship processes. A new product looks promising, and if I can implement a product that saves the firm money, my employer will be impressed.

• At some point during the consideration of change, the customer begins to have to justify the emotional desire for change with a logical reason for considering the change.

Example of Need for Logical Stimulus: I want to impress my employer by providing cost savings, therefore I need to recognize and work through specific return on investment examples.

• Once both the emotional and logical stimuli for change have been presented, the individual being influenced (audience) typically makes a decision to change or maintain his or her behavior.

Example of Behavioral Change: It seems I can help the firm save money. The new product is compelling, and the return on investment numbers support its adoption, so I am going to purchase the new product.

If, at this point, there is not a decision to change behavior, then the communicator’s message (both emotional and logical stimulus components) may need to be refined.

• Once behavior has been changed, the next major challenge is maintaining the desired customer behavior. 

This can be accomplished by continuing to send messages to the customer with logical reasons for maintaining his/her behavior along with ensuring that emotion-targeted messaging is not neglected. This combination serves to prevent competitive emotional and logical messaging from grabbing the attention of the customer and resulting in a non- desired change of behavior.

Example of Maintaining Behavioral Change: The change appears to be saving the firm money, and the return-on-investment case studies shared by the vendor seem to show that this is the best product to use to continue saving money.

In addition to focusing one’s message to the appropriate marketing category and refining communications according to the emotional and logical components of influence, the effectiveness of social media tools may also be increased by understanding how many contacts it takes to get that message through to the client.

Contact Frequency

In his widely read book, Guerrilla Marketing, Jay Conrad Levinson shares that, from a contact perspective, there is significant benefit in multiple contacts with potential customers and a significant increase in probability of a client being influenced when contacted five or more times.

In applying this sales-centric call success probability metric to the use of communications in general, and social media communications specifically, it seems reasonable to assert that one could maximize the use of social media tools by providing a focused message with emotional and logical elements, and then delivering that message five or more times to a customer in an unobtrusive manner. This non-intrusiveness is a key point given the rapid dissemination and response capability of most social media tools.

Once one understands the Change/Maintain Behavior Continuum (Figure 1) and the number of contacts that may be required to influence customers (Figure 2), consideration can be given to how this knowledge can be applied with a variety of communications techniques.

Communications Continuum

Traditionally, organizations have sought to influence users through a combination of print and online materials shared directly by sales team members in face-to-face encounters. However, with the advent and acceptance of social media, organizations can now move a significant portion of conventional face-to-face encounters to an online environment –– a movement that can speed the sharing and collaboration between influencers and those being influenced.

In communicating with others, one’s interactions may be classified as reaching, informing, engaging, or encouraging (influencing) others. Whether these communications are online, in print, face-to-face, or consist of some combination of these communications methods, the fact remains that they all have some degree of influence on the parties involved in the communication process.

The Simple Communications Continuum (Figure 3) shows how one might employ a combination of online and offline tools in synchronization with each other to help decrease the time required to “close with the customer.”

Using all available conduits to the customer, a coordinated approach could include a combination of the following tools:

Online Social Media Tools

  • Blogs
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Online Traditional Tools

  • Email Messages
  • Newsletters
  • Multimedia (Audio/Video)
  • Webinars
  • Websites
  • Wikipedia

Offline Print Tools

  • Advertisements
  • Articles
  • Brochures
  • Letters
  • Newsletters
  • Postcards

Offline Face-to-Face Tools

  • Continuing Education Programs
  • Industry Events
  • Interviews
  • Meetings
  • Telephone Calls
  • Speaking Engagements

While this listing of tools is not wholly inclusive, it does provide a solid starting place to consider how to structure, organize and execute plans designed to influence clients.

Synchronizing Social Media Usage

In the previous paragraphs the discussion has centered around the areas of marketing focus, behavioral influence and contact frequency. These areas certainly are the critical building blocks of any effective social media program and understanding them and considering them in all communications is critical to the success of any online interaction.  However, in order to take full advantage of the influence power of social media, it is important to understand how clients receive information and engage via social media conduits and then synchronize individual and organizational use of these conduits to maximize message impact.

Receiving and Engaging Online 

Different audiences receive and engage via social media in different ways.  In the legal profession, the recent In-House Counsel New Media Engagement Survey provides some snapshot insight into the online behavior of 379 in-house counsel.  Five key data points from this report on how legal professionals (in-house counsel) leverage social media include:

  • The prevalence of social media use is substantial (73% of responders are using social media).
  • LinkedIn is the most used professional network (40% of responders have used LinkedIn in the last 24 hours).
  • Blogs are a growing source of information for legal professionals (46% of responders had used  a blog in the previous week).
  • Most social media users leverage social media as listeners only (74% of responders use social media to listen only and not for sharing news and information).
  • The most used platforms within the last 24 hours are LinkedIn (40%), Wikipedia (23%), Blogs (22%), Facebook (13%), Google+ (7%), and Twitter (%7%).

Synchronizing Communications

When one considers that today almost all legal professionals leverage the Internet and email for receiving information and communicating and that social media usage is increasingly prevalent and in most cases growing in usage amongst this audience, it is reasonable to assert that a coordinated approach to sharing focused information in a systematic manner over the leading online and offline communications conduits can have a strong influence on client behavior.  While there are many ways that one can initiate this synchronization, one example is provided below for your consideration:

  1. Daily posting of industry related news to Twitter.
  2. Weekly aggregation of Twitter posts into an industry newsletter for email and website distribution.
  3. Weekly posting of newsletter content into leading social media platforms as a single post with link.
  4. Weekly publishing of an industry specific blog for website distribution.

This simple four step approach can expanded in breadth (multiple areas of industry focus), depth (number of general and specialty groups) and density (number of posts) and sequenced in a manner to ensure continuous awareness of an individual or organization.

Social Media and Closing the Last “Three Feet”

“The fundamental qualities for good execution of a plan are: first, intelligence; then discernment and judgment, which enable one to recognize the best method as to attain it; the singleness of purpose; and lastly, what is most essential of all, will –– stubborn will.”  Marshal Ferdinand Foch

To best translate the information provided here into practical application, one should ensure that all communications are coordinated in message, usage and follow-up. Customers value predictability in communications; it provides a comfortable context for understanding when and how future communications will occur. Likewise, customers respond well to continuity.  Once a communication process (newsletter campaign, e-mail campaign) is initiated, it is important for an organization’s credibility to continue to meet the communication expectations set. How well an organization communicates is often directly extrapolated by the client as an indication of how well that organization will provide and support a product. Execution is fundamental in establishing credibility and a key determinant of whether one’s use of social media will be effective.

Once communicators understand and have developed objective-based messaging (marketing focus), have refined this messaging to provide both emotional and logical stimulus (behavioral influence) and have shared the messaging in a non- intrusive manner (contact frequency), they can begin to synchronize social media tools both individually and in concert with other communications tools (communication continuum), to effectively “close the last three feet” with clients/customers.

 

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/14/focus-influence-frequency-and-synchronization-considering-social-media/feed/ 0 eDiscovery Vendor Viability: Comparisons Beyond Technology and Talent http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/13/ediscovery-vendor-viability-comparisons-beyond-technology-and-talent/ http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/13/ediscovery-vendor-viability-comparisons-beyond-technology-and-talent/#comments Mon, 13 May 2013 16:00:02 +0000 Rob Robinson http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/?p=6150

Vendor Viability:  Comparisons Beyond Technology and Talent

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

eDiscovery is rife with risk.  Multiple parties, multiple jurisdictions, multiple ESI formats, multiple technologies and multiple 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 important 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 of the areas 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 certainly 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.

Beyond Technology and Talent:  Strategically Comparing Vendors

In an effort 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 truly evaluate electronic discovery vendors and the following  considerations represent one view of how one can evaluate/compare vendors beyond just the “feature and function and pricing” of services and products.

Baseline Definitions and Rating 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 majority of legal and corporate law professionals on a regional level = 1, or awareness among majority of legal and corporate law professionals on a national level = 2.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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 and domain knowledge.   (C1 = Technology Rating + Domain Knowledge Rating)  This can be used to compare a vendor’s technology and domain expertise in relation to market expectations.
  • Communication Rating (C2): The rating of a vendor’s capability based on communication, awareness and reputation. (C2 = Awareness Rating + Reputation Rating)  This can be used to compare a vendor’s ability to share its capability with others and to fulfill on the promise of such sharing.
  • Commerce Rating (C3): The rating of a vendor’s financial stability based on free cash flow and customer activity.   (C3 = Free Cash Flow Rating + Customers 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 + Domain Knowledge
  • C2 = Communication = Awareness + Reputation
  • C3 = Commerce = Free Cash Flow + Customers
  • 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 are purely coincidental.  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 technology and domain knowledge that meets market expectations, has strong national awareness and a reputation for sometimes satisfactorily meeting electronic discovery challenges, has a negative free cash flow with more than 100 customers. Vendor’s motive is continuing to provide products/services purely for financial reasons and 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 Domain Knowledge = 2 Awareness = 2 Reputation = 4 Free Cash Flow = (-2) Customers = 4 Motive (-1) Sincerity (-1) Employee Turnover = 0
  • SPR2 Rating: (2+2) + (2+4) + (-2+4 ) + (-1 + -1 + 0) = 10

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 technology and domain knowledge that meets market expectations, has a regional awareness and a reputation for satisfactorily accomplishing electronic discovery challenges a majority of the time, has a positive free cash flow with more than 20 and less than 100 customers. Vendor’s motive is to provide products/services based on combination of financial reasons and senior leadership interest in solving electronic discovery challenges and 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 Domain Knowledge = 2 Awareness = 1 Reputation = 2 Free Cash Flow = 2 Customers = 2 Motive = 1 Sincerity = 1 Employee Turnover = 1
  • SPR2 Rating: (2+2) + (1+2) + (2+2) + (1 + 1 + 1) = 14

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 or the quantity of customers as Vendor #1 . This reputation 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 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/long term tasks, one would need to work though 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 broken down into collections, analytics, processing, review, managed review, etc.) and weighted appropriately to provide further detail in vendor comparisons/evaluations.

 

StrategicalConsiderations-590

References:

]]> http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2013/05/13/ediscovery-vendor-viability-comparisons-beyond-technology-and-talent/feed/ 0