The good news is that we are finally at a point in the evolution of eDiscovery where virtually everyone agrees on the need for content analytics to make collection and review faster and less expensive.  This news is tempered, however, by a lack of understanding of what content analytics are and how they work.  Until there are some standard ways of understanding how analytics work from both IT and legal perspectives, they will not become ubiquitous.


Content analytics are necessary because there is simply too much digital information for human reviewers to read efficiently.  Without analytics, the cost of legal review will cripple litigious organizations.  Plus, these analytics promise to feed other use-cases, too - storage optimization, knowledge management, compliance, security, and privacy.


A good analytics tool will offer at least some of the following features:  near deduplication, conceptual clustering, automated tagging, social network analysis, vizualization, and machine learning.  As these features are put together, there are many problems that organizations can solve, such as Early Case Assessment (ECA) to make more informed legal decisions earlier so as to save significant costs.


The issue that I hear most often from end-users, though (and this is both IT and legal end-users) is that there is no prescription on analytics.  Case law is murky and no organization wants to be the pioneer in advanced use of analytics.  I'm interested in more perspectives on the use of analytics.  Email me with any thoughts that you have...and Thanks!

I've ranted a good deal about the "head in the sand" attitude that many organizations take when it comes to eDiscovery.  Even with the Amendments to the FRCPs (which squarely place the burden on organizations to be able to find and manage electronically stored information), there are an inordinate amount that simply ignore the requirement and then play dumb.  There are organizations that felt protected because they were rarely in federal court.  Well...now more and more states are adopting similar eDiscovery rules.  Really?  Didn't see that coming (insert copious amounts of sarcasm here).


The fact is that technology exists to find and manage all types of electronically stored information.  Ignorance = sanctions.  Ignorance = huge processing and review costs.  Ignorance is unacceptable.  The call to action is clear - get your information management house in order.  I know - it's not easy; information management is a long-term initiative with multiple players (IT, legal, information workers) and tons of change management.  But, it's gotten tenable.  It's possible to put in place mechanisms for more efficient information collection, legal hold, and early case assessment that provide fast ROI.  It's also possible to make long-term plans for better information management infrastructure and understand how to make the business case for it.


I hope that we don't need a daily news story to reinforce the fact that deploying eDiscovery technology is a no-brainer.  In the meantime, I'll keep my eyes on the headlines...let me know what you think.

The FRCP Amendments that essentially put the issue of eDiscovery on the map in a big way have been in effect for almost three years; so why are most organizations so ignorant about eDiscovery?  I know it's hard to effect change; I know it's hard to implement the infrastructure for information management; I know that eDiscovery tools are relatively new.  Still, the attitude toward eDiscovery smells all to familiar.


I was talking with a high-ranking member of a corporate legal department who said, "Why on earth would I want to implement a platform that would make eDiscovery easier and more efficient?  Once I do that, I'm exposed - any other party can force me to discover anything and I'll have no way to argue against doing it."


I ran this past a few friends in the legal community and all of them could sympathize.  From one POV, I suppose I can sympathize, too.  But, c'mon!  This is such a head-in-the-sand attitude.  This smells just like the attitude that brought use Enron and banking collapse.  Let's not have history repeat itself. It is just plain wrong to not implement tools that make eDiscovery easier.  The FRCPs plainly put the burden on companies to find and manage their information.  I would hate to be this legal department member in 5 years trying to justify this attitude.  Frankly, it's the kind of attitude that will eventually have someone serving time in a minimum-security prison.


Maybe I'm a little jaded, but I'd love your feedback on this to make sure I'm not alone in my thinking here.  Comment away!

I've been hearing a lot about the challenges that SharePoint will create for eDiscovery.  I say "will create" because while SharePoint content is discoverable and has come up in many cases, the true issues with collecting it have not gotten much press.  Most collection tools are only able to grab SharePoint document libraries (as they are stored on file systems).  However, there are many more content types other than document libraries (e.g. calendar items, task lists, workflows, etc).  It's only a matter of time before the legal community figures out the value of these other content items.

There’s been a lot of chatter about EMC buying Kazeon and it’s about time that I weighed in.  Most of the talk has centered on the rumored price of the acquisition – depending on who you believe, EMC paid anywhere from $55 million to over $100 million for Kazeon.  Now, Kazeon was a private company that never revealed its revenue numbers publicly.  I’m in the camp that believes revenue was less than $10 million annually.  I’m also in the camp that believes that the purchase price of Kazeon was just enough to make it funders whole (again, depending on who you believe, that is somewhere between $55 million and $75 million). 

At the end of the day, the price was high, and many people were surprised.  I think EMC can justify the high price for a few reasons:

1. EMC’s current product set for eDiscovery (documtum and eMailXtender) simply isn't getting the job done in real deployments.

2. The eDiscovery services group at EMC was likely losing revenue opportunities because the product set was not working – with Kazeon, there is a band-aid, a tool that can do some short-term good while the product set evolves.

3. In order to capitalize on eDiscovery revenue opportunities for the services group, EMC was likely giving away software for free – with Kazeon in place, they stem the tide there and don’t need to give software away.

So, even though EMC is technically overpaying for Kazeon in some ways, the company can certainly justify the price in terms of increased services revenue and ending the software-giveaway.

Now, EMC must grow Kazeon into scalable, enterprise-grade software.  What I like about the deal is that EMC has thrown down the gauntlet and proclaimed that eDiscovery is of real strategic importance; I like that because it aligns with customer pain points and I believe that customer-centric companies win in the end.  I look forward to seeing competitive responses from CA, IBM, Open Text, and Oracle.

Let me know what you think.

In my hometown of Boston, eDiscovery is suddenly a hot topic – and not just because of the launch of Murphy Insights ;-)  The upcoming mayoral election may ride on email mismanagement by one of the mayor’s top aides.  The story shines the light back onto the fact that all organizations need to monitor and manage how their employees use information.  Let’s face it - people are going to do what they want to do with the tools and information at their fingertips.  It’s the job of every organization to ensure that information usage is monitored and managed.  That means creating acceptable use policies…and actually enforcing those policies.  That means deploying technology that can monitor, manage, and find the information.

In the case of the City of Boston, it seems to me that something as simple as email archiving could have prevented this whole problem.  And now, the taxpayers (yours truly included) will pay for forensic investigators to come in and find all the emails that could’ve been found with one click of a button had the City prepared well.  It’s sickening.

Let me know what you think.

One of the biggest problems in the eDiscovery space is the lack of good, granular data about spending, best practices, and roles and responsibilities.  Murphy Insights was created specifically to address that problem, so we are happy to announce that our first survey is underway.  Respondents will be entered into a drawing for a $50 Amazon gift card.  It's a short, 10 question survey and should take only 5 minutes to respond to.  Please forward this to colleagues and friends - the more the merrier.


Find the survey here.


Thanks!!

It’s with a great deal of excitement that I return to the research / analyst world and launch Murphy Insights.  Having worked as an analyst with one of the large firms, with a software vendor in the archiving space, and with a background in management consulting, I am able to offer a unique perspective on how to address the challenges of information management.

The goal of Murphy Insights is to provide the best, most practical advice about information management – and specifically about how to manage information for eDiscovery, information worker access, and storage optimization.  Murphy Insights will work with both end-users of technology as well as solution providers to create a set of best practices and analytical frameworks targeted to meet the needs of each individual customer.

Murphy Insights will not be just another analyst firm; rather, Murphy Insights is the next-generation research and consulting partner.  It’s about community and answering questions fast; it’s about customers setting the research agenda and Murphy Insights being flexible and nimble enough to adjust on the fly.

I know I’m looking forward to the challenge and I hope you’ll come along for the right.  Email me with any questions or comments.

 

Thanks!