Based on a website review of leading providers in the electronic discovery arena, the following list provides a quick, non-all inclusive reference of firms that appear to have developed “technology-assisted review” technology (one form of this being “predictive coding”) for their own and/or partner offerings.
“Technology-Assisted Review” Providers
Forms/Terms for “Technology Assisted Review” include:
Click here to provide additions, corrections and/or updates.
This entry was posted on Saturday, January 26th, 2013 at 12:54 pm. It is filed under Blog Slider, chronology, original, Technology-Assisted Review and tagged with archiving, electronic discovery, information governance, research, risk, security, social media, storage, vendors. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Comments are closed.
Since its 2007 introduction, kCura’s Relativity product has become one of the world’s leading attorney review platforms. One of the elements of Relativity’s strong growth and marketplace acceptance has been kCura’s focus on and support of partnerships. Provided as a by-product of review platform research and presented in the form of a simple and sortable table is an aggregation of kCura Premium Hosting Partners and Consulting Partners.
Taken from a combination of public market sizing estimations as shared in leading electronic discovery reports, publications and posts over time, the following eDiscovery Market Size Mashup shares general worldwide market sizing considerations for both the software and service areas of the electronic discovery market for the years between 2013 and 2018.
Provided as a non-comprehensive overview of key and publicly announced eDiscovery related mergers, acquisitions and investments to date in 2014, the following listing highlights key industry activities through the lens of announcement date, acquired company, acquiring or investing company and acquisition amount (if known).
Some of the most vicious fights occur when families get together for the Holidays. Maybe there’s something in the turkey that brings it out. Grossman and Cormack have responded to my blog posts about their articles with a good deal of vitriol, but without addressing the fundamental questions I raised.
There has been some debate recently about the value of the “eRecall” method compared to the “Direct Recall” method for estimating the recall achieved with technology-assisted review. This article shows why eRecall requires sampling and reviewing just as many documents as the direct method if you want to achieve the same level of certainty in the result.
It is now widely recognized that predictive coding can, in fact, considerably reduce the cost and effort of eDiscovery and increase its accuracy. The pundits have turned lately to discussions of how predictive coding can “best” be implemented. But the technology used is only one part of the equation that determines the ultimate cost and accuracy of predictive coding. The human factor remains important as well.
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International