Taken from a combination of public market sizing estimations* as shared in leading electronic discovery publications, posts and discussions over time, the following eDiscovery Market Size Mashup** shares general market sizing estimates for both the software and service areas of the electronic discovery market for the years between 2013 and 2018.
Provided as a manual mashup charts are three general views of the eDiscovery market to include a combined software and services market view, a software market view and a service market view. The mashup charts represent one interpretation of publicly available market sizing data and are designed to be “general in nature, focusing on trends in relation to market size, growth and segmentation.
Sources for eDiscovery market sizing estimations include but are not limited to publicly available content (including abstracts, excerpts, quotes) from the following:
Previous ComplexDiscovery eDiscovery market sizing mashups include:
A mashup is a combination or mixing of content from different sources to create a new way of looking at data. The main characteristic of a mashup includes combinations, visualizations, and aggregation. Mashups can be helpful in making existing data more useful, moreover for personal and professional use. (Wikipedia)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 25th, 2014 at 11:28 pm. It is filed under chronology, discover, industry, Insight, market sizing, original and tagged with electronic discovery, research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Based on an informal review of research from technology providers, industry analyst firms, and industry expert reports in the data discovery arena, the following short list of enablers highlights companies and technologies that may be useful to technology providers as legal discovery professionals seek to move “to the left of the EDRM” and closer to the point of data creation in their data discovery efforts.
In 2017, the challenge for technology providers in the legal and data discovery spaces appears to be less about defining offering requirements and validating market needs and more about developing and delivering solutions that focus on specific tasks and processes that streamline the discovery of data and the conduct of eDiscovery.
The Victorian Supreme Court will issue a practice note about the use of TAR on 1 January 2017. We understand it will be the first court in Australia to do so. We expect that other Australian courts will follow suit in issuing a practice note, and it will be interesting to follow the approaches taken by other Australian courts.
The biggest takeaway of the joint research project by nonprofit Electronic Discovery Institute and tech giant Oracle Corp. is that TAR is often faster and cheaper when identifying relevant documents. But when it comes to isolating privileged or sensitive information, human reviewers outperformed machines.
ComplexDiscovery | Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International