A season appropriate reposting of how vendors can “give” as a means of “thanking” clients.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the legal management arena, the following “20+ Vendor” list provides a short listing that may be useful in the consideration of legal management vendors.
Designed to provide a salient starting point for individuals seeking information related to the field of eDiscovery, this abridged overview of eDiscovery resources provides readers with a non-comprehensive listing of key industry informational resources.
Provided as a non-comprehensive overview of over 100 key and publicly announced eDiscovery related mergers, acquisitions and investments since 2001, the following listing highlights key industry activities through the lens of announcement date, acquired company, acquiring or investing company and acquisition amount (if known).
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 2012 and 2017.
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.
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 prevalence of risk in eDiscovery, it is important that eDiscovery decision makers fully consider vendor viability during the vendor selection process.
Updated: 9/16/2013 – Provided for your consideration and use are the in-progress results of the One-Question Provider Implementation Survey launched by ComplexDiscovery on 3/3/13. The results consist of survey answers harvested directly from the online survey form as completed by provider representatives.
Updated 7/23/2013: Provided for your consideration and use are the in-progress results of the Predictive Coding and Provider Survey launched by ComplexDiscovery on 2/10/13. The in-progress results consist of survey answers harvested directly from the online survey form as completed by provider representatives.
The Basic eDiscovery Offering Framework is designed to help eDiscovery professionals cohesively consider how to share and compare service and product information as it relates to the conduct of eDiscovery regardless of the steps, model or best practices used by practitioners.
Comparing and contrasting eDiscovery providers is a daunting task when one considers the multiple stages of eDiscovery, the many providers of eDiscovery offerings, and the fact that most provider comparisons today are based on solely on stage (EDRM¹) or feature/function capabilities.
Even with the current maturation of electronic discovery solutions (i.e. technology is far from mature), there are still many situations where pure customer service makes the difference between an organization’s ability to meet or not meet client needs. With that being said, truly subjective client service requirements may be very difficult to specify. In fact beyond service level agreements, timeline requirements, project management processes, and work product specifications, many vendors are at a loss when seeking to address the implied but all too real needs of the client.