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.
With a desire to increase the understanding of those considering engaging with eDiscovery vendors, provided is a simple subjective analysis of the operational center of gravity for approximately 130 providers.
Based on a compilation of research from analyst firms and industry expert reports in the information governance arena, the following short list of enablers highlights companies and firms that may be useful in the consideration of information governance products and services.
Good vendors share what they know they see. Great vendors share what they may not see so you can make informed decisions as to risk and exposure.
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.
Balancing the business drivers of cost, time, and complexity in the conduct of electronic discovery continues to be one of the greatest challenges faced by electronic discovery practitioners today.
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.
The gathering and use of information to help achieve personal and professional objectives has been a task executed by individuals and organizations from the beginning of time. However, with the advent of tools and technologies that can greatly accelerate this gathering and use of information, it is increasingly important that one considers not only the positive things that can be accomplished from the greater understanding derived from increased information access, but also considers the potential dark side usage of this increased information access.
Just as there are many tasks in electronic discovery, many times there are multiple technologies and platforms involved in the complete electronic discovery process. When there are multiple technologies and platforms involved, data must be transferred from disparate technologies and/or platforms to other disparate technologies and/or platforms. This data transfer can be considered a risk factor that affects the overall electronic discovery process.
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.
With the growing use of predictive coding in the legal arena today, it appears that it is increasingly more important for eDiscovery professionals to have a general understanding of the potential algorithm approaches that may be implemented by eDiscovery providers to enable predictive coding.
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.
With the growing awareness and use of the technology-assisted review feature of predictive coding in the legal arena today, it is increasingly difficult to determine the origin and approach of the actual predictive coding technologies used by leading eDiscovery providers in their offerings.
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.