One of the biggest challenges facing information, business, and legal professionals is the ability to cohesively consider the elements of data discovery and legal discovery within a technology framework that is comprehensive enough to address critical discovery tasks throughout information and legal lifecycles yet concise enough to be realistically approached from an automation perspective.
This challenge becomes even more daunting when one moves from considering discovery-related technology tasks and begins to look at how these tasks help drive business and legal decision making. In fact, one only has to look as far as the results of the Information Governance Initiative’s Annual Survey for 2015-16 to see how many types of discovery dependent products are considered as part of the information governance technology ecosystem.
22 Technologies Highlighted as Part of the IG Product Market1
While information governance is only one of many data disciplines dependent on discovery-related technologies, it does provide an excellent example of the complexity of addressing discovery-related tasks from a perspective of task and process automation.
Today, multiple published models ranging from the EDRM’s Information Governance Reference Model (IGRM) and ARMA’s Information Governance Maturity Model to NIST’s Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity exist to help information professionals address domain specific areas requiring the need for discovery technology. These models also help users in translating insight into intelligence that informs data-driven decisions. However, there appears to be a need for a concise technology framework that might be used to help translate an understanding of extensive data discovery needs into a simplified discovery workflow.
Said in a different way, it seems reasonable that a planning framework addressing the core tasks of data and legal discovery might be beneficial in helping technology providers develop automated discovery solutions that address data from the point of initial creation to the point of defensible destruction. Such a framework might also serve to help explain to potential users the relationship between tasks, functions, and automation in data and legal discovery.
Provided below for consideration and use is one example of a strategic framework that may be beneficial in helping technology providers as they develop, integrate, automate and message data and legal discovery offerings.
In developing a strategic framework for data and legal discovery, it is first important to define several key elements and drivers included in the framework. Seven of these elements and drivers are defined below.
By taking these definitions and viewing them through the lens of a general workflow, one can construct and align a concise discovery automation model that can help frame key discovery tasks and processes.
Figure 1: High-Level Framework
From this high-level framework, one can then add a layer of critical automation processes and tasks. The key automation processes and tasks for data discovery within the concise discovery automation model include:
Automation of Interrogation and Indexing
Once implemented, this capability helps users answer the important and often perplexing question of where to start data exploration and discovery efforts.
Automation of File Preservation and Collection
Once executed, these tasks help users answer the question of how to transition from insight and preservation analysis into formal document reviews.
The key automation processes and tasks for legal discovery within the concise discovery automation model include:
Automation of Ingestion and Processing
Ingestion and processing automation allow users to upload data into a secure online repository in a private and protected cloud environment and have that data automatically converted into a usable format for review.
Automation of Review and Production
Once completed, these tasks provide intelligence that helps users comprehensively answer policy, regulatory, or legal questions that typically drive audits, investigations, and litigation.
Figure 2: Process and Task Level Framework
This non-all inclusive process and level framework may be beneficial for expanding thought and action in areas related to the automation of data and legal discovery processes and tasks. Examples of this expanded thought include but are not limited to:
The combined discovery framework takes the overall process of discovery, breaks it down into a data discovery component and a legal discovery component, aligns these components with insight and intelligence, and then highlights four key processes and eight key tasks that appear to be important in the discovery process across the lifecycle of information and litigation.
Discovery Automation Technology Focus
While frameworks such as this Concise Framework for Discovery Automation are helpful in developing efficient and understandable offerings and messaging, they are, by design, not comprehensive or complete. However, frameworks such as this one may provide substantial value to those developing solutions or creating messaging to explain solutions as they provide sequential context and positional awareness for the core elements, processes, and tasks within the framework.
“My explorations of the technical world started with Legos, with which I was quite creative in constructing moving objects with the basic building blocks that were then available.” Wolfgang Ketterle
In addition to serving as a framework for data discovery and legal discovery, the Concise Framework for Discovery Automation also may begin to act as a starting point for the development of a fifth generation10 of eDiscovery offerings.
Table 1: Five Generations of eDiscovery
The characteristics of a fifth generation eDiscovery offering would be the adaptation of current data discovery offerings for use with offerings that were designed for eDiscovery, designed for eDiscovery task integration, and designed for eDiscovery task automation. The new characteristic of fifth generation eDiscovery offerings would be specifically how they were adapted to integrate and automate data discovery capabilities.
3 Grossman, M., & Cormack, G. (2013). The Grossman-Cormack Glossary of Technology-Assisted Review. Federal Courts Law Review, 7(1). Retrieved from http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2010/grossman.pdf
4 Robinson, W. (2016, June 6). What is eDiscovery Automation? A Short Definitional Framework. Retrieved from http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2016/06/06/what-is-ediscovery-automation/
5 Gartner IT Glossary. (n.d). Retrieved from http://blogs.gartner.com/it-glossary/information-governance/
6 Stewart, D. (2013, May 1). Big Content: The Unstructured Side of Big Data – Darin Stewart. Retrieved from http://blogs.gartner.com/darin-stewart/2013/05/01/big-content-the-unstructured-side-of-big-data/
7 Wikipedia. (n.d.). Insight – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 8, 2016, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insight
8Klein, G. (2013, June 12). The Different Forms of Insight | Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/seeing-what-others-dont/201306/the-different-forms-insight
9 Intelligence – Definition of Intelligence in English | Oxford Dictionaries. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/intelligence
10 Robinson, W. (2016, June 1). Considering Fourth Generation eDiscovery Technology Offerings: Two Approaches. Retrieved from http://www.complexdiscovery.com/info/2016/01/10/considering-fourth-generation-ediscovery-technology-offerings-two-approaches-part-one/