The Solution to Email Overload? No Email
December 4, 2011
I enjoy France and the French. The country is essentially an engineering outfit with a soft spot for art, a love of intellectual discussion, and a clever approach to thorny problems. Consider email. At Atos, the senior management has found a solution to email overload, the risks of eDiscovery, and the cost of trying to manage unfindable PowerPoint attachments. (My hunch is that the news report missed some of the story, but, hey, that’s okay.
How? Here’s what I learned in “Tech Firm Implements Employee ‘Zero Email’ Policy.” Let’s assume ABC News has the facts lined up like Napoleon’s army before it did the Moscow in Autumn thing. Here’s what I learned:
The company says by 2013, more than half of all new digital content will be the result of updates to, and editing of existing information. Middle managers spend more than 25 percent of their time searching for information, according to the company. Crouch said Atos is evaluating a number of new tools to replace internal email including collaborative and social media tools. Those include the Atos Wiki, which allows all employees to communicate by contributing or modifying online content, and Office Communicator, the company’s online chat system which allows video conferencing, and file and application sharing.
So “zero” does not mean zero. Social interactions are not email. Okay, ABC News, close enough for horseshoes. I assume the cloud, Gmail, and various on premises solutions along the lines of SharePoint and Exchange would not work.
The reality is that email is going to be tough to eliminate even if one calls the outputs “collaboration” with a “social” twist of lemon. No lemonade here, however. Search vendors can rest easy. Atos is a prospect. Symantec, HP, and Recommind can make sales calls confident that non-email digital information must be searched, made findable, and discoverable by avocats which are lawyers no matter what one calls these fine professionals.
Stephen E Arnold, December 4, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
ZyLAB Offers Guidance about eDiscovery
November 21, 2011
ZyLAB goes back to the content lore about records management in “eDiscovery and Information Management: Factors that drive solid records management.” The piece emphasizes the importance of meeting legal obligations and points to several sources for guidance: the UK National Archives, the National Archives of Australia, and the US Department of Defense. However, it also acknowledges that crafting a records management program is a highly individual effort:
Although regulatory guidelines exist, every organization is different. . . . There are basic tenants and principles to good records management—not just in terms of ‘managing records’ but also in terms of creating a positive impact on the organization’s overriding knowledge management goals—but this construct doesn’t mean that there is a ‘one size fits all’ solution to every situation.
The article helpfully suggests ZyLAB’s 8-Point Inspection tool for assessing an organization’s data management needs. Clients from corporations to government agencies use this industry leader’s robust tools to cover their backsides.
This is an interesting write up, and a reminder that the content management systems for Web sites are destined to be a hassle.
Cynthia Murrell, November 21, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Search to Management: The eDiscovery Play
November 16, 2011
New regulations in both the US and the UK have e-discovery vendors anticipating profits. FT.com advises, “E-discovery: Manage Your Data Wisely—Regulators Now Have Teeth.” (This wise publisher wants you to subscribe to read the full document. Get out your credit card.)
Of course, managing data for e-discovery purposes takes time and resources, so most companies tend to put the issue off until regulators come knocking. This can mean last minute scrambling and, as a result, disadvantage in any proceedings. What can be done?
Writer Jessica Twentyman points to some key advice:
Dean Gonsowski, e-discovery counsel in the information management group at Symantec, a security software company, believes the answer lies in making e-discovery a ‘repeatable business process’, rather than a one-off response to a request. That means establishing company-wide rules on electronic information, governing what should be deleted or retained, applying those rules and using e-discovery software to retrieve information quickly, he says.
Perhaps surprisingly, email comes in third as an e-discovery request target. Files/ documents are the most requested, followed by database/ applications data. Social media records, corporate blogs, instant messages, and texts are growing categories.
It’s important that companies understand e-discovery at least as much as regulators do. Do your research and invest in good e-discovery software. Be prepared, even as you hope you never have to respond to a regulator’s request for information.
Vendors of search will have to “move up the value rope”. Finding is no longer enough we believe.
Cynthia Murrell November 15, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
Recommind Named 193 in Deloitte Technology Fast 500
November 12, 2011
In case you missed it because this business was moving so darned fast it did not register, predictive information management software company Recommind was recently ranked 193 in the Deloitte 2011 Technology Fast 500.
The Fast 500 is a prestigious ranking of the 500 fastest-growing technology, media, telecommunications, life sciences and clean technology companies in North America. Rankings are based on percentage of fiscal year revenue growth during the period from 2006-2010, in which time Recommind’s revenue grew 416 percent.
In the November 1st new release “Recommind Again Named One of North America’s Fastest Growing Companies in Deloitte 2011 Technology Fast 500” Recommind CEO Robert Tennant said:
“One of the few constants in modern business is the exponential increase in corporate data.The struggle to find relevant information is draining the resources of the world’s largest organizations. It affects everyone from the CEO to the director of IT to the in-house counsel to the average employee just trying to find an email. Fortune 500 companies are desperate for a new approach to information management, which is exactly what we give them with products like Axcelerate eDiscovery, Decisiv Search and Decisiv Email.”
I think we’re all excited to see where this company is headed and to watch it stretch and grow.
Jasmine Ashton, November 12, 2011
Kroll Rolls Out Self Serve eDiscovery
November 4, 2011
It’s just a matter of common sense. With so much at stake, what company wouldn’t want to be in full control of their e-discovery processes? EWeek.com reports that “Kroll Ontrack Unveils Do-It-Yourself E-Discovery Cloud Service.”
Kroll Ontrack launched its cloud-based e-discovery service last autumn. Now its newest version places more control into the hands of clients’ legal teams. The write-up describes the update:
Kroll’s new Verve e-discovery software as a service (SaaS) enables users to upload data, select processing criteria, conduct early data assessment and review, and manage production in a Web-based interface. The service gives corporations and law firms more control of e-discovery projects without requiring upfront purchase or maintenance of infrastructure, hardware or security, as is the case with conventional e-discovery software packages.
The company’s VP of SaaS Products, Ken Ewell, boasts that the product can process, on average, 800GB per day and is provides an intuitive interface equipped with a wide range of data sorting tools. The Verve review platform can then be used to make sense of it all.
We’re all in favor of do-it-yourself e-discovery. Avoid the orange jumpsuit, maybe? Or, if you make an error, get a free orange jump suit and time in the prison library to review the rules of discovery. eDiscovery is not a cafeteria. There is something called law school and expertise we think.
Cynthia Murrell November 4, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
The Perils of Searching in a Hurry
November 1, 2011
I read the Computerworld story “How Google Was Tripped Up by a Bad Search.” I assume that it is pretty close to events as the “real” reporter summarized them.
Let me say that I am not too concerned about the fact that Google was caught in a search trip wire. I am concerned with a larger issue, and one that is quite important as search becomes indexing, facets, knowledge, prediction, and apps. The case reported by Computerworld applies to much of “finding” information today.
Legal matters are rich with examples of big outfits fumbling a procedure or making an error under the pressure of litigation or even contemplating litigation. The Computerworld story describes an email which may be interpreted as having a bright LED to shine on the Java in Android matter. I found this sentence fascinating:
Lindholm’s computer saved nine drafts of the email while he was writing it, Google explained in court filings. Only to the last draft did he add the words “Attorney Work Product,” and only on the version that was sent did he fill out the “to” field, with the names of Rubin and Google in-house attorney Ben Lee.
Ah, the issue of versioning. How many content management experts have ignored this issue in the enterprise. When search systems index, does one want every version indexed or just the “real” version? Oh, what is the “real” version. A person has to investigate and then make a decision. Software and azure chip consultants, governance and content management experts, and busy MBAs and contractors are often too busy to perform this work. Grunt work, I believe, it may be described by some.
What I am considering is the confluence of people who assume “search” works, the lack of time Outlook and iCalandar “priority one” people face, and the reluctance to sit down and work through documents in a thorough manner. This is part of the “problem” with search and software is not going to resolve the problem quickly, if ever.
Source: http://www.clipartguide.com/_pages/0511-1010-0617-4419.html
What struck me is how people in a hurry, assumptions about search, and legal procedures underscore a number of problems in findability. But the key paragraph in the write up, in my opinion, was:
It’s unclear exactly how the email drafts slipped through the net, and Google and two of its law firms did not reply to requests for comment. In a court filing, Google’s lawyers said their “electronic scanning tools” — which basically perform a search function — failed to catch the documents before they were produced, because the “to” field was blank and Lindholm hadn’t yet added the words “attorney work product.” But documents produced for opposing counsel should normally be reviewed by a person before they go out the door, said Caitlin Murphy, a senior product manager at AccessData, which makes e-discovery tools, and a former attorney herself. It’s a time-consuming process, she said, but it was “a big mistake” for the email to have slipped through.
What did I think when I read this?
First, all the baloney—yep, the right word, folks–about search, facets, metadata, indexing, clustering, governance and analytics underscore something I have been saying for a long, long time. Search is not working as lots of people assume it does. You can substitute “eDiscovery,” “text mining,” or “metatagging” for search. The statement holds water for each.
The algorithms will work within limits but the problem with search has to do with language. Software, no matter how sophisticated, gets fooled with missing data elements, versions, and words themselves. It is high time that the people yapping about how wonderful automated systems are stop and ask themselves this question, “Do I want to go to jail because I assumed a search or content processing system was working?” I know my answer.
Second, in the Computerworld write up, the user’s system dutifully saved multiple versions of the document. Okay, SharePoint lovers, here’s a question for you? Does your search system make clear which antecedent version is which and which document is the best and final version? We know from the Computerworld write up that the Google system did not make this distinction. My point is that the nifty sounding yap about how “findable” a document is remains mostly baloney. Azure chip consultants and investment banks can convince themselves and the widows from whom money is derived that a new search system works wonderfully. I think the version issue makes clear that most search and content processing systems still have problems with multiple instances of documents. Don’t believe me. Go look for the drafts of your last PowerPoint. Now to whom did you email a copy? From whom did you get inputs? Which set of slides were the ones on the laptop you used for the briefing? What the “correct” version of the presentation? If you cannot answer the question, how will software?
HP and Autonomy to Effect Change on Each Other
October 11, 2011
Unstructured information growth is so high now, and it’s becoming such a core part of what we have to do within the enterprise, that it’s time for the database to be eclipsed by something that can handle both rather than just one type of information.
ZyLAB Deposits Bank in Client List
October 10, 2011
ZyLAB adds to its success as its software is adopted for litigation and investigations with a leading commercial bank. “Large Global Banking and
Financial Services Company Selects ZyLAB eDiscovery System,” tells more.
ZyLAB, a leading eDiscovery and information management technology company, today disclosed that another top financial institution serving the US and abroad has selected the ZyLAB eDiscovery & Production System to manage the identification, preservation, legal hold, collection, analysis, review and production phases of the Electronic Discovery Reference Model
(EDRM). The on premise software deployment within one of the world’s largest financial services companies will facilitate internal forensic data investigations and eDiscoveries.
ZyLAB is widely used throughout the legal, corporate, and governmental
world. The Workflow module and Back Office system seem to both be
integral pieces to their success; a success which we predict will continue
to grow.
Emily Rae Aldridge, October 10, 2011
Study Sets Stage for Vapor Niches
October 7, 2011
The global market intelligence firm International Data Corporation (IDC) has published a new vendor assessment profiling the leading providers in the worldwide standalone early case assessment (ECA) applications market which is currently an undeveloped niche. This report rigorously scores current search software providers and predicts their market capabilities and strategies.
The Sept 19 news release IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Standalone Early Case Assessment Applications 2011 Vendor Analysis reveals leaders in a hitherto unknown niche. The release states:
DC sized the revenue for the standalone ECA applications market at $281 million in 2010. The top 5 vendors, by revenue, accounted for 71% of total revenue during this period. Given the reported revenue growth of the market leaders in the first half of 2011, IDC forecasts revenue for the standalone ECA applications market will total $400.8 million in 2011 and will reach $857.0 million in 2015,” said Vivian Tero, program director, Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) Infrastructure at IDC.
Consultants and advisors continue to struggle to get their arms around vendors who are changing direction without logic, notice or much reason. Consultants who fail to recognize this run the risk of creating “vapor niches”.
Jasmine Ashton, Sept 24, 2011
Data Retention: Will Courts Drive Information Governance?
October 2, 2011
Beleaguered search and content processing vendors are chasing market segments where there is money. The vendors’ systems may not be well suited to address niche specific requirements, but that have not stopped purveyors of findability fantasies in the past.
I read an interesting article the other day in the field of electronic discovery. According to Proactive Retention Means Effective Preservation in eDiscovery, legal costs and court sanctions can be effectively reduced by implementing an information governance strategy.
The article sites a recent industry survey and several 2011 legal cases from across that country to drive home the point that better data retention practices yield more successful document preservation results. Writer Philip Favros states that in the case of Haraburda v. Arcelor Mittal U.S.A. inc:
“…The court tied a litigant’s preservation duty to its document retention efforts. In order to discharge its duty to reactively preserve evidence, the court reasoned that enterprises must proactively create ‘a ‘comprehensive’ document retention policy that will ensure that relevant documents are retained.’ Failing to implement a retention policy often results in a loss of key information. And this, opined the court, may result in sanctions.”
With the hoo-hah about governance choking SharePoint and other special interest information services, are we now at the point where courts will force organizations to get their data management, editorial processes, and records management methods in working order? What’s obvious is that a general purpose search system is ill suited to cope with the type of information requirements the legal processes require. Ad hoc “index it now, to find out if we are guilty” methods are easy to sell to those who wonder, “Are we guilty?” However, the slap dash approach can add friction to an organization’s response to a legal matter. Marketing is of little help when the fines and sanctions arrive. Where are those marketers? Probably playing golf or pitching fantasy solutions to another market segment. Will the azure chip consultants pinpoint such situations? Nah, those folks are worrying about billable hours and writing reports about “governance”. Good work for English majors, failed Web masters, retooled librarians, and those who should be making cookies.
Jasmine Ashton, October 2, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
