ZANTAZ Announces Desktop Legal Hold Solution and Takes on Guidance

Technology companies are notorious for aggressive marketing, whereby they either announce products that do not exist or wildly exaggerate their capabilities. So when ZANTAZ announced its new Desktop Legal Hold solution alongside an image claiming that it can help you “become your company’s superhero”, I was naturally wary. Reading the press release only heightened my suspicion that ZANTAZ’s marketing department may be running ahead of its product development team. For example:

• The release cannot name a single customer using Desktop Legal Hold. The best ZANTAZ could do was quote a retired executive from BASF, who spoke about the potential value from this type of solution (not the actual value realized from this specific solution by a current customer);
  
  
• ZANTAZ makes a series of wild claims about the solution. My personal favorite: “Desktop Legal Hold automatically overcomes spoliation, obfuscation, misclassification and non-classification of important data” Need I say more?
  
  
• Desktop Legal Hold is not listed in the “Solutions” or “Products” sections of ZANTAZ’s website. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I can only find it mentioned in the press release.

All of this will be re-assuring in the short-term to Guidance, whose Encase product is the leading desktop collection and preservation tool. I doubt customers will be rushing to entrust something as important as their legal holds to ZANTAZ until the product looks more proven, and its capabilities are more clear.

That said, ZANTAZ has clearly signaled its intention to attack Guidance’s core market. ZANTAZ wants to make it easier for its customers to get data into its archives. And it wants a piece of the revenue in this market: from Guidance’s quarterly financials, if you deduct revenue from services and its e-discovery product, it looks like the Encase business is worth $30-35M per year in license revenue. That’s a meaningful prize for ZANTAZ.

It will be interesting to watch how this develops.

Postscript To The Iron Mountain-Stratify Deal

In the past couple of weeks, I have spoken to several people close to the Iron Mountain-Stratify deal, and it has been interesting to hear their different perspectives.

The one thing they all agree on is that, as a business, Stratify was doing well. From a combination of news reports, Iron Mountain’s statements, and my various sources, I learned that Stratify’s revenue grew from $24M in 2006 to $30M this year. That is below the $40M+ it forecast earlier in the year, but healthy growth all the same. Gross margins are an impressive 60-70%, which is great for a services business, and profit margins are 20-30%. The vast majority of its 110 customers are law firms but – I know from personal experience – it has had some success in the enterprise. Net net: Stratify was in pretty good shape.

But at that point, opinions begin to differ. I heard 2 competing interpretations of the acquisition:

1. It’s a good deal for all sides

This was my initial reaction and the topic of a blog post written on the day the deal was announced. It has since been echoed in the press and by the analyst community. The story goes something like this:

Everyone wins from this deal. Once you factor in assumed stock options and retention packages along with the $158M that goes to existing shareholders, Stratify gets a multiple of 5.5X current year revenue, which is high for a services business. It also gets to operate autonomously under the Iron Mountain umbrella, with (supposedly) minimal interference from back East. For its part, Iron Mountain gets a growing, profitable business which it can grow more quickly, by selling into its installed base, and more profitably, by leveraging its existing sales force.

2. Stratify sold too cheap, too early

Why sell a profitable, growing business, especially one in a rapidly growing market like e-discovery? Given its growth trajectory, won’t an independent Stratify be much more valuable in 2-4 years time than it is today? Why repeat the mistake made by shareholders of VMWare and MySpace, who sold billions in value for a few hundred million?

The answer, say people who hold this view, has nothing to do with Stratify’s business and everything to do with its shareholders. On the one side, Mobius, the venture capital firm which owned 70% of the company, wanted out – the firm is winding down, some of its partners are raising a new fund and wanted an outcome to boost their VC track records. On the other side, the founder was tired after 8 years slugging it out and wanted a payoff. The business is not suitable for a financial buyer (sales are too lumpy and unpredictable, making it hard to take on large amounts of debt), so an acquisition was the only option.

With the benefit of more time to digest the deal, I have come to feel that both views are in fact correct. It’s a good deal for all sides, even though there’s a strong case that Stratify sold too early. Regardless, there’s still a lot for the Stratify team to feel good about – and, following the MySpace example, they can always go back and ask for a pay rise.

Advice For Service Providers: Leverage Technology To Swim Upstream

As companies use Clearwell’s e-discovery solution on more and more cases, I often find myself speaking to their litigation support service providers. Other than being in the same industry, these service providers have nothing in common: they vary from small shops to large, national companies; from unprofessional cowboys to highly principled professionals. But despite these differences, they all say the same thing: theirs is a very tough industry.

Perhaps everyone says that, but in their case there are good reasons for believing it to be true. It is very hard to differentiate litigation support services, other than by price; law firms make for demanding customers; barriers to entry are low so there’s constant price pressure from new entrants; and, it can take a long time to get paid, given that you are at the end of a long chain (enterprises must first pay law firms who then pay service providers).

That led me to wonder, “What would I do, if I were in their shoes?” The answer is that I would seek to differentiate my service by leveraging technology to swim upstream.

Neither of these ideas (leveraging technology, moving upstream) is original in its own right. Every litigation support service provider leverages technology in some way or other, and many have even built their own in-house review platforms. The larger ones have also sought in one way or another to swim upstream, meaning sell to their customer’s customer (the enterprise) directly rather than to law firms who then sell their services to enterprises.

But what service providers historically have not done is combine the two ideas: i.e., use technology as the means by which they can more easily sell to the enterprise. To paraphrase what the bright, forward-looking CEO of one service provider recently told me: “If I can get technology into the enterprise behind the firewall, then that makes my corporate accounts more “sticky”. It makes it easier for them to export data into my review platform and more likely they will use my services on any given case.” This technology does not have to be developed in-house; service providers can partner and integrate with providers of corporate e-discovery solutions to achieve the same effect.

My respect for litigation support service providers has only increased as I have come to appreciate the severe market pressures under which they operate. So has my excitement for the opportunity before them. Litigation support services is a large, fragmented, growing industry –- a level playing field in which service providers who innovate can see large returns.

Iron Mountain Moves Into E-Discovery, Acquiring Stratify

After months of rumors that Iron Mountain was going to do “something”, the grandfather of records management announced today that it is acquiring Stratify for $158 million in cash. My best guess is that Stratify will do about $30 million in bookings this year, making the purchase price about 5X revenue – a pretty good multiple for a services business with gross margins of 50-60%.

Iron Mountain’s motivations are not hard to guess. It stores oodles of electronic data for large corporate clients. Whenever those clients have a case, they retrieve a subset of that data and send it off to a service provider like Stratify for processing. Through this acquisition, Iron Mountain now has a chance to up-sell its customers on Stratify and capture that service provider revenue for itself. This will be compelling to customers if (and this is a big “if”) Iron Mountain is able to integrate Stratify with its archive, making it easy to pass data from one to the other. As one Iron Mountain customer at a major Wall Street bank told me, “Iron Mountain is great about getting data in; it’s awful when you want to get data out.” If Stratify can help solve that problem, even if it’s only in the case of litigation, then every Iron Mountain customer will cheer.

Given the obvious potential of this deal to Iron Mountain, the question is less about why they would want to acquire a service provider in general, and more about why Stratify in particular. E-discovery services is a large, fragmented market, and there is no shortage of players to choose from. That said, I think they found Stratify a compelling target for 3 reasons:

• Good Technology: Unlike many service providers, Stratify (or Purple Yogi, as it was originally called) started life as a product company. It went through several incarnations: starting out in 2000 to “personalize the internet” for consumers, it soon moved on to knowledge management for corporations, before finally settling on e-discovery services for law firms. To fund all this, it raised over $30 million in venture capital and invested a good chunk of that in product development. The result is a sophisticated product that goes far beyond the review platforms that most other service providers have built.
• Right Size: Many acquirers like companies in that $20-30 million in revenue range. On the one hand, they are big enough to provide a solid platform for growth; on the other, they are small enough to be affordable. When Iron Mountain analyzed the market, it will have found the vast majority of targets either too big or too small, leaving it with only a handful of players to consider, like Stratify, Cataphora and H5.
• Willing Seller: It is no secret that Stratify’s largest shareholder, the venture capital firm Softbank, is winding down and was looking to sell its stake in the company. That, together with the inevitable fatigue that sets in after 7 years of slugging it out, most likely made Stratify a willing seller.

So, on paper, this is a good deal for both sides. Stratify gets a decent return for many years of work; Iron Mountain gets the chance to capture more revenue from its customer base. My congratulations to the Stratify team – I have huge respect for entrepreneurs who weather the dark days, re-invent their company, and lead it to a successful outcome. I wish them well on their new adventure.

“Web Services” For E-Discovery

Prior to working in e-discovery, I (Aaref) always thought standards bodies were a waste of time – or, at least, nothing more than an excuse for free travel to exotic locations. But George Socha and Tom Gelbmann’s EDRM project has changed my mind. In the second of a series of posts, our e-discovery guru – Kurt Leafstrand – explains one of many ways in which EDRM will have a big impact on e-discovery in the years to come:

Last week, I once again had the pleasure of participating in the (now biannual) EDRM conference in St. Paul, Minnesota. For those unfamiliar with it, EDRM is a fantastic collaboration between e-discovery software vendors, service providers, and consumers committed to addressing practical problems associated with e-discovery.

Looking back on both formal sessions and informal conversations with many participants, the one key theme that came across loud and clear is that the days of traditional, "throw-it-over-the-wall" (TIOTW) e-discovery are numbered.

I am sure you're familiar with the TIOTW approach, that endearing process whereby an enterprise gathers up a muddle of electronic data in all shapes and sizes, ties it up in a big bundle, rolls it in bubble wrap, and catapults it into the waiting arms of a service provider. They unwrap it, chant some incantations and perform other black magic for a few days (or it is weeks?) and throw a bundle back over the wall to their corporate client. In-house counsel takes a look and promptly realizes that the search terms she thought were sure things were completely off the mark, and that she missed a couple of custodians, and then... well, it's back over the wall again.

What’s going to tear the wall down? The EDRM XML schema, the first version of which is unveiled today by Clearwell and a large group of other vendors and customers. This will have the same impact on e-discovery as web services have had on e-commerce, enabling systems to pass data to one another over the internet, just as Travelocity passes information to American Airlines when you use it to make a reservation online.

What difference will this make? Well, I boil it down to 3 main things:

1. Litigation risk will decline as early case assessment finally becomes a reality in the enterprise—making it feasible to process, analyze, and do first-pass review of documents in-house, and then transfer those documents and tags to service providers and outside counsel without having to start from scratch.
2. E-discovery timeframes will shorten as enterprises become able to craft comprehensive e-discovery strategies more easily by executing and refining searches closer to the source of the data, and eliminate time-consuming back-and-forth exchanges between enterprises and service providers. And that’s a good thing, with the new FRCP (and coming soon, state rules!) pressure.
3. E-discovery manageability will improve as enterprise-based e-discovery systems are able to integrate seamlessly with downstream litigation management systems. Previously, you were forced to either channel data into a complex external litigation management system too early -- making it difficult for internal counsel and other constituents to have access to the documents -- or pay for costly and time-consuming custom data conversions to migrate data between document "silos."

What to do with all of those unused CDs gathering dust in your office? I've heard they make great coasters…

If You Think E-Discovery Does Not Matter, Think Again

In my experience, e-discovery does not make the radar screen of most corporate General Counsels (GCs). Typically, it is one many issues left to others (e.g., Chief of Litigation, Director of Litigation Support) within the GC’s group. That may change after the recent verdict in the case of Broadcom vs. Qualcomm.

See below for the story, as told by Corporate Counsel in their October issue, with additional commentary from me [added in brackets]:

Collateral Damage

After a string of punishing legal defeats, Qualcomm Incorporated has switched general counsel. On August 13 the company announced that Carol Lam would replace Louis Lupin as its legal chief [Sounds like he got fired]. The move came a week after a federal judge issued a scorching order accusing Qualcomm and its outside lawyers of “gross litigation misconduct.” [Sounds like a pretty good reason why he got fired]

Emily Kilpatrick, Qualcomm’s director of corporate communications, says Lupin is leaving for personal reasons [Isn’t that what they always say?]. “He has been an outstanding leader and contributor to Qualcomm’s success over the past 12 years,” according to Kilpatrick. “However, he has decided to step down as general counsel and take a personal leave.” [a decision most likely made at the request of his boss]

Lam, who was hired in February to supervise Qualcomm’s worldwide litigation, will take over as interim GC, according to a company statement. Lam is one of the U.S. Attorneys fired by the U.S. Department of Justice this past winter. [oh, the irony…]

Based in San Diego, Qualcomm licenses semiconductor technology and system software to cell phone makers. For several years it’s been engaged in a pitched battle with rival Broadcom Corporation over who has infringed whose patents.

Qualcomm’s biggest problems have come in a case in San Diego federal district court. In January a jury ruled that the company had violated Broadcom’s patents. But even before the verdict, Qualcomm suffered a major setback as the trial drew to a close. One of the company’s witnesses revealed the existence of email that Broadcom said should have been produced during discovery. [Yet again, email is the smoking gun]

In April general counsel Lupin and one of Qualcomm’s outside attorneys sent letters of apology to the court, saying they failed to do a detailed enough keyword search of the company’s email. [No big deal, right? After all, we are saying sorry]

But that wasn’t enough for Judge Rudi Brewster, who has been hearing the San Diego case. On August 6 he issued a blistering 54-page ruling. He accused Qualcomm not only of failing to turn over more than 200,000 pages of relevant email and electronic documents during discovery, [i.e., this is a case of a deeply flawed e-discovery process, not of a simple missing email] but of engaging in a years-long campaign to deliberately mislead a technological standards body. Brewster ordered Qualcomm to pay Broadcomm’s litigation costs, and voided two of its patents. (David Rosmann, vice president of intellectual property litigation at Broadcom, estimates that its fees could be around $10 million). [The legal costs alone are several times what it would have cost Qualcomm to purchase an e-discovery solution and avoid this whole situation in the first place]

In a statement, Qualcomm said it “respectfully disagrees” with Brewster’s ruling and intends to appeal. “Qualcomm acknowledges the seriousness of the court’s findings and reiterates its previous apology to the court for the errors made during discovery and for the inaccurate testimony of certain of its witnesses,” the statement read. [We said sorry, isn’t that enough for you guys?]

The company’s problems aren’t over, however. Federal magistrate judge Barbara Major is now considering whether to levy sanctions against Qualcomm’s attorneys. [Don’t think you can hide behind your deep-pocketed employer. If you screw up e-discovery, it will be your neck on the line] Major has given “any and all…attorneys who signed discovery responses, signed pleadings and pretrial motions, and/or appeared at trial on behalf of Qualcomm” until September 21 to file a statement explaining why they shouldn’t be penalized. [For the lawyers in question, it’s guilty unless their arguments convince the judge they are innocent]

Data Retention Policies For E-Discovery: More Of A “Red Herring” Than A “Hot Potato”

For those in regulated industries like financial services, where data retention policies are mandated, every keystroke is tracked and every phone call recorded, the question of how long you should keep data is moot: you keep it for as long as regulations demand.

But for the rest of us in manufacturing, media, technology, government, and elsewhere, it remains an open question. The answer to “what should our email and document retention policy be?” is often a political hot potato, pitting legal and IT’s goal of lower costs against the broader population’s desire to hang on to all their email, just in case they need it later. In fact, the only thing harder than agreeing a retention policy is enforcing it afterwards, as corporate users habitually keep more data than allowed, unless physically prevented from doing so.

The reason this matters is that many people believe creating a data retention policy is a key part of implementing an e-discovery solution. I too used to think this way, viewing retention-policy-creation as a necessary rite of passage for legal, IT, and information security people who want to lower e-discovery costs. After all, if the #1 cause of higher e-discovery costs is too much data, then a policy reducing the amount of data looks like a low cost, no-brainer solution.

But life just does not work that way. Outside of the command-and-control environment of regulated industries, retention policies simply do not work. You cannot fight human nature and force people to delete information they want to keep – especially when Gmail, Yahoo Mail, Hotmail and others are training them to do precisely the opposite (i.e., never delete, keep everything) in their personal email accounts.

So, I have changed my mind: to anyone engaged in implementing an e-discovery solution in a non-regulated industry, I say: forget data retention policies, it is a red herring. Too much data is a fact of life that will only get worse. You can no more get people to delete email and documents than you can stop someone writing them in the first place. Instead, focus on the battle you can win by putting in an e-discovery solution that enables you to do two things:

1. Collect data efficiently, so that you have a reliable (defensible) way of getting the data you need. Implementing an email archive from HP, Symantec or others is a great way of approaching this, as is leveraging forensics tools from Guidance or Access Data.

2. Analyze the data up front, so that you can cull it down to only those documents relevant to the case before a human being has to review them. Clearwell’s e-discovery solution is one approach which has worked for a large number of enterprises.

If your experiences, or conclusions, differ from mine, then feel free to post a comment. I am particularly interested to hear about successful examples of data retention policies at non-regulated companies, since I have yet to see one.

E-Discovery Trends Take Center Stage at ILTA

This is the first of several guest posts from Kurt Leafstrand, formerly a rocket scientist at MIT and now an e-discovery guru at Clearwell. Kurt was on vacation last week, but couldn't resist spending part of it at an important gathering in Florida. His report:

Last week, 3,000 of the country's top legal technologists gathered in Orlando for the 2007 International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) conference. Lawyers will always be lawyers, so the hotel staff seemed particularly diligent as they secured the electrical cords to the floor of the exhibit hall, and the Starbucks seemed a bit on the cool side. However, the discussions and technology were far from cold, and the show was a great chance to learn from some of the industry's leading practitioners from both corporations and law firms.

E-discovery was the focus of many of the conversations, and several emerging trends were at the forefront:

Courts are taking a more active role in e-discovery: With the changes to rule 26(f) in the FRCP, parties are required to confer early (and agree on!) e-discovery. This has pushed the courts to start issuing guidelines to help remove some of the ambiguity from this process and to help parties reach a faster consensus. In one session, Browning Marean of DLA Piper highlighted as "best thinking" a protocol from the Maryland District Court, which included:

• Defining minimum standards for the kind of information to be exchanged
• Recommending that each party have an ESI coordinator (this may lead to IT/legal tech being brought into the meet and confer process)
• Setting defaults to be applied if parties can't agree

One panelist pointed out that, in spite of all this, "the average litigator is woefully unprepared for the e-discovery aspects of the rule 26(f) conference." With the courts showing early aggressiveness in ensuring that the FRCP changes are actually put into practice, it appears that the already intensive focus on ESI will only increase, so firms and corporations need to get their acts together quickly.

Discovery battles are taking center stage: In what many see as a worrisome trend, e-discovery battles are increasingly common and focus "not on the case and its merits, but on spoliation and sanctions." Because of the error-prone nature of most e-discovery efforts, it often pays to look for "little slips... did some executive accidentally delete his email? Was there a failure to produce?" One astute participant commented that the "interest in sanctions is because electronic data is so treacherous. It's much easier to get it wrong than right."

Two current e-discovery "train wrecks" serve to highlight this:

• Intel/AMD: Despite elaborate and costly efforts to comply with preservation orders across 100,000 employees dispersed around the world, Intel found itself having to advise the court of "document retention lapses that have occurred...after the filing of complaint."
• Qualcomm/Broadcom: The attorneys who represented Qualcomm in its unsuccessful patent lawsuit against Broadcom found themselves summoned before the court to show cause as to why sanctions shouldn’t be imposed for their failure to produce documents pertinent to the case: approximately 230,000 pages of documents, actually.

How do corporations and firms better manage their risk in light of these trends? One panel of senior partners suggested that parties need to work smarter, not harder, when it comes to e-discovery, and understand that the state of the art is moving toward a highly iterative e-discovery process. In most initial e-discovery requests today, “the signal-to-noise ratio is such that search results are often meaningless.” This new approach will need to be “negotiated throughout the e-discovery process,” but is going to becoming increasingly critical for both sides of the case to work together on in order to assure that they don’t find themselves in the same (costly) boat as Intel and Qualcomm. This trend was especially relevant to ILTA attendees, because the only way to make this iterative process work is through their active participation, assisted by the next generation of e-discovery 2.0 technologies.

E-Discovery Is Taking Off – And Investors Know It

Regular readers will know this blog is about e-discovery and not about my company, Clearwell. That said, every now and then, the two intersect and it makes sense to write explicitly about Clearwell, since our experience speaks to broader market trends.

That’s the case today, with Clearwell’s announcement of 2 significant milestones. First, the company has crossed the threshold of 100 customers using the product to lower their e-discovery costs. Since the technology bubble burst in 2000, I have been involved with several early stage companies that have brought new products to market, either as founder, CEO, investor, or advisor. All have capable teams; some attacked huge markets; none have seen the rapid customer adoption that we have experienced at Clearwell. Nor were they able, as Clearwell has done, to so quickly break into top tier accounts such as BP, Boeing, Cisco, Del Monte and a host of other household names which I am not at liberty to mention.

The second milestone is that Clearwell has closed its third round of funding for $17M. This is a larger amount than planned, and it happened much more quickly than I anticipated. It was driven by the simple investment philosophy that has powered large investments elsewhere: find a large, growing market and pick the winner, as it will likely be worth more than all the others put together.

I see both milestones as significant for the broader e-discovery space. The fact that a company can introduce a product and, a little over a year later, have over 100 customers using it, says that there is huge latent demand. Clearly, everyone from small hedge funds to mid-sized insurance companies to large departments of the federal government desperately want to lower their e-discovery costs. If history is any guide, this untapped demand will be recognized by a large number of existing players who will all repurpose their existing products towards e-discovery. But, again looking at similar phenomena play out in other markets, the space will likely be won by a “pure-play” vendor unencumbered by the baggage of a legacy business. The investment community recognizes this and is increasingly willing to open its check book in the hope of backing that winner.

No doubt, other young companies will raise money to attack the e-discovery opportunity, and other existing players will continue to dress up their generic search or storage solutions in e-discovery clothing. But over the next 12-24 months, a leader will emerge from the pack and will grow into a significant, standalone company – and the others will either sell for whatever they can get, or try to find a different application for their technology.

Everyone (And Their Grandmother) Is Jumping Into E-Discovery

At some point in his blog last year, David Hornik, a venture capitalist, lamented the fact that VideoEgg, one of his investments, had 38 competitors in the online video market – and those were only the ones that he knew about.

A casual observer could be forgiven for seeing the same thing happening in e-discovery. Barely a day goes by without some company in a completely different market announcing that they too now have an “e-discovery solution”. Debra Logan at Gartner, who is fast emerging as one of the leading lights of the e-discovery world, tells me she is speaking to 30 vendors for her forthcoming research – and could easily have covered twice that number. Brian Babinau, the insightful and witty analyst at Enterprise Strategy Group, jokes that: “nowadays, people either build a social networking product or do e-discovery.”

For example, last week Zimbra, an open source email platform which has nothing to do with e-discovery, announced its new “e-discovery features”, which sound a lot like keyword search. Kazeon, which wins the prize for creating the world’s most complex e-discovery workflow diagram, has added e-discovery as one of its primary “solutions”, while Endeca takes a more measured approach, proposing only that its financial services customers use it for e-discovery. The list goes on and on.

Despite the worsening signal-to-noise ratio, all the activity will ultimately make it easier for customers to figure out which e-discovery solution makes sense for them. There’s more coverage from leading analysts, who can help explain the different products; large vendors such as EMC, Symantec, and HP are gradually educating the market; and the industry is coalescing around the Electronic Discovery Reference Model, which breaks e-discovery down into its key elements and explains how they fit together.

If e-discovery follows the path of online video and other fast-growing categories, lots of companies will continue to throw their hat into the ring. But for every hundred “VideoEggs”, there will only be one YouTube.

Cisco Leads The Way On E-Discovery 2.0

I have written before about the irony of technology companies failing to use technology to improve their own businesses. As with any rule, there is an exception – and in e-discovery, that exception is Cisco.

This will not be a surprise to anyone familiar with Cisco, since the company has a reputation for innovation that extends well beyond networking. In the 1990s, it was quick to embrace the internet, becoming a poster child for how the web can help streamline a company’s operations. Its M&A group has probably done more to power M&A in the tech sector than anyone else, since it was Cisco which disproved the old adage that technology acquisitions do not work.

So it is with e-discovery in general, and E-Discovery 2.0 in particular. The team at Cisco – Neal, Pallab, Mark, Joel and others – are among the most thoughtful, sophisticated corporate legal departments that you will find. They support the large team of inside/outside counsels who represent the interests of Cisco’s global business, and they do it in a way that saves the company money. I have seen them do more with less than companies a fraction of their size. Neal has been talking about the phenomenon that is E-Discovery 2.0 long before me; in fact, he’s one of the people who have educated me on the topic.

Companies like Cisco, Charles Schwab, Qwest, and Wells Fargo, are “canaries in the coalmine”. That’s why, when one of them says something, people listen.

What Web 2.0 Applications Can Teach Enterprise Software

The other day, I came across the fascinating statistic that over 50% of products returned every year to stores across America have absolutely nothing wrong with them. Apparently, consumers used them for an average of 20 minutes and then gave up, because they were too complicated.

At this point, most customers of traditional enterprise software could be forgiven for thinking: “I wish I could do that.” Enterprise applications are notoriously feature-laden, complicated to use, and difficult to install. They make their users feel stupid, by presenting them with complex pictures that look like amoeba or toolbars with 150 different options. Why does enterprise software seek to punish its customers in this way?

Partly, because customers ask for it. Whether they are buying a dishwasher or an accounting application, people habitually over-estimate their ability to figure out how a complicated product works and, as a result, pay more for features that they never use. Partly, it’s because enterprise software is designed by engineers who think everyone is as technically proficient as they are, and by marketing people who view every additional feature as a new selling point.

By contrast, Web 2.0 applications such as FaceBook, Flickr, StumbleUpon, or Meebo are incredibly easy use. Even an idiot who has never seen these applications before can use them without an instruction manual or a training course. You could say that’s because they are trivially simple applications. But I think it’s primarily because, if they were not so easy to use, people would simply click away and try something else – i.e., they would die.

That to me is the real lesson that Web 2.0 apps can teach enterprise software: make something that is easy to use, easy for someone to install, and easy for them to evaluate. Get people addicted to your application because it’s so good (the average FaceBook user spends 4+ hours a day on the site). No doubt, this is harder to do with enterprise applications because they are inherently more complex. But figure out a way to hide the complexity, packaging all the functionality users need into a design that’s easy to use. This is a key characteristic of e-discovery software applications; it's the genius of salesforce.com's CRM application and Apple's iPod; and, it needs to be a core skill of any company creating enterprise applications today.

What is E-Discovery 2.0?

In a previous post, I wrote about the forces transforming e-discovery, a phenomenon that has received increasing attention from the press, most recently in this week’s Economist magazine. While everyone agrees that something big has changed, and (generally speaking) on the reasons why, people struggle to put their finger on exactly what e-discovery has become.

That’s why I think the concept of “E-Discovery 2.0” is so helpful. Analogous to Web 2.0, E-Discovery 2.0 is a set of new processes, technologies, and services that enable companies to manage huge volumes of data, lower costs, and meet tight deadlines.

New Processes

When e-discovery meant handing over a few boxes of paper, companies did not need much of a process. But in today’s world, where it involves terabytes of data, teams of reviewers, and precious little time, it is a very different story. To cope with the growing volume and complexity of e-discovery issues, companies have had no choice but to adopt new processes. These include:

• Collect and Preserve: Most companies have now established procedures so that, when the need arises, they can collect all data relevant to a case and ensure that it cannot be changed or deleted.

• Analyze Up Front: When presented with more work than can be done, a company’s only option is to work smarter, not harder. That means analyzing the collected data up front, to cull it down to only those emails and documents directly relevant to the case at hand.

• Collaborate Efficiently: E-Discovery has become a team sport. And whenever you have a team, you need a playbook, or a process, to ensure work is not repeated and that everyone is marching towards the same goal.

New Technologies

If technology created this problem, by making electronic communication so pervasive and voluminous, then it can also solve it. In recent years, several new technologies have arisen that enable companies to store and sift through their data to fulfill e-discovery obligations. The most significant of these trends include:

• From tape to disk: As the cost of disk storage has continued to decline, more and more companies are abandoning tapes and instead keeping their data online. Email archiving software optimizes for storage efficiency, allowing companies to keep hundreds of terabytes of data readily available for e-discovery.

• From search to analysis: Basic keyword search has evolved into sophisticated analysis technology that mines email meta-data for relevance, links messages together into discussion threads, and groups them by topics. These analysis applications allow users to sift through millions of messages in minutes, to rapidly identify, tag, and export relevant data.

• From closed systems to open standards: Until recently, technology providers made no effort to integrate their applications, leaving customers to fend for themselves. But that has started to change. Symantec Enterprise Vault and HP RISS now have open APIs, creating pressure on others to follow suit. George Socha’s Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM), a standards body, has received widespread support, accelerating progress towards creation of an open e-discovery platform.

To anyone working in litigation support, legal, or information security, all this is quite unremarkable. Of course they use technology to address e-discovery. Obviously, there has to be a process. From the company’s perspective, e-discovery has become no different to HR or finance – it is a core competency, part of doing business.

And that, perhaps, is the most remarkable thing about E-Discovery 2.0 – in only a few short years, it has become so widespread and deeply entrenched within the enterprise, that people barely notice it.

Can E-Discovery Really Be That Expensive?

I tend to have a "Mark Twain perspective" on statistics and apply a healthy grain of salt to any numbers quoted by analysts and industry experts. But when end-users speak, I sit up and listen. That's why I was very interested to read here that Microsoft "spends an average of US$ 20 million for e-discovery per litigation, according to one company exec." (My thanks to George for alterting me to the article)

If true, it is an astounding number - but one that is quite consistent with what we have seen first hand working with other large enterprises ourselves. Once you factor in processing costs (an average of $1,800 per GB), review costs ($200/hour), and the huge volume of information being generated and stored, you can get up to $20 million on a single case surprisingly fast.

The White House And The Problem of A Billion Emails

The other day, Michael Clark of EDDix sent me a fascinating academic paper (thanks, Michael!) about “information inflation” at its impact on the legal system. I had never really thought of it this way, but there have really only been 3 significant events in the evolution of information:

1. Writing (c. 5,000 years ago): Pre-historic man started to etch his markings on clay tablets, stone, wax, papyrus, bark, cloth, wood, paper, cave walls and anything else that came to hand.
2. Printing (c. 1450): Gutenberg’s movable type printing press enabled mass production of information, contributing to (among other things) the Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution.
3. Digitization (c. late 20th Century): The personal computer, wide area networks, internet, email, have all led to a massive explosion of information in the past 50 years. As the article points out, “close to 100 billion emails are sent daily…In a small business, whereas formerly there was usually 1 four-drawer file cabinet full of paper records, now there is the equivalent of 2,000 four-drawer file cabinets full of such records, all contained in a cubic foot or so in the form of electronically stored information.”
   

How can the legal profession cope, given that a lawyer’s job is often to synthesize this mind-boggling amount of data? Fortunately, the authors have a solution:

“A family of computer technology employing new types of search methods and techniques beyond use of mere keywords should now be considered for use in litigation….Litigators can no longer depend on manual review alone. It is too time-consuming and expensive – with cost often exceeding the amounts in dispute.”

To illustrate its point, the paper tells the story of the White House and the problem of a billion emails. During the Clinton administration, the White House agreed to a form of electronic record keeping called ARMS (Automated Records Management System). At the end of each administration, these records are handed over to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The table below shows the number of stored emails NARA has, or expects to receive at the end of each administration.



Now assume that, like previous administrations, the Next President’s administration is subject to a lawsuit that requires e-discovery. The paper calculates:

“Without employing any automated computer process to generate potentially responsive documents, the review effort for this litigation would take 100 people, working 10 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, over 54 years to complete. And the cost of such a review, at an assumed billing rate of $100/hour, would be $2 billion. Even, however, if present day search methods are used to initially reduce the email universe to 1% of its size (i.e., 10 million documents out of 1 billion), the case would still cost $20 million for a first pass review conducted by 100 people over 28 weeks, without accounting for any additional privilege review.”

This is a great example of why companies and government agencies are adopting e-discovery 2.0 technologies that go far beyond keyword search. In the face of information inflation, what choice do they have?