Better Discovery

This comment was left on the eDiscovery101 Blog (“Do we need an addition to the EDRM?“). This post asked about costing models…not sure why that would ever be part of the EDRM, but see Tom Gelbman’s comment for the answer to that!

It’s hard to criticize the EDRM, because so many people are invested in it, –but that’s a natural byproduct of the work my company is doing to bring Agile perspectives to the practice of law.

EDRM describes, at a task level, what needs to be done. I really think that’s all it was originally intended to do! The problem is when you work from task up, teams give suboptimal results. Not really a dirty, little secret given publication of the Facciola-Redgrave Framework.

I debuted the use of Scrum for management of document review teams at the Munich ScrumGathering a month ago, and as soon as I showed an image of the V2 EDRM, someone called out “Waterfall!”

Just like the PMI has recognized the high value of Agile, we think that firms will recognize that even within the EDRM, an Agile approach will help reduce confusion and increase business value.

In other words, from a flow perspective, most software folks (who have a huge lead in terms of team work dynamics) recognize that a series of handoffs and extremely complex lines of responsibility are an inadequate response to the needs of data-centric eDiscovery.

What I’m trying to address in the “Litigation Ecosystem Framework (LEF),” then, is a way forward. Implementation with change as a given without sacrificing quality is where Agile has a lot to offer.

Is Agile easy? No, it’s actually going to require that lawyers bring their A game. But, the rewards to clients of transparency, concepts of “done” and prioritized work flow will definitely win out in the end.

No, what we’re doing in terms of Agile is not as well developed, but I think that it will compete very nicely as a model for HOW to get work done, –particularly now that we also have the Facciola-Redgrave Framework which requires that lawyers figure out FAST how to get through the complexity.

Agile is based on complexity science, and maybe, rather than saying that the EDRM is better as a theoretical model, we can say that in looking at the EDRM, Agile teams can work through it better.

The ScrumGathering is an international conference of experts and proponents of Scrum and I’m counting on a wide network of experts to help me bring this thing to lawyers, firms and their clients. It’s not about bashing the EDRM, so much as helping lawyers do what we do BETTER.

Many lawyers are looking for ways to improve how litigation teams function, and this is where I think the “Agile for Lawyers” project is really going to shine. Eventually, we *will* focus on collaboration with both the EDRM and Sedona folks. I warmly encourage anyone interested to follow one or more of these Twitter streams: @ALASSN @AgileLawyer @AgileAgreements.

If you are interested in becoming an ESI Special Master, you might want to attend the E-Discovery Dispute Resolution Program For Special Masters & Mediators in January 28-29, 2010.

The training program is designed for experienced special masters,
mediators, arbitrators, and other legal and commercial dispute
resolution professionals (and those desiring to be such) who are
involved in – or anticipate involvement in – disputes in which the
preservation, collection, review, management, or evaluation of
electronically stored information will likely be an important issue or
issues.

This site is a place to comment on what most people do, –and explain why it could stand a bit of improvement.

It’s just one perspective, and since everyone seems to be using it, it makes sense to have a discussion about it.

So, this is a blog with a perspective, but is not an “attack blog,” because the objective is not to agree OR disagree with the EDRM, but to see where it leads those who follow.

Yes, Dialexica is developing our own model, and certainly it will be open to criticism. That’s a good thing, and welook forward to the exchange.

The nice thing about the EDRM is that it gives us a lot of data and information, which is the hallmark of a model that truly aspires to provide a useful framework.

We hope that by lifting the hood and jiggling the cables, we can contribute to YOUR understanding of the EDRM i(f you choose to use it), at the same time as we increase the value and strength or our own model. For it is only by testing it against industry standards, common sense and our own evolving understanding of rapidly changing process, that we can get closer to what looks like a great discovery process.

This is the Socha – Gelbman or Electronic Discovery Reference Model (“EDRM”), which is the industry standard model for analysis of the discovery work flow.

It is an excellent model and the standard to which most e-discovery applications conform.

However,  it is an “attorney-centric” model.

We think that every good model deserves a tweak, and this blog, “Better Discovery” is designed to munch, crunch, applaud and bedevil the assumptions, presumptions and output generated by the EDRM.

It’s not thatthere’s anything wrong with the model. Rather, this blog is an exercise in model analysis and open debate,–something which might be uncomfortable within the confines of orthodox working groups.

In addition, mostpractitioners do not have the time, energy or will to dig into the model from a distance. This space gives us all the chance to do so, to question, find the materials that make sense and dissect the logic behind e-discovery technologies.

At the end, we may decide collectively that we have reached the pinnacle of discovery workflow analysis in the EDRM.

But, maybe not. There may be other models out there which can be reconciled with the Socha-Gelbman model, so why not look?!

So, with the goal of creating greater efficiencies in the litigation process, I embark upon this blog with more than a little trepidation. After all, it’s easy to look at the chariot and decide it needs a different kind of horse. It’s much harder to look at the chariot and therefrom derive a car.

Whether this site is confined to picking a better horse, or leading to the discovery of a new type of transport, it will be interesting, challenging and above all, fun!