This article was first published by Rob Robinson at ComplexDiscovery.com. It is republished with the permission of its author.
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. While there are definitions, tools and directories² available for comparing provider capabilities at the eDiscovery stage and feature/function level, there does not appear to be a generally accepted or regularly used set of elements that are used to describe the high level competencies, attributes and distribution frameworks of providers. Understanding that a provider’s organizational character is made up of more than capabilities, it seems reasonable that a common set of descriptive elements for competency, attributes and distribution frameworks might be beneficial for the provider comparison process.