Data Discovery Governance Model Explained
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Posted by: Mary Mack
Last week, we linked to the Legal Technology Professionals Institute’s Data Discovery Governance Model (LTPI DDGM). This week we dive a little deeper with an interview with the drivers.
Editors Note: I asked Eric Mandel, co-founder of the LTPI some questions about the new DDGM framework. Here is his reply: "Mary, here are the answers from the project leads, Quin Gregor and Kevin Clark."
How does it differ from the EDRM/IGRM?
Some of the creators of the DDGM at LTPI were also involved both the creation of the EDRM and IGRM. The EDRM/IGRM does not get into the details but brushes broad strokes. At best, they are a high level frameworks which list topic headings and how they link together to form their respective models, but that is it. LTPI decided to go several steps beyond these models and flesh out the ideas beyond the topic headings. The result is a deep dive with specifics that can be understood and implemented by anyone with just a little subject matter knowledge.
How do you envision it being used:
by an eDiscovery Counsel?
Yes. The DDGM framework should first be customized to the organization’s needs, with people assigned to keep the model updated. If this occurs, then the DDGM enables are rapid view to who has what data and who the experts are, and the types and volumes of data, allowing counsel to be very effective. The DDGM enables oversight of all aspects of a matter, with the answers to almost every conceivable question at their fingertips, assuming those responsible for entering the information have performed their jobs.
Likewise the model should be updated to include the various needs for a Meet & Confer. A number of these details would be provided by the Information Governance framework.
by a litigation support director?
Yes. The DDGM, if presented through a dashboard, can roll up a lot of information and allow the litigation support director to direct operations with a clear understanding as to what counsel or vendors are in use for which matters. These metrics will allow the director to make better business decisions around cost effectiveness of various technologies, vendors or law firms too.
by an AGC?
Yes. The DDGM data would best be presented the form of a condensed dashboard and could provide an overview of all litigations, and who is working on what. The data sources, volumes, costs and time frames could also be drilled down into and be used to generate proportionality decisions. Some litigations are not worth the costs to prosecute, and these sorts of metrics would enable these types of decisions to be made, allowing the AGC to focus their energies where best needed.
by a PM?
Yes. They should track where the data is going and who has it and when it arrived and when it should be deleted and so on. The DDGM framework has plenty of data elements the PM should be leveraging. The PM should be responsible for populating a lot of the statistics. The model, if tailored to the organization’s needs, makes the tracking easy to perform. In particular, there is a section
by a service provider?
Yes. Some service providers are better than others when it comes to tracking data and tracking metrics. The DDGM allows them to rapidly create their own tracking framework and ensure they better service their clients. In turn, it also lowers their risk profiles from accidental over-preservation of data that could hurt a client at some future date, if accidentally preserved and not deleted.
I noticed some numbering of tasks. Are those like model billing codes?
These numbers are designed to be reference points. The DDGM can be expressed using “swim lanes”, which from a process mapping standpoint, using these numbers in place of the words. The verbal descriptions can be a little wordy at times, and these numbers can be used as a reference point or look up table for a longer explanation of what they mean. These could also be used as reference numbers for task orders, such as ensuring which business units are responsible for populating and maintaining various segments of the model.
Are there any pilots in place that are beta'ing?
Yes but we have been asked not to mention companies by name. A number of corporations and a few vendors are looking at the model and implementing. Initially the DDGM looks a little daunting, as there are so many places and ways to lose of discovery data. And that is the point. Most people overlook the areas we spent months thinking about and documenting. The framework is designed to allow you to select which elements you need to build out your own DDGM based upon your particular organization’s needs. Once that occurs and once responsibility has been designated to populate and maintain the framework, everything comes together very nicely. We have already heard comments from one vendor thanking us for them avoiding having to think about and generate this for themselves. This framework is free to use and designed by the industry for the industry.
Are there people in particular you would like to call out for their contribution?
The three principles of the project were Quin Gregor, Babs Deacon and Kevin Clark, who received a lot of support from other LTPI members. Mikki Tomlinson contributed the thinking around the swim lane aspect, which helps operationalize the model.
What do you wish I asked you (and then answer it)?
How is this tied to cyber security and Information Governance?
Any time a corporations sends its data out of the corporate network to an external vendor, whether they be a law firm, technology provider or SME, corporate secrets are now in the hands of “who knows who?”. The IG framework should cover and dictate handling of such data, and the office of CISO should be involved in vetting these external entities. The DDGM allows for the tracking of what is where and who has what and is a central for proper awareness and handling of corporate data and the risks involved.