Close
Enter your
text here

Information Management

eDiscovery Trends: Facemail Unlikely to Replace Traditional Email

In a November post on eDiscoveryDaily, we reported that Facebook announced on November 15 that it’s rolling out a new messaging system, including chat, text messaging, status updates and email (informally dubbed “Facemail”) that would bring messaging systems together in one place, so you don’t have to remember how each of your friends prefers to be contacted.  Many have wondered whether Facemail would be a serious threat to Google’s Gmail, Yahoo Mail and Microsoft Live Hotmail, given that Facebook has a user base of 500 million plus users from which to draw.  And, there was considerable concern raised by eDiscovery analysts that Facebook plans to preserve these messages, regardless of the form in which they are generated, forever.

However, Facemail isn’t likely to replace users’ current email accounts, according to an online poll currently being conducted by the Wall Street Journal.  More than 61 percent of over 4,001 participants who have taken the poll so far said they wouldn’t use Facebook Messages as their primary email service.  18.4 percent of voters said that they would use it as their primary email, with 20.5 percent indicating that they were not sure.  You can cast your vote here.  I just voted, so these numbers reflect “up-to-the-minute” poll results (as of 5:52 AM CST, Wednesday, December 08, that is).

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg envisions the Facemail model of email, instant messaging and SMS text messages as a simpler, faster messaging model than email’s traditional subject lines and carbon copies, which Zuckerberg considers to be “antiquated”.

Whether Facemail develops as a serious threat to Gmail, Hotmail or Yahoo Mail (or even Microsoft Outlook or Lotus Notes) remains to be seen.  However, at least a couple of industry analysts think that it could become a significant development.

“A powerful, unified presence manager would also enable the user to express how he’d like to communicate, and to manipulate that ‘how’ and ‘when’ availability to different types of contacts,” industry analyst David Card stated in a post on GigaOm.com.  “If Facebook establishes Messages as a user’s primary tool to manage presence across multiple communications vehicles, it would be an incredibly sticky app, with huge customer lock-in potential.”

Gartner analyst Matt Cain told eWEEK.com, “It will have little impact at first on the public portal email vendors because it is a barebones email service. But if Facebook makes it the equivalent of these other services, it will have a significant deleterious impact on competing email services”.

As stated in the earlier post, it’s important to have a social governance policy in place to not only address new mechanisms such as Facemail, but all social media mechanisms that might be in use by your employees.

So, what do you think?  Do you plan to consider using Facemail as your primary email service?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Best Practices: Data Mapping for Litigation Readiness
 

Federal Rule 26(f)–the Meet and Confer rule–requires the parties in litigation to meet at an early stage to discuss the information they have and what they will share.   The parties must meet “at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b)”, which states that the “judge must issue the scheduling order…within the earlier of 120 days after any defendant has been served with the complaint or 90 days after any defendant has appeared.”.

That means the meet and confer is required 90-100 days after the case has been filed and, at that meeting the parties must disclose to each other “a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all documents, electronically stored information and tangible things that are in the possession, custody or control of the party and that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses” (Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii)).  That’s not much time to develop a thorough understanding of what data may be potentially responsive to the case.

The best way for organizations to address this potential issue is proactively, before litigation even begins, by preparing a data map.  As the name implies, a data map simply provides a guide for legal and IT to the location of data throughout the company and important information about that data, such as the business units, processes and technology responsible for maintaining the data, as well as retention periods for that data.  An effective data map should enable in-house counsel to identify the location, accessibility and format of potentially responsive electronically stored information (ESI).

Four tips to creating and maintaining an effective data map:

  • Obtain Early “Buy-In”: Various departments within the organization have key information about their data, so it’s important to obtain early “buy-in” with each of them to ensure full cooperation and a comprehensive data map,
  • Document and Educate: It’s important to develop logical and comprehensive practices for managing data and provide regular education to employees (especially legal) about the organization’s data management policies so that data is where it is supposed to be,
  • Communicate Regularly: Groups need to communicate regularly so that new initiatives that may affect existing data stores or create new ones are known by all,
  • Update Periodically: Technology is constantly evolving, employees come and go and terminologies change.  Data maps must be reviewed and updated regularly to stay accurate.  If you created a data map two years ago and haven’t updated it, it probably doesn’t address new social media sources.

Preparing and maintaining a data map for your organization puts you in a considerably better position to respond quickly when litigation hits.

So, what do you think?  Does your organization have a data map?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Trends: CGOC Information Governance Benchmark Report

Last month, at the EDRM Mid-Year Meetings, the Information Management Reference Model (IMRM) team within EDRM presented a status report for their project (as all of the project teams do during these meetings).  As a part of that presentation, the team presented findings from the first survey conducted by the Compliance, Governance and Oversight Council (CGOC) in collaboration with the IMRM of legal, records management (RIM) and IT practitioners in Global 1000 companies.  You can request a copy of the report here.

According to the CGOC report, there was an even distribution of respondents between legal, RIM and IT.  Just a few of the very interesting findings include:

    • Ineffective Disposal of Data: 75% of respondents identified the inability to defensibly dispose of data as the greatest challenge, leaving “massive” amounts of legacy data,
  • “People Glue” Compliance Processes: 70% of respondents depend on “liaisons and people glue” to support discovery and regulatory obligations within information management (as opposed to reliable and repeatable systems and processes),
  • Disconnect Between Legal, RIM and IT: There are big gaps between retention schedule development, legal hold communication, and information management.  Some key stats:
    • 77% said their retention schedules were not actionable as is or could only be applied to paper,
    • 75% of schedules included only regulatory record keeping requirements or long-range business information,
    • 66% did not describe legal holds by the records associated with them, and
    • 50% of IT departments never used the retention schedule when disposing of data.
  • Who’s In Charge?: Legal and RIM identified RIM as the organization responsible for “information management and disposal” whereas IT considered themselves responsible for this function.

These are just a handful of findings in this report, which clearly shows that most large organizations still feel that there is still much work to be done to achieve an effective information governance program.  The CGOC (and IMRM) have done a terrific job at compiling a comprehensive and informative report that illustrates the current state of affairs of information management in the corporate world.  Request your copy of the report to learn more!

So, what do you think?  How is your organization managing information governance?  Is it facing similar issues? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thought Leader Q&A: Kirke Snyder
 

Tell me about yourself and your experience.  I am a professor of law and ethics at Regis University College for Professional Studies in Denver, Colorado. The opinions expressed in this article are mine and are based upon my 25 years of experience consulting with public and private organizations.

Why is records management so important within the scope of eDiscovery?  Records Management is a sub-set of an organization’s overall information management. Take a look at the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). Information management is on the far left-hand side of the model. An effective records/information management program is the most effective way for a company to reduce the volume of data that will become snagged in litigation hold, collection, production, and attorney review.

What are the most important concerns about corporate records and information management?  Organizations should be concerned about managing their corporate records for two main reasons: (1) the risk associated with regulatory compliance and litigation hold requirements, and (2) the cost of reviewing data to identify potentially relevant documents associated with litigation or an investigation.

What are the main risks associated with regulatory compliance and litigation hold requirements?  There are thousands of recordkeeping laws and regulations. A sound corporate records and information (RIM) program must be based upon legal research that identifies the applicable regulatory requirements (federal, state, and industry specific). Retention or destruction requirements apply to commonly encountered corporate records, such as job applications, employee medical records, and tax returns, as well as to the distinctive recorded information associated with specific industries, such as banking, insurance, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, energy, and telecommunications. Further, certain business records are subject to privacy legislation and regulations that protect personal information from unauthorized disclosure or use. Examples of U.S. laws with such privacy provisions include the Fair Credit Reporting Act (1992), the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (1996), and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999).

In addition to retaining corporate information to support a regulatory requirement, organizations must hold information that may be potentially relevant to litigation or an investigation. As a matter of fact, it is illegal for any organization to knowingly and intentionally destroy records relevant to pending or ongoing litigation or government investigations, even though their document management policies would otherwise permit such destruction. For public companies, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 includes additional recordkeeping provisions and mandated retention requirements for certain types of records. It also criminalizes and provides severe penalties for executives and employees who obstruct justice by destroying or tampering with corporate accounting records. Most notably, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act created a new federal crime for the destruction, mutilation, or alteration of corporate records with the intent to impede or influence a government investigation or other official proceeding, either “in relation to or in contemplation of any such matter or case.” This provision expands upon previous laws relating to the destruction of records with presumed intent to obstruct justice.

How do you justify the cost of a good records management and information program?  With regards to litigation, size does matter. The cost of the litigation discovery process has a direct correlation to the volume of potentially relevant documents related to the matter. The smaller the population of potentially relevant data, the lower the costs will be from vendors to process the data into a searchable database and the lower the fees will be from outside counsel to review each email or document. Most organizations do not have an automated means to identify, collect, and preserve electronically stored information (ESI) based upon search criteria (key words, document type, document date or author). We hear the terminology megabyte, gigabyte, and terabyte used with regards to storage capacity of network servers, computer hard drives, and even portable “thumb drives.” To cost justify a budget for a new records/information management program, it’s important to convert the MB’s, GB’s. and TB’s into something to which management can relate. One megabyte of user documents is approximately one ream of paper. One ream of paper wouldn’t take the lawyers too long to review. However, one gigabyte of user documents if printed would be the approximate length of a basketball court and would require a team of lawyers to review. One terabyte of user documents if printed would be the approximate length of Long Island. It’s easy to see the economic and strategic advantage for an organization to be able to identify the smallest legally defensible data population (without duplicates) prior to handing over the data to vendors for processing or outside counsel for review.

About Kirke Snyder

Kirke has earned a law degree and also a masters degree in legal administration. He is an expert in document retention and litigation electronic discovery issues. He can be reached at KSnyder@Regis.edu.

Thought Leader Q&A: Alon Israely of BIA
 

Tell me about your company and the products you represent.  BIA is a full solution E-Discovery provider. Our core competencies are around E-Discovery Collections and Processing, but we offer the full spectrum of services around E-Discovery.   For almost a decade, BIA has been developing and implementing defensible, technology driven solutions that reduce the costs and risks related to litigation, regulatory compliance and internal audits.  BIA provides software and services to Fortune 1000, Global 2000 companies and Am Law 100 law firms. We are headquartered in New York City, and have offices in San Francisco, Seattle, Washington DC and in Southwest Michigan. We also maintain digital evidence response units throughout the United States, Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.

BIA’s products are defensible and cost effective, offering defensible remote collections with DiscoveryBOT™, fast e-discovery processing with our TD Grid system and automated and secure legal hold software with Solis™.  For more about BIA’s product, click here.

What is the best way for lawyers and litigation support professionals to take control of their eDiscovery?  The best way for litigation support professionals to take control of their e-discovery is to scope projects correctly.  It is important to understand that not one size fits all in e-discovery.  That is, there are many tools and service providers out there – it is important to focus (at the beginning) on what needs to be accomplished from a legal and IT perspective first and then to determine which technologies and methods fit that strategy best. 

What is a good way to achieve predictability in eDiscovery costs?  Most of the cost analysis that exists in e-discovery today is focused on the Review side, where the data has already been collected and perhaps culled. Yet, there are still too many documents, where most of the documents are not responsive. With a focus on the left side of the EDRM, e-discovery costs are visible early on in the process.  For example, using a good (light-touch) collection tool and method to lock data down is one of the best ways to control e-discovery costs – that is, doing the right collection early-on and getting the right metrics from those collections, allow you to analyze that data (even at a high-level without incurring processing and other costs) which can then help can help the attorneys and the institutional client determine costs early in the process, and in a more predictable manner.

Is there a way to perform self collection in a defensible manner?  Yes.  Use the right tools and methods and importantly, have those tools and methods vetted (reviewed and approved) by e-discovery collection professionals.  Defensible self-collections do NOT mean that the custodian or the IT people are left to perform the collection on their own without the right plan behind them.  There are best-practices that should be followed and there are some tools that maintain the integrity of the data.  Make sure that those best practices and tools are used (having been scoped correctly – see response above) by professionals or at least used by staff and peer-reviewed or monitored by professionals.  Also, rely on custodians for good ESI identification – that is, the custodians (users) usually know better than anyone where they maintain records – so, using custodian questionnaires early-on will help inform those systems which will be most relevant – which goes to diligence (an important factor in defensible collections).  Also then the professional can work in tandem with the custodian to gather the data in a manner which will ensure the evidentiary integrity of the data.  At BIA we have been following those methods for years and have been very successful with our clients, the Courts and Opposing parties, at defending those ways of identifying and collecting ESI.

What is the importance of the left side of the EDRM model?  The left side is where it all starts with e-discovery – that is, ESI collections are usually the most affordable parts of the overall e-discovery process and are arguably the most important – that is, “garbage in/garbage-out.”  Because the subsequent parts of the e-discovery process (i.e., the “right-side of the EDRM”) rely on the data identified and gathered in the early parts of the process, it is imperative that those tasks and activities performed for the “left side of EDRM” are done in the correct manner – that is, maintaining the evidentiary integrity of the data collected.  Also, the left side of the EDRM includes preserving data and notifying custodians of their obligations to preserve – which is a piece critical to defensible e-discovery – especially in light of Pension Committee and some other recent cases.  As for the money piece, the left side of the EDRM is an area where much of the planning can occur for the rest of the process without incurring substantial costs – that planning goes a long way to ascertaining the real costs and timing with respect to the remainder of the e-discovery process.

About Alon Israely

Alon Israely has over fifteen years of experience in a variety of advanced computing-related technologies. Alon is a Senior Advisor in BIA’s Advisory Services group and currently oversees BIA’s product development for its core technology products. Prior to BIA, Alon consulted with law firms and their clients on a variety of technology issues, including expert witness services related to computer forensics, digital evidence management and data security. Prior to that, he was a senior member of several IT teams working on projects for Fortune 500 companies related to global network architecture and data migrations projects for enterprise information systems. As a pioneer in the field of digital evidence collection and handling, Alon has worked on a wide variety of matters, including several notable financial fraud cases; large-scale multi-party international lawsuits; and corporate matters involving the SEC, FTC, and international regulatory boards.  Alon holds a B.A. from UCLA and received his J.D. from New York Law School with an emphasis in Telecommunications Law. He is a member of the New York State Bar as well as several legal and computer forensic associations.

Reporting from the EDRM Mid-Year Meeting
 

Launched in May 2005, the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM) Project was created to address the lack of standards and guidelines in the electronic discovery market.  Now, in its sixth year of operation, EDRM has become the gold standard for…well…standards in eDiscovery.  Most references to the eDiscovery industry these days refer to the EDRM model as a representation of the eDiscovery life cycle.

At the first meeting in May 2005, there were 35 attendees, according to Tom Gelbmann of Gelbmann & Associates, co-founder of EDRM along with George Socha of Socha Consulting LLC.  Check out the preliminary first draft of the EDRM diagram – it has evolved a bit!  Most participants were eDiscovery providers and, according to Gelbmann, they asked “Do you really expect us all to work together?”  The answer was “yes”, and the question hasn’t been asked again.  Today, there are over 300 members from 81 participating organizations including eDiscovery providers, law firms and corporations (as well as some individual participants).

This week, the EDRM Mid-Year meeting is taking place in St. Paul, MN.  Twice a year, in May and October, eDiscovery professionals who are EDRM members meet to continue the process of working together on various standards projects.  EDRM has eight currently active projects, as follows:

  • Data Set: provides industry-standard, reference data sets of electronically stored information (ESI) and software files that can be used to test various aspects of eDiscovery software and services,
  • Evergreen: ensures that EDRM remains current, practical and relevant and educates about how to make effective use of the Model,
  • Information Management Reference Model (IMRM): provides a common, practical, flexible framework to help organizations develop and implement effective and actionable information management programs,
  • Jobs: develops a framework for evaluating pre-discovery and discovery personnel needs or issues,
  • Metrics: provides an effective means of measuring the time, money and volumes associated with eDiscovery activities,
  • Model Code of Conduct: evaluates and defines acceptable boundaries of ethical business practices within the eDiscovery service industry,
  • Search: provides a framework for defining and managing various aspects of Search as applied to eDiscovery workflow,
  • XML: provides a standard format for e-discovery data exchange between parties and systems, reducing the time and risk involved with data exchange.

This is my fourth year participating in the EDRM Metrics project and it has been exciting to see several accomplishments made by the group, including creation of a code schema for measuring activities across the EDRM phases, glossary definitions of those codes and tools to track early data assessment, collection and review activities.  Today, we made significant progress in developing survey questions designed to gather and provide typical metrics experienced by eDiscovery legal teams in today’s environment.

So, what do you think?  Has EDRM impacted how you manage eDiscovery?  If so, how?  Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Thought Leader Q&A: Jim McGann of Index Engines
 

Tell me about your company and the products you represent.  Businesses today face a significant challenge organizing their files and email to ensure timely and cost efficient access, while also maintaining compliance to regulations governing electronic data. Founded in 2003, Index Engines’ mission is to organize enterprise data assets, and make them immediately accessible, searchable and easy to manage. 

Index Engines’ discovery platform is the only solution on the market to offer a complete view of electronic data assets. Online data is indexed in-stream at wire speed in native enterprise storage protocols, enabling high-speed, efficient indexing of proprietary backup and transfer formats. Our unique approach to offline records scans backup tapes, indexes the contents and extracts relevant data, eliminating the time-consuming restoration process. Index Engines provides the only comprehensive discovery platform across both online and offline data, saving time and money when managing enterprise information.

What has caused backup tapes to become so relevant in eDiscovery?  Tape discovery actually appeared on the map after the renowned Zubulake case in 2003, and was reinforced by the FRCP amendments in 2006 and then again last year with the adoption of California’s eDiscovery act AB-5. Each of these milestones propelled tape discovery further into the eDiscovery market. These days, tapes are as common as any other container to discover relevant electronically stored information (ESI).

What can companies proactively do to address tape storage?  Needlessly storing old backup tapes is both a potential liability and a wasted expense. The liability comes from not knowing what information the tapes contain. The cost of offsite tape storage –  even if it is only a few dollars a month per tape –  quickly adds up. Tape remediation is the process of proactively discovering data contained on legacy backup tapes, and then applying a corporate retention policy to this tape data. Once the relevant data has been identified and archived accordingly, the tapes can be destroyed or recycled. 

How can a legal or litigation support professional substantiate claims of processing speed made by eDiscovery vendors?  Without an industry standard vendor-neutral benchmarking process, this is a difficult challenge. I would recommend performing a proof of concept to actually see the performance in action. Another idea would be to question the components of the technology. Is the technology simply off-the-shelf freeware that has been repackaged, or is it something more powerful?

You have recently had patents approved for your technology. Can you explain this in greater detail?  Index Engines has engineered a platform that performs sequential processing of data. We received both US and European patents for this unique approach towards the processing of enterprise data, which makes the data searchable and discoverable across both primary and secondary (backup) storage. Our patented approach enables the indexing of electronic data as it flows to backup, as well as documented high speed indexing of network data at 1TB per hour per node.

About Jim McGann
Jim is Vice President of Information Discovery for Index Engines. Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management. He is currently contributing to the Sedona working group addressing electronic document retention and production. Jim is also a frequent speaker for industry organizations such as ARMA and ILTA, and has authored multiple articles for legal technology and information management publications.  In recent years, Jim has worked for technology based start-ups that provided financial services and information management solutions. Prior to Index Engines, he worked for leading software firms, including Information Builders and the French based engineering software provider Dassault Systemes. Jim was responsible for the Business Development of Scopeware at Mirror Worlds Technologies, the knowledge management software firm founded by Dr. David Gelernter of Yale University. Jim graduated from Villanova University with a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Announcing eDiscovery Thought Leader Q&A Series!
 

eDiscovery Daily is excited to announce a new blog series of Q&A interviews with various eDiscovery thought leaders.  Over the next three weeks, we will publish interviews conducted with six individuals with unique and informative perspectives on various eDiscovery topics.  Mark your calendars for these industry experts!

Christine Musil is Director of Marketing for Informative Graphics Corporation, a viewing, annotation and content management software company based in Arizona.  Christine will be discussing issues associated with native redaction and redaction of Adobe PDF files.  Her interview will be published this Thursday, October 14.

Jim McGann is Vice President of Information Discovery for Index Engines. Jim has extensive experience with the eDiscovery and Information Management.  Jim will be discussing issues associated with tape backup and retrieval.  His interview will be published this Friday, October 15.

Alon Israely is a Senior Advisor in BIA’s Advisory Services group and currently oversees BIA’s product development for its core technology products.  Alon will be discussing best practices associated with “left side of the EDRM model” processes such as preservation and collection.  His interview will be published next Thursday, October 21.

Chris Jurkiewicz is Co-Founder of Venio Systems, which provides Venio FPR™ allowing legal teams to analyze data, provide an early case assessment and a first pass review of any size data set.  Chris will be discussing current trends associated with early case assessment and first pass review tools.  His interview will be published next Friday, October 22.

Kirke Snyder is Owner of Legal Information Consultants, a consulting firm specializing in eDiscovery Process Audits to help organizations lower the risk and cost of e-discovery.  Kirke will be discussing best practices associated with records and information management.  His interview will be published on Monday, October 25.

Brad Jenkins is President and CEO for Trial Solutions, which is an electronic discovery software and services company that assists litigators in the collection, processing and review of electronic information.  Brad will be discussing trends associated with SaaS eDiscovery solutions.  His interview will be published on Tuesday, October 26.

We thank all of our guests for participating!

So, what do you think?  Is there someone you would like to see interviewed for the blog?  Are you an industry expert with some information to share from your “soapbox”?  If so, please share any comments or contact me at daustin@trialsolutions.net.  We’re looking to assemble our next group of interviews now!

eDiscovery Project Management: Preparing a Budget

Tuesday, we talked about putting together a “big picture plan” for your project. And, yesterday, we provided step-by-step instructions for preparing a schedule for a specific task and identifying the resources you’ll need. Now let’s talk about preparing a budget.

Preparing a Budget

Depending on the task, there may be a lot of cost components in your budget. For many projects – for example, a document review project – the biggest cost component will be people. Let’s continue to use the document review task example.

When you prepared your schedule, you determined the number of man-hours required for the core part of the task. Take that number and multiply it by the billing rate of the team doing the work. This will most likely be your biggest cost component. Now let’s add on other costs:

  • In addition to the team doing the work, you’ll need quality control reviewers. If you want to do thorough quality control work, It’s safe to estimate that you’ll need 1 quality control person for every 4 reviewers. Calculate the number of man-hours for quality control and multiply that by the billing rate for the quality control staff.
  • Build in project management and supervisory staff hours. Maybe your quality control team will double as supervisors and all you’ll need to add in are the costs for a full-time project manager.
  • Determine how long training will take, and add in the costs for everybody on the team to attend training.
  • If you’re using a service provider to host your documents and provide an online review tool, add in the costs for that (some service providers charge monthly for storage; others charge monthly for storage and monthly per user).
  • Add in the costs for up-front work like preparing procedures and coordinating efforts with the service provider.
  • Add in costs for processing data and loading into the online review tool.

That may be it. But think through incidental costs you might incur and include them in your budget.

We’ve covered all of the basic components of planning a project, but we’re not done with planning yet. One of the tasks on a large electronic discovery project is yet another planning task: Preparing a plan for gathering data. Next time, I’ll walk you through putting together a data-gathering plan.

So, what do you think? Do you have any questions about the budgeting process? Please share any comments you might have or tell us if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

eDiscovery Project Management: Identifying Resources and Preparing a Schedule

Yesterday, we talked about putting together a “big picture plan” for your electronic discovery project. Now let’s move on to the nitty-gritty and get into resource, schedule, and budget details.

Identifying Resources and Preparing a Schedule

You need to do detailed planning for each task that you listed in your big picture plan. This means calculating a schedule and a budget and determining the resources you will need. For some tasks — like processing data – your needs will be primarily computing resources. In many cases you’ll be looking to a service provider for this work, and they can provide schedule and cost information. For other tasks – like document reviews – your greatest need will be people. This is where schedules and budgets are absolutely critical and need to be done carefully. Tasks that involve a lot of manpower hours are the ones that can get you into the most trouble with meeting deadlines and staying within budgets. Here are some very clear steps for preparing your plan:

  • Determine how many units there are to be processed. For a document review, that would be the number of documents or files that need to be reviewed.
  • Determine how many units can be processed in an hour (if you don’t already have a good feel for this, do some “time and motion” tests or talk to experienced peers).
  • Divide the total number of units by the number of units that can be processed in an hour. Now you have an estimate of the total project hours needed to complete the project.
  • Determine how many available calendar hours you have to do the work (for example, if your project needs to be completed in four weeks, you have 160 calendar hours).
  • Divide the total project hours by the calendar hours to determine the number of people you will need.

Build in some time for project start-up tasks like preparing instructions and training the review team, and build in some time on the end for tasks like final quality control reviews. That’s it. You know how many people you need, and your schedule is done. Tomorrow, we’ll walk through preparing a budget.

So, what do you think? Have any stories to tell regarding resource identification or scheduling difficulties? Please share any comments you might have or tell us if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.