Friday, May 11, 2007
Beware of Going Native
No, going native doesn't mean stripping naked and running down the hall at your law office. ALM printed an article called Discovery Savings: Going Native. I honestly don't think Native will save you all that much time or money. In fact, reviewing in TIFF may be faster and is really the only choice if you're adding redactions and/or other endorsements (your vendor may need a couple of days lead time to start the TIFF conversion process before you start your review, however). How long do you have to wait for a 1,000 page Excel file to download using a native viewer compared to a TIFF rendition that loads quickly, one page at a time? What about corrupt files? Corrupt files can bring a native viewer crashing to its knees, whereas TIFF processing will often provide a placeholder for these types of files indicating that the original file was inaccessible by normal means. You will save significant time in troubleshooting hours alone if TIFF conversion can help separate the wheat from chaff when it comes to the quality of your documents. If you are reviewing in Native to cull your documents, that may be seem wise initially, but if your review tool can't convert that document on the fly to TIFF, that means a stoppage to your workflow so that you can export your work product to a system that does. You may ultimately need a tool that supports TIFF conversion for redactions, endorsements, and bate-stamping or you may want to produce relevant documents in TIFF, per agreements that you and opposing counsel made during pre-trial conference (Rule 34 to the Revised FRCP). Either way, merging your issue codes and document tags to a disparate system just because your original tool didn't support a specific piece of functionality is fraught with inconsistency and risk.
The real question is can you do both? Are you utilizing a tool that will offer the time benefits of reviewing in Native and switching over to TIFF-on-demand when needed? No reputable vendor in this day and age is charging you for non-responsive TIFFs. TIFF-on-demand is the norm, and its best to find a tool that has integrated native review (should you need it).
The real question is can you do both? Are you utilizing a tool that will offer the time benefits of reviewing in Native and switching over to TIFF-on-demand when needed? No reputable vendor in this day and age is charging you for non-responsive TIFFs. TIFF-on-demand is the norm, and its best to find a tool that has integrated native review (should you need it).
Labels: efficiency
¶ 11:08 PM 2 Comments
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
I can review faster using Paper
Smugly, the lead attorney on the matter walks in, adjusts the knot on a tie that costs more than my suit and proclaims, "Just print it out for me. I can review faster on Paper". Translation: you silly kids use that computer thing.
Whoa! Where do we begin to correct this attitude? Well, I say stand your ground and drop a little knowledge. It's probably true that this type of attorney can review faster on paper, but what about the net effect on the review workflow as a whole? When you're working with an automated system and reviewers' issue codes, redactions, and notes are stored in a central database, how do you reflect an attorney's handwritten hardcopy notes back into that system? Someone has to enter everything in on his behalf, right--creating twice the work? If the offending attorney entered it in himself in the first place, wouldn't that be more efficient?
Well, here are the common objections from Mr. Big:
1) "My billing rate is higher than yours, so let's do what's more convenient for me and we'll have you re-enter it at your billing rate (slightly restrained giggle). It will be a net savings for the client because I won't have to waste a lot of time with that confusing software."
2) "With all the more important things I do during the day, I review this material in bed at night. A laptop is too cumbersome, even in a California King-Size. Plus, the laptop screen gets in the way when I want to watch VH-1's 'Flava of Love' on TiVo. Flaaavah Flaaaav! Ahem, but I digress."
These are your rebuttals:
1) Yes, there's a learning curve but please try. The discovery phase should take the next 6 months and the sooner you get the hang of the software, the more savings we can realize in money and time.
2) There isn't really a good comeback for this one, but just explain that working with hardcopy paper is prone to error; illegible handwritiing, misinterpretation during the transcription process, etc. Let's work within the constraints of the system and limit our potential defects.
Write me back and let me know if this works for you guys :)
Whoa! Where do we begin to correct this attitude? Well, I say stand your ground and drop a little knowledge. It's probably true that this type of attorney can review faster on paper, but what about the net effect on the review workflow as a whole? When you're working with an automated system and reviewers' issue codes, redactions, and notes are stored in a central database, how do you reflect an attorney's handwritten hardcopy notes back into that system? Someone has to enter everything in on his behalf, right--creating twice the work? If the offending attorney entered it in himself in the first place, wouldn't that be more efficient?
Well, here are the common objections from Mr. Big:
1) "My billing rate is higher than yours, so let's do what's more convenient for me and we'll have you re-enter it at your billing rate (slightly restrained giggle). It will be a net savings for the client because I won't have to waste a lot of time with that confusing software."
2) "With all the more important things I do during the day, I review this material in bed at night. A laptop is too cumbersome, even in a California King-Size. Plus, the laptop screen gets in the way when I want to watch VH-1's 'Flava of Love' on TiVo. Flaaavah Flaaaav! Ahem, but I digress."
These are your rebuttals:
1) Yes, there's a learning curve but please try. The discovery phase should take the next 6 months and the sooner you get the hang of the software, the more savings we can realize in money and time.
2) There isn't really a good comeback for this one, but just explain that working with hardcopy paper is prone to error; illegible handwritiing, misinterpretation during the transcription process, etc. Let's work within the constraints of the system and limit our potential defects.
Write me back and let me know if this works for you guys :)
Labels: economies of scale, efficiency
¶ 11:39 AM 2 Comments
