Stephen E. Arnold: Enterprise Search Fails to Meet Legal Standards

IO Impotency
Stephen E. Arnold
Stephen E. Arnold

Information Governance Standards Group Suggests Caution in Approaching eDiscovery

The records management group ARMA International weighs in about search with an article in their Information Management magazine: “Enterprise Search vs E-Discovery Search: Same or Different?” The short answer, not surprisingly, is “different.” Writer Kamal Shah explains:

“To date, most enterprises have used the same search technologies for both tasks. However, a recent trend among large and small enterprises suggests that a significant divergence is occurring between enterprise searches and e-discovery searches. Both start by entering a search term in a search box, but that’s where the similarities end. The business requirements are different and, as a result, each needs different capabilities.”

The article goes on to elaborate on the reasons traditional enterprise search is not sufficient for most eDiscovery needs.

For example, while a regular enterprise user may be looking for the top five or 10 documents that relate to a search term, a firm performing an eDiscovery search in response to litigation must turn up all relevant documents (while minimizing irrelevant clutter.) Users of eDiscovery must also be prepared to prove in court that they followed best practices in assembling their data. Shah summarizes:

“Conducting e-discovery for litigation or an investigation using enterprise search technology is a risky gamble that can result in negative outcomes in court, penalties, and excessive litigation costs.”

See the article for more details, but the upshot is clear: eDiscovery is an environment where it is becoming increasingly crucial to use the right tool for the data-digging job.

Cynthia Murrell, November 14, 2014

Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, developer of Augmentext

Phi Beta Iota: This is more significant than most may realize. To date enterprise search has never been held accountable for failing to index more than 0.045 of the electronically visible information, for manipulating search resutls, and for failing to properly sort what little it does discover — the Google tri-fecta of failure. Now that legal standards are being applied, the failure is tangible, documented, and likely to demonstrate on an ongoing basis the utter incapacity of all online search offerings.