StoredIQ Reinvents Itself in a Big Data Way

Labels: Big Data, eDiscovery, Information Governance

posted by Charles Skamser @ 4:54 PM 0 Comments

Five Initial Steps to Meet the Governance, Risk and Compliance Obligations Brought on by Today's Big Data File Stores

The accelerating increase in the amount of unstructured Electronically Stored Information (ESI) is leaving IT organizations struggling with how to store and manage all of this new information. Aside from just providing the underlying storage infrastructure to host this amount of data, companies are also faced with the task of properly managing their Big Data file stores to meet existing governance, risk and compliance obligations. To do so, there are five steps they can take now to position their organization to meet them.

Labels: Big Data, Compliance, eDiscovery, FISMA, FRCP, Governance, GRC, HIPPA, Information Governance, Legal, Litigation, Risk, Sarbanes-Oxley

posted by Charles Skamser @ 10:50 AM 0 Comments

Amazon is Overlooking the Fiancial Value of eDiscovery

On April 4, 2012, Dick Harris posted a really interested article on Gigacom.com titled "How the cloud could boost Amazon’s slow-moving margins".  Mr. Harris quoted an analyst from Morgan Stanley who indicated that Amazon’s cloud computing division could be a shining star (even if not too bright) on the company’s long road toward increased profit margins. However, while their forecast isn’t glowing, it also doesn’t account for the evolution of Amazon’s cloud business from pure infrastructure-as-a-service into higher-level (and higher-margin) services.  He went on to state that in the new research report published Monday morning, analysts Scott Devitt, Andrew Ruud and Nishant Verma come to a possibly disconcerting conclusion for any investors banking on Amazon for short-term returns. The report’s gist: “After analyzing Amazon.com’s cost structure in detail and by segment, we conclude that there are far more variable costs than investors believe, leading to an overly optimistic timeline for margin expansion.” But Amazon Web Services is an opportunity Amazon might be able to exploit.

The report estimates that AWS was responsible for $1.19 billion in revenue in 2011 (I predicted in October the business was on a billion-dollar run rate), of which $108 million (or about 9 percent) was sheer profit. It’s able to maintain this margin while constantly dropping prices on its cloud services, the report contends, because AWS uses a cost-plus pricing model. That is, it just adds a premium (about 10 percent) on top of the cost of delivering those services, which continue to drop as Amazon leverages its economies of scale to buy and operate more gear and bandwidth at lower prices.

I found all of this to be very encouraging for Amazon stockholders and the cloud computing industry. However, what really caught my eye was Mr. Harris's contention that AWS margins actually could start rising as the company expands its services beyond sheer infrastructure and into managed services.  He indicated that Its NoSQL DynamoDB database service, for example, is a service for which Amazon adds value (and cost) beyond just the delivery of cloud-based infrastructure, and there are lingering rumors of a big data analytics service that will provide higher-level services than AWS’s existing Elastic MapReduce offering. 

For those of you who read my Blog, I have been contending for that past 6 months that Cloud Service Providers (CSPs) such as Amazaon are missing a very key competitive advantage by not offering eDiscovery and Information Governance as a part of an expanded Platform-as-a-Service.  Please see The Perfect Storm: eDiscovery and Cloud Service Providers, Cloud Computing Architecture and eDiscovery, eDiscovery Will Follow the Cloud Computing Boom and Navigating eDiscovery in the Cloud Shouldn't Be That Difficult.

Based on my research that there is a latent demand for eDiscovery and Information Governance in the Cloud, I conducted a research study asking both CSPs and their clients what they thought about how CSPs were currently supporting eDiscovery and Information Governance in the Cloud.   The results were very disappointing as most of the CSPs had not idea what eDiscovery was, the legal requirements nor the vlaue that it would bring to their client bases. You can read the results of this survey at: Results of the 2012 eDSG Investigation of Cloud Service Providers and eDiscovery.

With all of this history of trying to blaze new trails within the Cloud Service Provider market for eDiscovery and Information Governance, I am very encouraged by Mr. Harris's article and optimistic that at Amazon may be headed toward offering additional services to their clients such as analytics, eDiscovery and Information Governance.  It may in fact be the key for Amazon to increasing the $1.19 Billion in revenue that AWS posted for 2011 to a much higher level than could have ever been imagined with just IaaS or even standard PaaS services.  And, if Amazon doesn't get it or doesn't want to make a move on eDiscovery, I predict that one of the other CSPs will.

The full text of the Gigacom article by Dick Harris is as follows:

According to analysts at Morgan Stanley, Amazon’s cloud computing division could be a shining star (even if not too bright) on the company’s long road toward increased profit margins. However, while their forecast isn’t glowing, it also doesn’t account for the evolution of Amazon’s cloud business from pure infrastructure-as-a-service into higher-level (and higher-margin) services.

In the new research report published Monday morning, analysts Scott Devitt, Andrew Ruud and Nishant Verma come to a possibly disconcerting conclusion for any investors banking on Amazon for short-term returns. The report’s gist: “After analyzing Amazon.com’s cost structure in detail and by segment, we conclude that there are far more variable costs than investors believe, leading to an overly optimistic timeline for margin expansion.” But Amazon Web Services is an opportunity Amazon might be able to exploit.
The report estimates that AWS was responsible for $1.19 billion in revenue in 2011 (I predicted in October the business was on a billion-dollar run rate), of which $108 million (or about 9 percent) was sheer profit. It’s able to maintain this margin while constantly dropping prices on its cloud services, the report contends, because AWS uses a cost-plus pricing model. That is, it just adds a premium (about 10 percent) on top of the cost of delivering those services, which continue to drop as Amazon leverages its economies of scale to buy and operate more gear and bandwidth at lower prices.

Although AWS margins remain flat, the report notes that AWS also comprises a significant portion of Amazon’s overall technology spending, so being able to drive steady, predictable profit from it is a good thing. Non-AWS technology spending, the authors estimate, is about 4 percent of net sales — “represent[ing] the largest opportunity for operating margin expansion in the near-term.” Keeping those cost down means a greater percentage of revenue goes toward profit.

However, the Morgan Stanley report doesn’t address the possibility that AWS margins actually could start rising as the company expands its services beyond sheer infrastructure and into managed services. Its NoSQL DynamoDB database service, for example, is a service for which Amazon adds value (and cost) beyond just the delivery of cloud-based infrastructure, and there are lingering rumors of a big data analytics service that will provide higher-level services than AWS’s existing Elastic MapReduce offering.
We shouldn’t overlook the possibility of AWS expanding its licensing activities, either. As it becomes more entrenched as the de facto cloud computing platforms for many companies, providers of other services and software are keen to get on board. Already, private-cloud pioneer startup Eucalyptus has licensed the AWS API, and Citrix wants to do the same for its CloudStack software. If it’s feeling greedy, Amazon could look to capitalize even further by charging others to integrate directly with its business.
Or it could just give that cost-plus dial about a quarter turn.

Labels: Amazon, AWS, Cloud Computing, Cloud Service Providers, CSPs, eDiscovery, Information Governance, Litigation

posted by Charles Skamser @ 3:35 PM 0 Comments

eDiscovery Will Follow the Cloud Computing Boom

The National Inflation Association (NIA) reported this week that  after years of rumors about cloud computing going mainstream around the world, the cloud computing boom is now finally here. They predict that by the year 2013, cloud computing could become a bigger boom on Wall Street than the dot-com boom was in the year 2000. Cloud computing is currently a $74 billion industry that accounts for 3% of global IT spending, but in 2013 cloud computing is expected to become a $150 billion market.

The NAI further stated that 2012 will be remembered as the year in which cloud computing started to become widely adopted worldwide. Cloud computing is expected to create 14 million new jobs globally by year 2015. In the consumer space, Gartner is predicting that cloud services will be on 90% of personal consumer devices by year 2015 so that consumers can store, connect, stream, and synchronize content across multiple platforms at different locations.

Industry analyst are heralding the explosion in the Cloud computing market as great news for the Cloud Service Providers (CSP).  According to a forecast from independent technology analyst firm Ovum, the global public cloud services market will more than triple in size over the next five years to reach revenue of $66 billion in 2016 and the market will see a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 29.4 percent from the $18 billion it reached at the end of 2011.  Ovum goes on to report that in terms of the cloud computing service lines, Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) will shrink from 87 percent of the market in 2011 to 62 percent in 2016 due to the rise of infrastructure as a service (IaaS) and platform as a service (PaaS), which will grow from 9 percent and 5 percent, respectively, to 23 percent and 16 percent by the end of the forecast period.

And, there are numerous other studies by most of the major international industry analysts that predict a dramatic increase in the size of just about everything having to do with Cloud computing.

However, it is my impression that the inevitable and potentially dramatic increase in the demand for eDiscovery and Information Governance due to this explosion of the Cloud computing market, is flying under the radar of most analysts.  eDiscovery and Information Governance professionals know full well that there is a linear and possibly an expontial relationship between the volume of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) and the demands and cost of identification, collection, analysis, processing and production of that ESI.

In 2011, Gartner predicted that the eDiscovery market would reach $1.5 Billion in revenue by 2013.  And, depending upon which analyst you follow (and believe), the size of the Information Governance market is anywhere from 2X to 10X the size of the eDiscovery market.  I believe that all of these forecasts are extremely low.

Further, a recent study by eDSG on "How Cloud Service Providers Support eDiscovery and Information Governance" as reported on this blog on March 7, 2012, indicated that 95% of  the Cloud Service Providers and 98% of the general counsel from the global 2000 (based on participation in the survey) did not have a plan for responding to eDiscovery and Information Governance requests for ESI residing in CSP facilities.

In summary, my prediction is that the explosion in the size of the Cloud computing market as reported by the National Inflation Association is really good news for any of the technology and service providers, along with their investors, that are planning to support eDiscovery and Information Governance in the Cloud.  As the name of this blog implies, the eDiscovery paradigm shift is underway and the demand of Cloud computing is only going to make that shift and the associated size of the market even bigger.

The full text of the press release by the National Inflation Association: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cloud-computing-is-new-wall-street-boom-says-nia-2012-03-20

Labels: Cloud, Cloud Computing, Cloud Service Providers, CSP, Early Case Assessment, eDiscovery, Information Governance, Law, Legal, Legal Technology, Litigation

posted by Charles Skamser @ 8:33 AM 0 Comments

Navigating into the New World of Information Governance

Over the past six (6) months I have spend many hours talking to CEOs, the General Counsel and CIOs of some the largest companies in the world about information governance and eDiscovery. And, the common theme has been that there is a tremendous amount of confusion in regards to where the market is headed and which technologies and outside consulting services they should be using.  And, probably the most urgent question is how much is all of this going to cost and what will the impact be on my business and career.

The volume of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) is increasing at an accelerating rate, the migration to the cloud is a fait accompli, electronic communication platforms (i.e. social media) are mutating quicker than most of us can keep up and now email is no longer the number one target for eDiscovery searches (Source: Email slips as ediscovery target says Symantec).   There is no doubt that the IT world and therefore the information governance and eDiscovery world are in the middle of a paradigm shift.  As such, the Global 2000 need to quickly figure out how to survive in this new world or parish.

As Geoffrey Moore states in Escape Velocity: Free Your Company's Future from the Pull of the Past, "enterprises.. need to overcome the pull of the past and reorient their organizations to meet a new era of competition."  In other words and in the context of information governance and eDiscovery, litigation and compliance aren't about copying, scanning and reviewing paper documents anymore and its time for BIG changes.

This Blog post is the first in a series of Blog posts that I am working on to provide some insight and guidance to the Global 2000 and by association to the vendors that serve the Global 2000 in regards to how to succeed through this paradigm shift.

eDiscovery is a Subset of Information Governance
The processes, procedures and technologies that are required to support eDiscovery are the same basic set of "tools" that are required to support the much larger and broader demands of information governance.  Therefore, I contend that the Global 2000 should consider designing, implementing and maintaining a single comprehensive information discovery platform that supports both information governance and eDiscovery.  After all, its really all about federated data / big data consolidation, search and analytics. Please note that I plan to dedicate an entire Blog Post to this topic later this year.

It's Strategic
Global 2000 stakeholders can no longer afford to view information governance and eDiscovery from a tactical standpoint and only prioritize it when there is a pending law suite or compliance issue.  Information Governance and eDiscovery need to be considered strategic business imperatives within the boardrooms of the Global 2000.

Its in the Cloud
If the board of directors and senior management from any Global 2000 organization don't know about the cloud or think that cloud is just some passing fade, they need to replaced or retire.  Cloud computing and all of its associated technologies and capabilities (i.e. mobile computing and social media) are the most significant changes in IT that has happened since the introduction of the PC.  And, to drive the point home even further, according to Forrester Research, the global cloud market is set to explode in the next 10 years, growing from $40.7bn in 2011 to more than $241bn in 2020.  Further, the resulting impact on the way that we now MUST and can conduct business is enormous. Please note that I plan to dedicate an entire Blog Post to this topic later this year.

Information Governance and eDiscovery in the Cloud
As a logical extension of the fact that IT has moved to the cloud, the board of directors and senior management from Global 2000 organizations need to also realize that information governance and eDiscovery also need to move to the cloud.  The same basic processes and technologies that are required to support eDiscovery fulfill the basic requirements of information governance.  Its really all about consolidating ESI/ federated data/big data, search and analytics anyway.  Whether its for information governance or eDiscovery shouldn't matter at the core.  Please note that I plan to dedicate an entire Blog Post to this topic later this year.

Who to Trust
As indicated int he opening paragraph of this Blog post, these dramatic changes have a tremendous amount of confusion among Global 2000 stakeholders in regards to where the market is headed and which technologies and outside consulting services they should be using.   This is always a BIG question during a paradigm shift.  And, it is even a bigger question during this paradigm shift because the stakes are so high.

However, the answer is complicated.  First of all, it is highly likely that only a small percentage of your stable of legacy trusted advisors will be of any use in this new paradigm.  When markets change, there is a natural turnover of experts and consultants.  And, it is even more likely that an even smaller percentage of your current technology providers will have solutions that work in this new paradigm. As is the case with the natural turnover with consultants, BIG changes in markets also cause big changes in the fabric of the technology vendor communities that service those markets.  As an example, we have already seen Symantec acquire ClearWell (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/19/us-symantec-idUSTRE74I7D020110519) and HP acquire Autonomy (http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/08/18/hp-autonomy-idINN1E77H1QO20110818).  And, believe me, this is just the beginning of the consolidation and restructuring of the players that service this market.

So, my advice is to move slowly, listen, read, investigate and don't be afraid to make a change.  After all, the future success of your business and  your career may depend upon the decisions that you make over the next 6-12 months regarding who you partner with to navigate through this brave new world.

Labels: Cloud, Early Case Assessment, eDiscvoery, Information Governance

posted by Charles Skamser @ 9:45 AM 0 Comments

Cloud Computing is Maturing

With the dog days of summer 2011 upon us and the US debt ceiling negotiations in Washington DC seeming to be going nowhere, it is refreshing to be able to report that cloud computing is having a really great 2011 so far:

- The big IT providers are making progress building up their Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) offerings.

- Our favorite players such as Apple and Microsoft are beginning to make their moves with offerings such as iCloud and Azure.

- The whole concept of multi-tenancy and virtualization is beginning to become part of the mainstream discussion (i.e. 18 months ago only us techies even knew what those terms meant).

- Although there were some security bumps early this year with Amazon and Sony, the market seems to be getting comfortable with the notion of a public cloud.

- The Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) providers are beginning to close some big deals and therefore the previously radical idea of running a global 2000 enterprise in the cloud is no longer a “wild” idea.

- Global 2000 CFOs are ecstatic with the new economic realities of  cloud computing.

- Global 2000 CEOs are beginning to understand the strategic business benefits of cloud computing.

- The idea of Information Governance and eDiscovery in the cloud is beginning to take shape as some of the big IT providers are realizing that these components need to be a standard part of any IaaS/PaaS offering.

- Consolidation is enabling the market to begin to cull itself down to a more manageable number of players with the financial legs to provide the stability that the market is demanding.

So, the cloud computing market is maturing pretty much on schedule.  As such, the next five (5) years should be very exciting.  And,  as is the case with any new markets, there will be some big bumps along the way and maybe even some really unexpected turns.  However, under any circumstances, it will be fun to be able participate and watch.

In a blog posting by James Staten on the Forrester website on July 12, 2011 titled, “The Cloud Computing Market Grows Up”, Mr. Staten does an excellent  job listing the industry highlights and indicating that cloud computing is indeed growing up very nicely.

The full text of Mr. Staten’s Blog Posting is as follows:

Mark this date. While it isn't an anniversary of anything significant in the past, it is a day where our beloved cloud computing market showed significant signs of maturing. Major announcements by VMware, Citrix, and Microsoft all signaled significant progress in making cloud platforms (infrastructure-as-a-service [IaaS] and platform-as-a-service [PaaS]) more enterprise ready and consumable by I&O professionals.

* VMware updates its cloud stack. The server virtualization leader announced version 5 of its venerable hypervisor and version 1.5 of vCloud Director, its IaaS platform atop vSphere. Key enhancements to vCloud include more hardening of its security and resource allocation policy capabilities that address secure multitenancy concerns and elimination of the "noisy neighbor" problem, respectively. It also doubled the total capacity of VMs service providers can put in a single cloud to 20,000. VMware also resurrected a key feature from its now defunct Lab Manager — linked clones. This key capability for driving operational efficiency lets you deploy new VMs from the image library and the system will maintain the relationship between the golden image and the deployed VM. This does two things; it minimizes the storage footprint of the VM, much as similar technology does in virtual desktops, and second it uses the link to ensure clones maintain the patch level and integrity of the golden master. This alone is reason enough to consider vCloud Director.

To help both virtualization and cloud environments, VMware also made a significant change to its licensing model, moving away from CPU core entitlements (VMware will still count processor sockets, though) to pooled vRAM entitlements. This change ties licensing more to the use of the product and encourages greater VM consolidation as it counts VMs by size, rather than per physical server. This incents packing lots of VMs on a single system and even lets you share vRAM entitlements across physical systems to accommodate more seamless growth of your environment and management of the pool, a key operational change called out in our Virtualization Maturity Model. Basically, now you can entitle your virtual environment in total, based on its capacity, and fill it up as much as you want. This is much more consistent with their service provider pricing model; and if your goal is to build a private cloud, isn't that the point?

All in all, this shows that VMware gets it and is taking an active role in helping educate its customers that virtualization and cloud operations are two different things and making these distinctions clear is critical to their and your success. Well done, VMware.

* Citrix's acquisition of its OpenStack doppelganger, Cloud.com comes just months after Citrix announced its intention to commercialize an OpenStack solution for enterprises and service providers. Now they can stop that work. Cloud.com has successfully penetrated the service provider market with its OpenStack-based solution and racked up some solid wins in the enterprise to boot. This buy accelerates Citrix' IaaS efforts and gives solid financial backing to CloudStack. Sadly, though, it also reduces the number of commercial distributions of OpenStack by one.

Enterprise I&O pros should note that CloudStack is hypervisor agnostic, so this isn't a Xen-only play. And the synergies between CloudStack and the rest of its application and desktop virtualization portfolio aren't lost on the company or its service provider partners and prospects. Look to see more combined solutions that help you vend apps and desktops from a cloud in the future.

* Microsoft, here at its Worldwide Partner Conference in Los Angeles, stepped up its cloud game as well by showing the beta of System Center 2012, which adds a self-service portal for using Hyper-V as a private cloud platform and better orchestration for workload deployment. It also demonstrated new public cloud services from Boeing and General Mills plus a commissioned report by Forrester attesting to the differentiated economics of cloud platforms, something I talk about with CIOs in a report published this past spring.

For ISVs, Microsoft also announced commercial opportunities on Windows Azure for its massive software partner ecosystem. The Azure Marketplace can now vend commercial applications, meaning that any software application built for Windows (using the VMrole) or through Visual Studio (using the worker role) theoretically can be offered through Windows Azure as well.

Together, these announcements are strong milestones to the continuing progress and solid traction cloud platforms are having with the market. While the private cloud market is still very, very young, moves like these put it on more solid footing and should lead to expanded options for I&O professionals.

Labels: CEO, CFO, Cloud Computing, Compliance, eDiscovery, ESI, Forrester, Fujitsu, IBM, Information Governance

posted by Charles Skamser @ 3:50 PM 0 Comments

Update on the EDRM XML Standard

As an enterprise software technologist with over 25 year of experience struggling with integrating disparate data sources, proprietary applications and enabling new solutions to access legacy platforms, I have a deep appreciation for standards in the pursuit of interoperability.

Given all of this, I recently came across a tremendous Blog posting titled "Does the emperor have any clothes on? Thoughts on EDRM" by Rob Robinson on his Information Governance Blog that issues some very valuable questions in regards to the new XML standards as set forth by the EDRM.

In response, I agree that George Socha and Tom Gelbmann, founders of the EDRM, have done a superb job in creating both the EDRM and the resulting XML standard. However, I am not sure that I agree that this new standard "has no clothes" and is nothing more that a marketing ploy. First of all, I spend most of my waking hours talking to litigators at law firms and the legal departments of Fortune 1000 enterprise I have still haven't had anyone ask about this standard. So, if it was designed as a marketing ploy, and I don't beleive that it was, it is working.

As with any new industry standard, there is definitely room for improvement, maturation and evolution based on additional input and response from the market. And, without a doubt, Mr. Robinson's considerations are a good start on a list of potential improvements.

Following is the complete Blog posting:

One of the most prominent topics today in electronic discovery - from both a news and views standpoint - is the EDRM (Electronic Discovery Reference Model ) and its XML2 (Extensible Markup Language) project. As a technology marketer by trade, I find that the Electronic Discovery Reference Model provides a great way in which to "break down" electronic discovery into components that can easily be described, compared, and considered. In my opinion, George Socha and Tom Gelbmann, founders of the EDRM, have done a superb job in creating a "lingua franca" for discussing electronic discovery. However, a question still exists in the minds of many about the true long term viability of the current EDRM approach to its XML standard. While the importance of the standard is championed by marketers across the electronic discovery landscape, does it really provide any advantage beyond the marketing hype for consumers of electronic-discovery-related legal technology?

Per the EDRM website, the goal of the EDRM XML2 project is to provide a standard, generally accepted XML schema to facilitate the movement of electronically stored information (ESI) from one step of the electronic discovery process to the next, from one software program to the next, and from one organization to the next. The ESI includes both underlying discovery materials (e.g., email messages and attachments, loose files, and databases) and information about those materials (e.g., the source of the underlying ESI, processing of that ESI, and production of that ESI). While I truly believe in the benefits of technology standards to enhance and ensure interoperability of products and services, I think that the current EDRM approach to XML interoperability is one that may leave a lot to be desired in the area of objective accountability. It is in this area of objective accountability that I might suggest we take a deeper look at the current EDRM XML approach and determine if the "emperor (EDRM XML standard) has any clothes on." This consideration of the "emperors clothes" is in no way, shape, or form "people-centric" in focus, as I believe that EDRM leaders and participants have the industries best interest at heart. However, the consideration is "approach-centric" in focus and hopefully presents some questions, oft-spoken in private yet never spoken in public, about the EDRM XML project.

Consideration #1: Is the EDRM XML standard coordinated with other industry standards bodies in the technology arena?
The desire for legal XML standardization is certainly a need recognized by legal professionals beyond the EDRM organization. In fact one of the leading standardization bodies, OASIS* (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards) has a specific group (LegalXML) focused specifically on legal electronic change of information. Yes, that group may not currently have a specific technical group for electronic discovery related information exchange, but one question I might submit is that if there is a structure in place for the development and evaluation of standards, and if that group already has legal focused technical committees, why would a group set out to develop a standard autonomously from that group? Is there a technical reason why one would not at least coordinate efforts with such a group? Or, is there an accountability reason that one might not coordinate with such a group?

Additionally, if the focus is on true interoperability, one organization that has a great model for standardization is SNIA** (Storage Networking Industry Association). SNIA standards are primarily related to data, storage, and information management and address such challenges as interoperability, usability, and complexity. Considering that law firms, corporations, and governmental agencies have a high propensity to use equipment from SNIA member organizations, might it not make sense to coordinate with SNIA to where the EDRM XML standard might fit in the data, storage, and information management area? Is there a technical reason why one would not at least coordinate efforts with SNIA? Or, is there an accountability reason that one might not coordinate with SNIA?

Based on my current understanding of EDRM coordination activities, it appears that a majority of standards considerations have been more introspective (focused on EDRM participating vendors), than extrospective. With this introspection in mind, I might suggest the emperor (EDRM XML standard) is not as fully clothed as he may like others to believe.

Consideration #2: Does the EDRM XML standard represent the true needs of legal technology professionals in the field of eDiscovery?
No doubt the working organizations and members of the current EDRM XML2 project represent a great many of the thought leaders in the electronic discovery vendor arena. However, in developing a standard ultimately designed to help consumers of electronic discovery technology, I would ask how many of the top law firms, corporations, and governmental agencies have even reviewed the standard to ensure it meets it needs? Interoperability between participating vendor legal products and services is great when one is championing the ease of use and integration of products/services with other products/services, but if the interoperability is based on the transfer of standard information between applications/devices, does it not make sense that the information is fully vetted with a representative body of the actual consumers before establishing a standard and beginning to announce vendor compliance with such a standard. Is there a technical reason why one would not at least seek to survey top law firms, corporations, and governmental agencies on what they believe the standard should contain? Or, is there an accountability reason why one would not seek to survey top law firms, corporations, and governmental agencies on what they believe the standard should contain?

Based on my current understanding, it appears that the EDRM XML standard has not truly been vetted with potential end user consumers. With this lack of "vetting" in mind, I might suggest the emperor (EDRM XML standard) is not as fully clothed as he may like others to believe. (One argument that could be made is that end users are not interested in spending the time to understand the standard and pronounce their needs concerning the standard. While I agree this is a solid argument, it also begs the question of who is ultimately driving the standardization? (Client needs or Vendor/Group desire?)

Consideration #3: Is there true interoperability testing prior to certifying a product/service as EDRM XML compliant?
With respect to software, the term interoperability is used to describe the capability of different programs to exchange data via a common set of exchange formats, to read and write the same file formats, and to use the same protocols. From a legal technology perspective, is it wise to pronounce a product or service "interoperable" when in fact those services may have never been tested with actual "other vendor" products/services? Said in a different way, does interoperability assume that if Widget A works with Product A and Widget A works with Product B, that Product A and Product B work together? When one considers the extensive interoperability approach of organizations such as the SNIA Interoperability Committee and Microsoft (Windows Hardware Qualification Lab***), I might suggest the emperor (EDRM XML standard) is again not as fully clothed as he may like others to believe.

Consideration #4: Can the EDRM organization be truly objective in evaluating its work and work product?
When you consider that standards organizations such as OASIS and SNIA are non-profit organizations that have elected leaders, it is understandable why they are considered objective in presenting their work and work product. Does that mean that because EDRM is not a non-profit organization and does not have elected leadership that it is not objective? Certainly not - however, I might suggest to you that for industry-wide acceptance of standards and work from standards bodies, it is very important to ensure an organization is viewed as one that is structured for objectivity. Is the EDRM structured in a manner today to portray objectivity? While that is certainly a subjective question, I might suggest that currently EDRM does not appear to be fully objective based on both the fact it does not have elected leadership and the fact that the founders have dual relationships with many of the EDRM participants (as they are very well known and well respected consultants in the electronic discovery space). Can an organization like this be truly objective? Based on my view, I would say that perception is reality to a marketer and no matter how objective and noble the organization may be - it does need to come across as objective to be viewed as "an emperor with clothes". Again, as I mentioned earlier, this view is based on the current approach of the EDRM toward the XML standard, not the people involved.

Does the emperor have any clothes on?
With these four aforementioned considerations in mind, I might suggest that in its current form today, the EDRM XML2 project and its XML standard will not gain wide spread acceptance beyond those organizations that participate purely based on the marketing benefit of participating. I might also suggest that there may become a point when, based on acceptance without critique by analysts/media/users, the standard becomes a check box in Requests For Proposals and thus might hurt those organizations with excellent products/services that are not compliant with the EDRM XML standard.

Personally, I do believe in the value of an XML standard for the electronic exchange of information among electronic discovery vendors. However, in seeking this standard I would certainly recommend seeking it through the framework of discussion with those who have been down the standardization path before (OASIS/SNIA) and leverage as many of their resources as possible so as not to have to "reinvent" practices/processes. Also, I would recommend seeking to ensure the standard represents what the end user/consumer requirements are as stated by the end user/consumer. Asking vendors for their thoughts is important - but certainly not as important as asking the end user/consumer. Finally, I would also recommend that the standards are prepared, presented, and evaluated by an organization structured for objectivity. Objective accountability seems to be a common denominator for the success of standards and standards organizations. If past performance is an indicator of future performance, it would make sense for the EDRM to organize to create not only the perception of objectivity, but a structure that lends itself to objectivity.

Does the emperor (EDRM XML standard) have any clothes on? While there may be areas in which I have overlooked and/or am misinformed, if asked today if the emperor had any clothes on, I would have to confess that I don't see any. What do you think?

Labels: EDRM. XML, Information Governance

posted by Charles Skamser @ 7:19 PM 0 Comments