Introduction
Ediscovery reviews are an important part of the legal process for both small and large firms alike. Unfortunately, these reviews can easily be marred by inefficient workflows and procedures, resulting in both time- and money-wasting reviews. By addressing the ongoing issue of muda (無駄), both type 1 and type 2, attorneys can help banish bad ediscovery reviews and efficiently use their time and finances for success.
Banishing Bad eDiscovery Reviews
Muda (無駄) or waste in the ediscovery review process, needs to be addressed and eradicated. Both type 1 and type 2 muda are present, and by tackling the deeper issues of these wastes reviews can be made smoother, faster and more cost-efficient. Muda Type 1 includes non-value-added activities in the processes that are necessary for the end customer. By implementing and adhering to quality control and inspection procedures, attorneys can swiftly identify opportunities for better organizing their process and eliminating excess activities. Muda Type 2 includes non-value added activities in the processes, but these activities are unnecessary for the customer. There are seven categories of waste that should be eliminated, including Transport, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Overproduction, Over-processing and Defects. Taking into account the aforementioned muda and ensuring that the process is designed around value-adding activities, attorneys can eliminate wasted resources and increase productivity.
Killing the Clock: Time-Wasting Reviews
If attorneys are aware of activities that add no value to the end user and do not take any steps to eliminate them, these activities tend to become so interconnected with the rest of the workflow that they can slow down the review process to a large extent. Eradicating non-value-adding activities, such as superfluous data searching and clerical activities, can help attorneys save time and reduce delays. Inadequate staffing can also play a role in time-wasting reviews. Ensuring that enough personnel are available to review documents at a reasonable pace will help to expedite the process in a very direct way. Further, employing top talent to review documents is also key; experienced professionals who can accurately assess and review data will make fast and efficient work of the process.
Show Me the Money: Money-Wasting Reviews
It stands to reason that if ediscovery reviews are inefficient, this will cost money. This is especially true if lawyers choose too many resources for the task, prolonging the review process without any gains. It is essential for attorneys to eliminate resources that are not only unproductive but are actively taking up time and money from the whole process. Technology-assisted review (TAR) can also be a major money-saver. This machine-learning tool can quickly assess documents, freeing up lawyers to focus their efforts on complex legal tasks and questions. Selecting the right TAR software is important, as the wrong software can not only backfire, but it is also a money sink. After selecting the right tool, attorneys need to ensure that they are taking full advantage of its features.
Conclusion
In conclusion, attorneys need to be aware of the time- and money-wasting reviews associated with ediscovery. By addressing muda type 1 and type 2, attorneys can ensure that their reviews are value-added and efficient. Cutting out non-essential activities and leveraging technologies like TAR can help to reduce time and monetary costs associated with the review process, making for smoother and more successful reviews.
