Smarter technology. Savvier litigants. Smaller collections.Since 2008, the average number of source gigabytes per project has declined by nearly 50 gigabytes due to more robust tools to select what is collected for ediscovery processing and review.
Source Gigabytes - The number of average GBs
collected prior to filtering and processing.
Produced Gigabytes - The number of average GBs
contained in a production set.
Cutting the clutter.
Ediscovery professionals are continuously getting better at locating and producing what’s really relevant - and nothing more.
As source gigabytes decreased over the past five years, the average number of gigabytes produced per project also dropped nearly 70 GBs from 2008 to 2012.
Are you producing too much?While Pulse trends suggest that the total numbers of GBs collected, processed, reviewed and produced are decreasing, the ratio of pages reviewed to pages produced remains approximately one to four. In other words, most parties produce approximately 25 percent of the pages loaded for review.
Review Pages vs Production Pages - The average number of pages in the review database compared to the average number of pages in the production set.
Custodians Per Project - The average number of custodians in a review database.
Less is truly more.Less than half of the custodians collected per project in 2008 were collected in 2012. This number is going down as robust tools filter non-responsive data and non-essential individuals are excluded faster and more efficiently - ultimately sparing significant time and expense in ediscovery.
It's all about email.These days, about 65 percent of the data processed is email - up from approximately 50 percent in 2008. If the last four years are an indicator, expect this percentage to keep going up as collections continue to be composed of primarily email.
Data Type - The average percentages of email
and documents processed, before filtering.
Number of Reviewers Per Project - The average number of reviewers on a single ediscovery document review.
Better technology equals fewer reviewers on every project.
There is simply no escaping the old adage that time is money when it comes to ediscovery — especially when it comes to document review.
The empowering impact of modern filtering and review technologies, like predictive coding, is likely a significant driving force behind this trend.
What is ediscovery.com Pulse Benchmarks?The ediscovery Pulse Benchmarks is a set of real-time and trended data providing metrics that show key trends and changes in the discovery market to help practitioners plan and execute their ediscovery projects.
What is the purpose of the Pulse Benchmarks?Pulse Benchmarks have never before been generally available in this industry. These metrics may be used for comparison, forecasting or whatever else you need to plan or evaluate performance across the Electronic Discovery Reference Model.
How is Pulse Benchmarks created?
Pulse Benchmarks is an aggregation and normalization of data from thousands of matters Kroll Ontrack has handled over a five-year span. Given Kroll Ontrack's unique position in the market - handling more matters of all sizes than any other provider - Pulse Benchmarks metrics can be used for broad comparison and benchmarking in ediscovery cases.
The insights provided by the Pulse do not come at the expense of divulging
client-specific data. At no point will the Pulse reveal a particular matter or client associated with Kroll Ontrack.
What are some examples of Pulse Benchmarks?
Some types of metrics contained in the Pulse Benchmarks include:
- The average number of custodians per ediscovery project
- Data format source
- Average collection versus production volumes
- And more!
New metrics will be released periodically by Kroll Ontrack. The best way to stay up to speed when new metrics are released is to follow the Kroll Ontrack blog, where new metrics will be announced.