Cadillac or Chevy—Picking the right information governance program
Dont succumb to fear mongering
April 09, 2012 at 07:13 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This article is the part four of a seven part series on successful information governance projects.
E-discovery hardware and software vendors often trade in fear. Unless your company has the best possible third party/automated/expanded/enterprisewide e-discovery/records/legal hold/review product/hosted solution, these vendors claim, your company is certain to face sanctions or even outright doom in your next litigation. To avert apocalypse, vendors push what I call “Cadillac-level” information governance, encouraging companies to buy complex products with lots of bells and whistles.
One of my clients is a large, multinational company with more than 120 attorneys on staff and a very high litigation profile. Another client is a small, 400-person manufacturing company with one attorney on staff, and is seldom involved in litigation. Their investment in information governance varies in both quality and quantity, and yet each program is optimally sized for its respective organization. In other words, there is no “one size fits all” for information governance.
Some companies do need a Cadillac-level program. Organizations with far-flung, world-wide operations, high litigation profiles and complex regulatory requirements can benefit from successfully deployed complex technology. We have found, however, most companies don't need this Cadillac approach, and would benefit from a “Chevy-level” information governance program instead.
Some key questions companies should ask themselves when designing their information governance program:
What is your litigation and regulatory profile? Do you have enough litigation to justify this level of investment? Do you face significant record retention regulatory requirements? Many organizations typically don't have enough ongoing litigation to justify the investment for a complex solution. Vendors often will present examples of companies that faced “bet the farm” litigation that could have used a complex solution, but I find these examples are often outliers and are not typical for most organizations.
How well can you fund process development around complex technologies? Vendors touting high-end products like to make their wares appear simple and easy to use. In reality, the more complex the software or hardware solution, the more complex the internal process required to support product deployment and ongoing management. This process development can be two to three times the cost of the technology investment. Don't be fooled by slick demos showing easy-to-use products. Complex product deployments take a lot of work.
Can you go the distance? Complex programs take time and people to deploy and customize. The risk is that you will only get halfway through before running out of steam, at which point you will have expended significant energy and monies, but without the benefit. Know your organization and its stamina.
The value of an information governance program—and the technology used to support it—depend on execution. In most cases, I'd rather see companies do a Chevy well—air in the tires, gas in the tank, everything ready to go—than stretch for a Cadillac that's constantly stuck in the shop. Choose the sophistication of your information governance program wisely.
The next article in the series will discuss determining the right level of investment for your company.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All![How AI Helped a Big Insurer Reduce Legal Costs by $20M How AI Helped a Big Insurer Reduce Legal Costs by $20M](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/corpcounsel/contrib/content/uploads/sites/390/2024/03/AI-Machine-learning-767x633-4.jpg)
![In-House AI Adoption Stalls Despite Rising Business Pressures In-House AI Adoption Stalls Despite Rising Business Pressures](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/corpcounsel/contrib/content/uploads/sites/397/2023/09/Controlling-AI-767x633.jpg)
![From Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech From Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/bc/c0/107e388d4b0a8cee2900b4f1ba65/laura-richardson-767x633.jpg)
From Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute read![Legal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025 Legal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/45/fb/0359af8c466ca69830cf15190f56/2025-ltn-predictions-display-767x633.jpg)
Legal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250