Headquarters

Forrester Research, Inc., 400 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Tel: +l 6l7.6l3.6000 - Pax: +l 6l7.6l3.5000 - www.forrester.com
For Content & Collaboration Professionals
EXECUTI VE SUMMARY
Organizations struggle to keep up with eDiscovery demands and are burdened by a proliferation
of point products. Navigating the eDiscovery marketplace isn’t trivial, and many enterprises report
challenges in shiing data across disparate applications throughout the eDiscovery process. Ongoing
M&A activity holds the potential to ease this pain, but as organizations consider this opportunity,
content and collaboration professionals must focus on vendor portfolios while separating marketing
hype from actual application functionality.
BROADER PORTFOLIOS CAN EASE eDISCOVERY PAIN BUT OVERLAP MATTERS
As eDiscovery condence and satisfaction rates bump along at alarmingly low rates, recent vendor
announcements point to an ongoing consolidation trend in the highly fragmented eDiscovery market.
In June 2010, Autonomy announced its intent to acquire CA Technologies’ Information Governance
business. e same month, digital forensics and eDiscovery provider AccessData and Wolters Kluwer
subsidiary CT Summation publicized plans to form a new single company, AccessData Group. Both
of these deals are relatively small but bring attention to the importance of understanding vendor
capabilities to support enterprise legal risk mitigation objectives and specic steps during the eDiscovery
process.
Understanding The Full Set Of Vendor Capabilities Is More Important Than Ever
e eld of eDiscovery providers is crowded: Forrester estimates that there are more than 600 vendors
that address dierent components of the broader eDiscovery market. Against this backdrop, navigating
vendor oerings isn’t trivial, and it’s important to understand the actual eDiscovery functionality that
vendors provide. For example, upon successful completion of these two particular M&A initiatives, the
respective impact on vendor portfolios varies considerably. Specically:
· AccessData Group customers will benet from a signicantly expanded solution set. As
independent entities, AccessData and CT Summation historically have focused on dierent phases
of the eDiscovery process. AccessData, with its heritage in forensically sound collection methods
and its broad adoption in law enforcement, has targeted identication, collection, preservation, and
processing. CT Summation, in contrast, has deep penetration in legal markets and has traditionally
emphasized on-premises soware and hosted oerings for litigation support, along with processing,
review, analysis, and production.
1
As a combined new company, AccessData Group has extensive
integration work ahead of it, but will oer its customers a considerably larger portfolio of oerings
to address a broad range of eDiscovery needs.
July 9, 2010
eDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its
Steady March
How Mergers And Acquisitions Will Impact Your eDiscovery Strategies
by Brian W. Hill
with Matthew Brown and Sara Burnes
© 2010, Forrester Research, Inc. Reproduction Prohibited July 9, 2010
2 EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March
For Content & Collaboration Professionals
· Autonomy customers will benet from more records management and archiving options.
With its purchase of CA Technologies’ Information Governance business, the major oerings
that Autonomy picks up are CA Records Manager and CA Message Manager.
2
Autonomy has
two existing records management applications from its prior acquisitions of Interwoven in
2009 and Meridio in 2007. Largely leveraging its 2007 purchase of ZANTAZ, Autonomy also
currently markets several message archiving solutions including Digital Safe (cloud-based
archiving solution), Enterprise Archive Solution (on-premises archiving soware), Arcpliance
(on-premises archiving appliance), and more. Aer it completes the acquisition, Autonomy will
augment its already extensive eDiscovery portfolio and will have three distinct oerings for
records management and more than four for message archiving.
3
Application Inconsistencies Complicate eDiscovery
In trying to respond eectively to eDiscovery demands, most organizations struggle with a mix
of disjointed applications. Limited integration between message archiving, records management,
collection, legal hold, processing, review, and other tools leads to major headaches for many content
and collaboration professionals. Enterprises report that:
· Lack of integration across key tools and processes is a big, ongoing problem. Recent survey
results show that 60% of records management stakeholders and 57% of message archiving
stakeholders perceive “synchronizing eDiscovery, records management, and archiving eorts” to
be challenging.
4
Shiing from one disparate application to another during the eDiscovery process
adds a “transformation tax” in the form of added cost, increased time, and greater risk — and
inconsistent technologies and polices add to eDiscovery pain. Disjointed approaches oen require
building a separate index for each application, adding to the potential for error and making it
cumbersome to go back to the collection phase if required during review or other steps in the
eDiscovery process.
· Breadth of vendor legal risk mitigation capabilities matters a lot in buying decisions.
e vast majority of message archiving and other decision-makers see provider eDiscovery
functionality as critical in making purchase decisions.
5
Yet the current market reality is that
organizations grapple with a proliferation of point products to mitigate legal risk. Forrester
clients frequently report challenges they face in their eorts to reduce the number of disparate
tools to cut costs, reduce eDiscovery response times, enhance agility by shiing back and forth
between dierent steps, and streamline the overall eDiscovery process.
Vendor eDiscovery Marketing Claims Frustrate Solution Selection
At a high level an “end-to-end” eDiscovery solution would seem to hold signicant appeal. Aer all,
an integrated, holistic approach would go a long way to easing challenges in the fragmented scenario
that enterprises face today for eDiscovery. But what does this commonly used, comprehensive
provider positioning actually mean? Stakeholders across a variety of functional roles supporting
eDiscovery, explain that:
© 2010, Forrester Research, Inc. Reproduction Prohibited July 9, 2010
3 EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March
For Content & Collaboration Professionals
· e disconnect between marketing hype and integrated capabilities oen looms large.
Many vendors describe their eDiscovery oerings as end-to-end. Almost invariably, enterprises
report that these claims have only partial substance and they view them as provider aspirations.
Although acquisitions can bolster the range of eDiscovery applications that a given vendor may
oer, simply adding products to the portfolio that a provider is already selling does not ensure
meaningful integration across the newly expanded portfolio.
6
· Many vendors lack fundamental understanding of key functional roles in organizations.
Strong collaboration across legal, compliance, records management, IT, line of business, and
other decision-makers is essential for eective eDiscovery. Reecting dierent technology and
sales roots, vendors typically market well to a given functional role (e.g., legal or IT) but struggle
with communications across dierent roles. For example, legal stakeholders oen describe
frustration in working with providers with a strong IT heritage and emphasize that many
simply don’t speak their “language” or have a solid understanding of legal budget, process, and
technical needs. e reverse is also true.
Go Back To eDiscovery Basics To Map Your Go-Forward Strategy
Enterprises ask Forrester about the impact that M&A activity and ongoing organic vendor
development will have on their eDiscovery plans. While integrated vendor advances can provide
concrete benets and can help rationalize application infrastructure, it’s important to consider these
in the context of a broader strategy for eDiscovery.
7
Organizations should develop and maintain
an inventory of related assets and applications, map out processes, and apply ongoing appropriate
governance. With this holistic perspective, eDiscovery stakeholders should identify technology gaps
and costly process integration points. Against this backdrop, use vendor road maps to evaluate and
enhance your eDiscovery strategy.
R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
USE eDISCOVERY MARKET CONSOLIDATION TO YOUR ADVANTAGE
No single vendor can address the full range of enterprise legal risk mitigation needs. Broader
lnformatlon management, eDlscovery, and lltlgatlon support requlrements are complex and
changing. In addition to technology, call for strong focus on people and process considerations
to develop successful pollcles and programs. |n conslderlng recent and expected ongolng
eDiscovery market consolidation, organizations should:
· Understand the actual scope of vendor eDiscovery offerings. Overreaching vendor
claims certainly aren’t new, but in eDiscovery they have important regulatory and litigation
implications. Beware of “end-to-end” claims. Application breadth is important, but
enterprises should keep front of mind that there is no technology silver bullet for eDiscovery
and appropriate focus on policies and program governance is essential.
© 2010, Forrester Research, Inc. Reproduction Prohibited July 9, 2010
4 EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March
For Content & Collaboration Professionals
· Push your vendors for more eDiscovery application integration. Vendor M&A activity
holds the potentlal to smooth the rough and expenslve set of handons that enterprlses face
throughout the eDiscovery process. However, it will take time for vendors to successfully
lntegrate acqulred onerlngs. Glven the hlgh stakes ln thls market, look for customer proof
points that the integration has actually happened and plan for pilots. Beyond vendor
portfollo expanslons that may ease cross-appllcatlon eDlscovery challenges, successful M&A
enorts can also brlng eDlscovery expertlse that ls lnvaluable to buyers. Press your vendors for
the most enectlve engagement teams to asslst wlth lmplementatlon phases.
· Accelerate consolidation efforts, but don’t expect to end up with a single provider.
Enterprises should work to stem the proliferation of point products and focus on building
integrated approaches to meet eDiscovery needs. Cutting transformation burdens across
disjointed applications is a clear benefit. But also look to infrastructure rationalization and
vendor consolidation benefits — in the form of lower license costs, better leverage of human
capital, and reduced risk of errors in the process — for even more returns. Look to proven
partnerships among eDiscovery providers (e.g., service vendors, specialists, etc.) along
with EDRM XML format support and other cross-provider approaches to further improve
interoperability.
ENDNOTES
1
With dierent eDiscovery heritages, AccessData and CT Summation historically have competed with
dierent sets of vendors. For AccessData these include Autonomy, EMC (Kazeon Systems), Guidance
Soware, StoredIQ, and others with identication and collection oerings. In contrast, traditional CT
Summation competitors include FTI Technology, LexisNexis (Concordance), and other vendors focused on
litigation support and processing, review, analysis, and production.
2
In 2009, Forrester evaluated eight records management oerings across 89 criteria, rating CA Records
Manager as a Leader in this category. CA Records Manager stems from CA’s 2006 acquisition of MDY
Group International, and CA Message Manager comes from CA’s 2005 acquisition of iLumin. See the June
23, 2009, “e Forrester Wave™: Records Management, Q2 2009” report.
3
Autonomy states that it is committed to continuing the support and enhancement of CA Records Manager
and CA Message Manager as per-product plans. Also, as it has done with other acquisitions, Autonomy
plans to put its Intelligent Data Operating Layer (IDOL) engine underneath the acquired applications
from CA Technologies. For additional preliminary analysis of this purchase, read “Autonomy Purchase
Of CA Technologies’ Information Governance Business — Will Customers Benet?” e Forrester
Blog For Information Management & Knowledge Professionals, June 9, 2010 (http://blogs.forrester.com/
brian_hill/10-06-09-autonomy_purchase_ca_technologies%E2%80%99_information_governance_
business_%E2%80%93_will_customers_benet).
5 EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March
For Content & Collaboration Professionals
Forrester Research, Inc. (Nasdaq: FORR) is an independent research company that provides pragmatic and forward-thinking advice to global leaders in business
and technology. Forrester works with professionals in 20 key roles at major companies providing proprietary research, customer insight, consulting, events, and
peer-to-peer executive programs. For more than 26 years, Forrester has been making IT, marketing, and technology industry leaders successful every day. For
more information, visit www.forrester.com.
© 2010, Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Information is based on best available resources. Opinions
reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. Forrester®, Technographics®, Forrester Wave, RoleView, TechRadar, and Total Economic Impact are
trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies. To purchase reprints of this document, please email
clientsupport@forrester.com. For additional information, go to www.forrester.com. 57410
4
In Q3 2009 and in Q1 2010, Forrester outlined survey ndings from records management and message
archiving stakeholders, capturing input on enterprise satisfaction, challenges, expectations, eDiscovery
needs, and other factors. See the September 3, 2009, “Records Management: User Expectations, Market
Trends, And Obstacles” report and see the March 17, 2010, “Regulatory And eDiscovery Demands Drive A
Growing Message Archiving Market” report.
5
In considering potential vendors for message archiving in 2010, about nine out of 10 respondents from
our Q1 2010 Global Message Archiving Online Survey rated vendor capabilities to support collection,
review, and other steps in the eDiscovery process as very important or important. For further ndings, see
the March 17, 2010, “Regulatory And eDiscovery Demands Drive A Growing Message Archiving Market”
report.
6
Highlighting overreaching technology vendor claims, in vendor M&A activity over the past year (e.g.,
EMC-Kazeon and AccessData-CT Summation) one or more parties prior to the transaction described
their eDiscovery oerings as an “end-to-end” solution. is begs the question of what product portfolio
advantages should be expected when “comprehensive” eDiscovery vendors join forces.
7
Understanding the intersection of initiatives related to eDiscovery (e.g., content/records management,
archiving, search, etc.) is essential. For analysis of the role of search in eDiscovery see the April 27, 2009,
“Searching For eDiscovery Cost Control” report.
In both the Q1 2010 Global Message Archiving Online Survey and the Forrester Research And ARMA
International Online Records Management Survey, Q3 2009, stakeholders reported low condence and
other eDiscovery frustrations. See the September 3, 2009, “Records Management: User Expectations,
Market Trends, And Obstacles” report and see the March 17, 2010, “Regulatory And eDiscovery Demands
Drive A Growing Message Archiving Market” report.

records management. most organizations struggle with a mix of disjointed applications. But what does this commonly used. Forrester Research. holistic approach would go a long way to easing challenges in the fragmented scenario that enterprises face today for eDiscovery. A er it completes the acquisition. ongoing problem. and more. review. Arcpliance (on-premises archiving appliance).2 Autonomy has two existing records management applications from its prior acquisitions of Interwoven in 2009 and Meridio in 2007. 2010 © 2010. and other tools leads to major headaches for many content and collaboration professionals. and archiving e orts” to be challenging. reduce eDiscovery response times. · Breadth of vendor legal risk mitigation capabilities matters a lot in buying decisions. With its purchase of CA Technologies’ Information Governance business. Largely leveraging its 2007 purchase of ZANTAZ. processing.3 Application Inconsistencies Complicate eDiscovery In trying to respond e ectively to eDiscovery demands. increased time. records management. A er all. Recent survey results show that 60% of records management stakeholders and 57% of message archiving stakeholders perceive “synchronizing eDiscovery.4 Shi ing from one disparate application to another during the eDiscovery process adds a “transformation tax” in the form of added cost. Limited integration between message archiving. explain that: July 9. the major o erings that Autonomy picks up are CA Records Manager and CA Message Manager.5 Yet the current market reality is that organizations grapple with a proliferation of point products to mitigate legal risk. Forrester clients frequently report challenges they face in their e orts to reduce the number of disparate tools to cut costs. Disjointed approaches o en require building a separate index for each application. legal hold. Enterprises report that: · Lack of integration across key tools and processes is a big. Autonomy will augment its already extensive eDiscovery portfolio and will have three distinct o erings for records management and more than four for message archiving. collection. comprehensive provider positioning actually mean? Stakeholders across a variety of functional roles supporting eDiscovery. Vendor eDiscovery Marketing Claims Frustrate Solution Selection At a high level an “end-to-end” eDiscovery solution would seem to hold signi cant appeal. an integrated.EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March For Content & Collaboration Professionals 2 · Autonomy customers will bene t from more records management and archiving options. and greater risk — and inconsistent technologies and polices add to eDiscovery pain. enhance agility by shi ing back and forth between di erent steps. adding to the potential for error and making it cumbersome to go back to the collection phase if required during review or other steps in the eDiscovery process. and streamline the overall eDiscovery process. Autonomy also currently markets several message archiving solutions including Digital Safe (cloud-based archiving solution). Inc. Enterprise Archive Solution (on-premises archiving so ware). Reproduction Prohibited . e vast majority of message archiving and other decision-makers see provider eDiscovery functionality as critical in making purchase decisions.

Application breadth is important. and technical needs. compliance. Broader changing. While integrated vendor advances can provide concrete bene ts and can help rationalize application infrastructure. e reverse is also true.. and other decision-makers is essential for e ective eDiscovery. enterprises report that these claims have only partial substance and they view them as provider aspirations. Overreaching vendor claims certainly aren’t new. and apply ongoing appropriate governance. Reproduction Prohibited . For example. Almost invariably.6 · Many vendors lack fundamental understanding of key functional roles in organizations. With this holistic perspective. Although acquisitions can bolster the range of eDiscovery applications that a given vendor may o er. process. it’s important to consider these in the context of a broader strategy for eDiscovery. Many vendors describe their eDiscovery o erings as end-to-end. legal stakeholders o en describe frustration in working with providers with a strong IT heritage and emphasize that many simply don’t speak their “language” or have a solid understanding of legal budget. Beware of “end-to-end” claims. line of business. IT. use vendor road maps to evaluate and enhance your eDiscovery strategy. Inc. July 9. but enterprises should keep front of mind that there is no technology silver bullet for eDiscovery and appropriate focus on policies and program governance is essential. In addition to technology. Re ecting di erent technology and sales roots. eDiscovery stakeholders should identify technology gaps and costly process integration points. organizations should: · Understand the actual scope of vendor eDiscovery offerings. simply adding products to the portfolio that a provider is already selling does not ensure meaningful integration across the newly expanded portfolio. records management.g. vendors typically market well to a given functional role (e. R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S USE eDISCOVERY MARKET CONSOLIDATION TO YOUR ADVANTAGE No single vendor can address the full range of enterprise legal risk mitigation needs. Forrester Research.7 Organizations should develop and maintain an inventory of related assets and applications. Go Back To eDiscovery Basics To Map Your Go-Forward Strategy Enterprises ask Forrester about the impact that M&A activity and ongoing organic vendor development will have on their eDiscovery plans. 2010 © 2010. Strong collaboration across legal. call for strong focus on people and process considerations eDiscovery market consolidation. map out processes. but in eDiscovery they have important regulatory and litigation implications. legal or IT) but struggle with communications across di erent roles.EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March For Content & Collaboration Professionals 3 · e disconnect between marketing hype and integrated capabilities o en looms large. Against this backdrop.

StoredIQ.forrester. However. etc. For AccessData these include Autonomy. Vendor M&A activity throughout the eDiscovery process. review. rating CA Records Manager as a Leader in this category. Reproduction Prohibited . and others with identi cation and collection o erings. See the June 23. For additional preliminary analysis of this purchase. ENDNOTES 1 With di erent eDiscovery heritages.) along with EDRM XML format support and other cross-provider approaches to further improve interoperability. AccessData and CT Summation historically have competed with di erent sets of vendors. but don’t expect to end up with a single provider. “ e Forrester Wave™: Records Management. service vendors. it will take time for vendors to successfully points that the integration has actually happened and plan for pilots. Autonomy states that it is committed to continuing the support and enhancement of CA Records Manager and CA Message Manager as per-product plans. EMC (Kazeon Systems). Q2 2009” report. Enterprises should work to stem the proliferation of point products and focus on building integrated approaches to meet eDiscovery needs. But also look to infrastructure rationalization and vendor consolidation benefits — in the form of lower license costs. Also. 2009. and other vendors focused on litigation support and processing. Look to proven partnerships among eDiscovery providers (e. and reduced risk of errors in the process — for even more returns. Guidance So ware.EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March For Content & Collaboration Professionals 4 · Push your vendors for more eDiscovery application integration. traditional CT Summation competitors include FTI Technology. June 9.g. analysis. 2010 (http://blogs. Beyond vendor · Accelerate consolidation efforts. CA Records Manager stems from CA’s 2006 acquisition of MDY Group International. Inc. Cutting transformation burdens across disjointed applications is a clear benefit. read “Autonomy Purchase Of CA Technologies’ Information Governance Business — Will Customers Bene t?” e Forrester Blog For Information Management & Knowledge Professionals.com/ brian_hill/10-06-09-autonomy_purchase_ca_technologies%E2%80%99_information_governance_ business_%E2%80%93_will_customers_bene t). Forrester Research. LexisNexis (Concordance).. specialists. Forrester evaluated eight records management o erings across 89 criteria. In contrast. as it has done with other acquisitions. and production. 2010 © 2010. and CA Message Manager comes from CA’s 2005 acquisition of iLumin. better leverage of human capital. 2 3 July 9. Autonomy plans to put its Intelligent Data Operating Layer (IDOL) engine underneath the acquired applications from CA Technologies. In 2009.

Inc. eDiscovery needs. © 2010. 5 6 7 Forrester Research. Forrester works with professionals in 20 key roles at major companies providing proprietary research. And Obstacles” report and see the March 17. events. For further ndings. 2009. 57410 . content/records management. Forrester has been making IT. TechRadar. and peer-to-peer executive programs. stakeholders reported low con dence and other eDiscovery frustrations. “Regulatory And eDiscovery Demands Drive A Growing Message Archiving Market” report. For additional information. marketing.forrester. For analysis of the role of search in eDiscovery see the April 27. go to www. Inc. “Searching For eDiscovery Cost Control” report. RoleView.. customer insight.g.com. and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research. 2010. Market Trends. Market Trends. 2010. 2009. review.com. challenges. See the September 3.EDiscovery Market Consolidation Continues Its Steady March For Content & Collaboration Professionals 4 In Q3 2009 and in Q1 2010. Inc. In both the Q1 2010 Global Message Archiving Online Survey and the Forrester Research And ARMA International Online Records Management Survey. visit www. Forrester Research. capturing input on enterprise satisfaction. See the September 3. Q3 2009. Forrester outlined survey ndings from records management and message archiving stakeholders.g. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies.) is essential. Forrester®. see the March 17.. Understanding the intersection of initiatives related to eDiscovery (e. etc. is begs the question of what product portfolio advantages should be expected when “comprehensive” eDiscovery vendors join forces. All rights reserved. Highlighting overreaching technology vendor claims. “Records Management: User Expectations. Information is based on best available resources. For more information. And Obstacles” report and see the March 17. 2009. “Records Management: User Expectations.forrester. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. search. archiving. (Nasdaq: FORR) is an independent research company that provides pragmatic and forward-thinking advice to global leaders in business and technology. and technology industry leaders successful every day. in vendor M&A activity over the past year (e. expectations. “Regulatory And eDiscovery Demands Drive A Growing Message Archiving Market” report. and other steps in the eDiscovery process as very important or important. In considering potential vendors for message archiving in 2010. “Regulatory And eDiscovery Demands Drive A Growing Message Archiving Market” report. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. EMC-Kazeon and AccessData-CT Summation) one or more parties prior to the transaction described their eDiscovery o erings as an “end-to-end” solution. To purchase reprints of this document. about nine out of 10 respondents from our Q1 2010 Global Message Archiving Online Survey rated vendor capabilities to support collection. consulting. For more than 26 years.com. and other factors. please email clientsupport@forrester. Forrester Wave. Technographics®. 2010.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful