Deconstructing Content: The Long Arm of
Enterprise Content Management (ECM)

The need for more sophisticated decision-making and policies around content management highlights the importance of a simple threshold question: How do we define content? While quasi-structured content like email vexes legal technologists today, entire modes of unstructured content lie on the horizon to challenge our understood notions of content. Legal IT executives have an ever-expanding menu of content types and repositories to weigh and consider. These include: 

  • The growth of social media as both a primary and reference content repository
  • The capture of rich media, audio, and video content
  • The use, proliferation, and increasingly relevant business context of Short Message Service messaging
  • Cloud-based repositories – Box, Dropbox, One Drive, Sugar Sync, Google Drive, and other cloud-based document storage, sharing, and backup services
  • Shared and local drives – the institutionally sanctioned reliable standbys and stalwarts of “content chaos”
  • Microsoft SharePoint sites, which, by their very nature, propagate vast repositories of unstructured and uncatalogued content1
  • Matter management and e-billing data – unstructured electronic manifestations of all legal work ever performed! 
  • Containers, including compressed file archives

Beyond defining content is the challenge of how to actually track and capture content. Legal technologists must be concerned with not only the litany of channels for information leakage, but how to navigate this broad and complex web to ensure the organization can reasonably and confidently capture, leverage, and maintain institutional knowledge. As gleaned from the chart in Fig. 1, below, a broad menu of options for sharing documents exists, creating a continuing – perhaps troubling – inertia.

Fig 1

Fig.1 How Organizations Share Content

While nearly 78% of legal professionals report using their document management system to share documents, nearly as many, 73.5% also use email, demonstrating email’s omnipresence for both content management and collaboration. Additionally, nearly half use shared network drives and folders. Both of these channels, though not at all surprising, are widely acknowledged as inappropriate tools for content management. In addition to their propensity to become unwieldy, unsearchable, difficult to manage, and lacking in any content management capabilities, such as version control and profiling, they also present a compliance and control challenge unique to legal: the significant potential to compromise confidentiality and privilege.

The chart, though, also reveals the growth of more and more progressive content management conduits.  Nearly 39% use collaboration software or other enterprise software such as matter management systems, indicating a growth in both the understanding of these systems’ content sharing and collaboration capabilities and the criticality of their presence at the center of business process.

Cloud-based document storage and sharing applications present an interesting new dynamic. Six percent of legal professionals officially report using Box, Dropbox, or another cloud-based storage system (we suspect, anecdotally, that the number is in fact higher). The ease of use, accessibility, and easy integration with local and mobile systems make them popular personal choices, particularly in the absence of suitable enterprise solutions. While we fully expect this demographic to grow, fueled no doubt in part by marketing efforts specifically targeting legal professionals, we find this to be a dangerous and noteworthy trend. Though cloud-based document repositories are convenient and easy, they are most assuredly not legal ECM systems and present notable compliance, audit, records management, and legal hold/discovery challenges, not to mention the constant threat they pose to institutional content leakage.

The wide array of personal and professional information sharing tools illustrates the need to adopt use paradigms to allow lawyers and their clients to work together as they need—and supportive of the variety of manners in which they do. We call this challenge the “long arm of ECM,” and Fig. 2 demonstrates the challenging array of content types, locations, and repositories a modern enterprise ECM approach must “touch” and master.

Fig 2

Fig. 2 – The Long Arm of ECM

The ECM paradigm also illustrates the broad need for organizations to provide ways to connect and integrate the many tools professionals use with ECM systems – both as a matter of technology as well as process. This is important because, though ECM tools are designed specifically to capture content, manage, and control it, they also serve to help organizations apply policy and comply with business, ethical, and regulatory requirements. The ways in which an ECM system and its support operation can help an organization reach content in all its various—and expanding—forms and points of origin stand as key differentiators for clients to consider.

1 ECM industry benchmarks place the average number of SharePoint sites in a typical corporate environment at 2 per user.  

Hyperion GP

Hyperion Global Partners is a premier global consultancy to legal and professional services organizations. Hyperion Research group provides independent market research and advisory services, including unparalleled insight to the leading trends in legal strategy, operations, and technology. The company works with law firms, law departments, and other legal services organizations to make intelligent, fact-based decisions about how to improve their operational performance. It also works with solution providers, including software vendors, professional services groups, and consultants, to better understand the latest market trends and the needs of their customers. Click here for more information.

Return to Forefront main page »
Thomson Reuters Elite Headquarters
800 Corporate Pointe, Suite 150, Culver City, CA 90230
© 2016 Thomson Reuters
Thomson Reuters