Blogs

Lawyers are at the door, and you are confident that the information you are providing in support of your case is accurate and complete. At a cursory level, you are right but have you considered defending how that information was captured? While this is not something that readily comes to mind, in discussions I have had with several Lawyers on the topic of discovery and eDiscovery, one thing comes to the surface very quickly with them. Typically they will not immediately focus on challenging the technology you use but they will challenge how you use it. The message I have gotten is that the technology, if it is installed and maintained according to vendor specifications, is difficult to challenge as it is likely performing the way it was designed but the processes you have in place become the variable. Let’s look at the capture process as an example. Capture, in this case of paper-based content, can be broken down into five steps. These are:

• Document preparation
• Scanning
• Recognition
• Indexing and quality control
• Image release

Each of these steps can then be broken down even further. Using document preparation as the example, which is also one of the more tedious of the steps, includes the removal of paper clips, staples, wrinkles or the addition of bar codes and sorting. If you are doing batch processing, this step may include grouping as part of the sorting exercise so that all invoices or applications forms are grouped together. You may place a separator sheet between the groups to signify a change in the batch of documents being scanned. The point here is that there is a process made up of tasks and steps to accomplish that phase of the process. Well documented and implemented processes are more defensible than one that is not and when it comes to proving consistent practices, you should have your capture process documented, employees trained and an auditing method in place to ensure these processes are adhered to. As my friends in the legal profession tell me, if they find an inconsistency in your processes, they will challenge not only that but will then be able to challenge the integrity of your information management practices as a whole. Do you do this consistently across the enterprise? If not, why? Is there a regulatory reason and have you documented the difference and why?

In my view, this is a sure indication that process consistency matters, especially in the way you capture information. The five steps I have outlined each can be broken down onto sub-level tasks with ways to monitor for completeness and consistency. Employees can be trained on the proper way to capture information and the fact that you have documented the process, means that training will be easier and provide a level of consistency for you as well. The risk of inconsistent capture processes could be high and in many cases much higher than the cost of establishing and maintaining a documented and consistent process. So the question is this, if the Lawyers were at your door today, could you defend your processes as well as provide the information requested?

If you are ready to move forward and are finding yourself stuck or unfocused and are not sure where to begin or what to do next, seek professional assistance and/or training to get you started. Be sure to investigate AIIM's Capture training program.

And be sure to read the AIIM Training Briefing on How to Assess Scanning and Capture Requirements (authored by yours truly). Click on the image to download and read. 

What say you? Do you have a story to tell? What are your thoughts on this topic? Do you have a topic of interest you would like discussed in this forum? Let me know.

Bob Larrivee, Director and Industry Advisor – AIIM

Email me: blarrivee@aiim.org

Follow me on Twitter – BobLarrivee

www.aiim.org/training