Scenarios 13–18
13 — Responsive but privileged
Stem: a document matches the request but contains attorney-client privileged material.
Primary problem: responsiveness does not eliminate privilege protection.
Best action: Review identifies responsive/privileged material and records the protection decision.
Weaker: produce immediately because it matches request.
Changed fact: decisions/formats settled → turning responsive set over is Production; later courtroom use is Presentation.
Source: EDRM Review/Production/Presentation.
14 — Content reused across channels
Stem: same product information must appear on web, mobile, print and eBook without separate rewrites.
Primary problem: duplicate channel-specific content causes inconsistency.
Best action: structured modular Content Model and reusable device-independent components.
Roles: owner/strategist, content modeler, channel teams.
Weaker: independently rewrite each channel.
Changed fact: components are well structured but navigation/search fails → IA.
Source: pp. 291–293 and delivery sections.
15 — Broken navigation
Stem: good content exists, but categories, navigation and search are inconsistent.
Primary problem: poorly organized/labeled information space.
Best action: repair Information Architecture—navigation, labels, Metadata maps, controlled vocabulary/taxonomy, indexing/search and user flows.
Weaker: rewrite substantive content.
Changed fact: navigation/search sound but components cannot be reused → Content Modeling.
Source: IA sections, approx. pp. 306–315.
16 — ECM technology but no adoption
Stem: platform works technically; departments still use shared drives and email attachments.
Primary problem: organizational readiness/change failure.
Best action: sponsorship, policies, workflow fit, migration/readiness, training, communication, incentives and integration with real work.
Weaker: buy another ECM product.
Changed fact: adoption high but retrieval poor → Metadata/taxonomy/search/IA improvement.
Source: implementation/readiness, approx. pp. 320–323.
17 — Metrics without meaning
Stem: team reports only number of documents stored.
Primary problem: raw inventory count does not demonstrate value or control.
Best action: add adoption/satisfaction, compliance/retention/disposition, search/retrieval, workflow/cost, e-discovery and risk metrics.
Weaker: increase document-count target and call growth success.
Changed fact: count can remain useful operational/capacity context, but not sufficient value evidence.
Source: pp. 323–327.
18 — Search quality math
Stem: search returns 80 relevant + 20 irrelevant documents; 100 relevant documents existed.
Best calculation:
Precision = 80 / 100 retrieved = 80%.
Recall = 80 / 100 relevant = 80%.
Primary problem: distinguish result-set purity from relevant-population coverage.
Weaker: use one percentage without defining denominator.
Changed fact: only 50/100 retrieved relevant → Precision 50%; Recall still depends on relevant retrieved ÷ total relevant.
Source: pp. 323–327.