Determining the Right Workflow for Issue Coding with Assisted Review



by Constantine Pappas on April 03, 2014

Analytics & Assisted Review , Product Spotlight

A while back we posted an article regarding Relativity Assisted Review’s designation-issue comparison report—also known as the bubble chart. That piece explains why such a report would be useful in finding highly relevant documents using Assisted Review, but I feel there is an opportunity here to expand even further.

When the advice team receives questions about Assisted Review workflows—particularly when a client is just getting started on their first project—the question on issue coding best practices invariably arises.

Our response typically covers two basic options:

  1. Concurrent designation and issue coding within an Assisted Review project
  2. Stabilizing on responsiveness/relevance first, then manually issue coding those documents

Both have advantages, so the decision on which is appropriate for a given project is largely situational.

Let’s start with concurrent issue coding. At any time during an Assisted Review project, you can add issue coding by navigating to your project settings and selecting a Key Issue field. Once this field is selected, Relativity will automatically create a new categorization set for issues, and you’ll be given the opportunity to categorize for them at the end of each round. The issue summary report provides insight into the breakdown of issues in your data.

Issue coding occurs separately and independently from the decision of whether to categorize for designation. It is this separation of categorization sets that makes the bubble chart so helpful: it leverages the accuracy of two independent assessments and reconciles them for you. In Relativity 8 and higher, an admin can even weight issues as low, medium, or high, which causes them to display with greater distinction and clarity on the bubble chart.

On the other side of the proverbial coin we have post-stabilization issue coding. That workflow option consists of first running an Assisted Review project for responsiveness/relevance. Once that population has been identified and stabilized, a manual issue coding review is performed on that set alone.

This approach tends to be the preferred choice when the richness—or responsiveness rate—of a project is very low or when a production deadline is particularly demanding. It allows each round to move forward more quickly, as there are fewer reviewer decisions to make per document. Because the richness is low, the responsive population to be reviewed after stabilization will be relatively small. At this stage, other necessary tasks will be performed, such as redactions and screening for privilege, adding a sense of synergy to the project’s flow.

Regardless of which approach is chosen, issue coding is an essential aspect of many review projects. For more information on how to use Assisted Review for issue coding, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We’re happy to help.

Posted by Constantine Pappas.

Comments

Post a Comment

Required Field