In the fast-paced world of investigations and eDiscovery, distinguishing “needs” from “wants” is more than just a philosophical exercise—it’s a business necessity. Budgets are tight, shaped by client demands, regulatory pressures, and the inherent unpredictability of uncovering the unknown (“I don’t know what I don’t know”). As a consultant, the ability to prioritize essential tools over tempting “nice-to-haves” is a defining factor in delivering value whilst maintaining fiscal responsibility.
It Starts with a Question
Well, maybe a few questions. But the point stands: What are we looking to achieve? If our consultants and examiners uncover X, what does that mean for your case? Is there a single, critical piece of information we should focus on?
This is where a consultant starts to issue spot and devise a plan of action. Start with the desired outcome and work backward –it’s not all that different from mathematics. Don’t be passive—ask questions, challenge assumptions, offer insights. A consultant isn’t just an order-taker; their value lies in thoughtful analysis and strategic guidance.
Educate and Inform (In Re: Needs v. Wants)
The core role of a consultant is managing client expectations. Clients may have preconceived notions about what they “need” versus what they “want.” Educating them on the cost-benefit implications of their choices helps guide them toward smarter decisions.
For instance, a targeted, auditable data collection is far more cost-effective than a broad “collect everything” approach. By demonstrating the ROI of tools that minimize downstream review costs–versus those that simply appear attractive in a proposal–you help clients focus on the bigger picture. Offer your expertise, set realistic expectations, and avoid the bait-and-switch.
A Typical Request
“I would like to file a strike-out application in fifteen days, having reviewed relevant data sources from three devices of one person.”
This is a classic example of a “want” disguised as a “need.” The legal team must meet a critical obligation by 28th February, but with finite budgets and limited time, prioritising becomes essential. Time, much like resources, is not infinite.
(See: quantum mechanics and closed timelike curves for a reminder that time is a limited resource, and once it’s gone, it doesn’t loop back around).
In a situation like this, the plan might unfold as follows:
- Acquire mobile data focusing on chat messages, notes, memos, and human-authored content for review.
- Obtain the user’s laptop data, isolating only the most relevant user-created data for review.
- Retrieve email data from the user’s corporate environment as a comprehensive source, bypassing the need to collect email from laptop and possibly the mobile phone.
- Apply data limitations, key term searching, and, if appropriate, a technology-assisted review workflows (such as CAL/TAR).
- External legal teams may use contract document reviewers (with language capabilities) to further reduce costs and save time for the client.
In the End
In investigations and eDiscovery, distinguishing between “needs” and “wants” isn’t just about managing budgets; it’s about delivering value and maintaining trust. By prioritising essentials and strategically allocating resources, consultants can achieve outcomes that satisfy both economic constraints and client expectations.
At its core, this approach ensures every pound, euro, and dollar spent moves the case forward—a philosophy that serves both consultants and clients in the long run. Sometimes, cases cost more than were expected –c’est la vie. But when goals are aligned and expectations are met, cost overruns are seen as a byproduct, not a problem.
iDS provides consultative data solutions to corporations and law firms around the world, giving them a decisive advantage – both in and out of the courtroom. iDS’s subject matter experts and data strategists specialize in finding solutions to complex evidence challenges, ensuring data can be leveraged as an asset, not a liability. To learn more, visit idsinc.com.
