Nuix began as forensic investigations software tool. It moved from there into eDiscovery / eDisclosure, and from there into information governance. When I say it “moved” from one activity to another, I do not mean that it abandoned each of these territories as it expanded into new areas. Far from it – recent months have seen much activity on the forensics front where Nuix began.
This is evident from its recent appointments. I wrote here about the appointment of Paul Slater as Director of Forensic Solutions. That has now been followed by the appointment of Stuart Clark, formerly of Millnet, as Director of Investigation Services (press release here), and of Rob Attoe as Senior Vice President of Investigations Training and Services (press release here).
We have also seen the best eDiscovery marketing video of the year, the excellent Finding the Digital Elephant in the Room, of which I wrote here. The theme of that video is the need simultaneously to examine every potential source of discoverable information and to discriminate between those which have value and those which do not.
Now Dr James Kent, Head of Investigations at Nuix, has written a paper called The Investigative Lab – A model for efficient collaborative investigations which expands on that message in the elephant video by describing how investigators can use tools like Nuix to assemble all available evidence, to make decisions about importance or relevance, and to route tasks into the right hands.
That latter point is important whether the investigation is for criminal or civil purposes. In the civil context, it is important, for example, to identify foreign language documents or financial documents or privileged documents as quickly as possible, either because they warrant specialist attention or (conversely) because they are deemed to have little or no relevance and should drop out of the pile to be reviewed.
If this is partly a matter of analysis, it is also one of workflow – who does what, in what order, and with what degree of priority are critical questions whether one is urgently investigating fraudulent activity or defining the scope of an eDiscovery project for budgeting or strategic purposes. Jim Kent’s paper explains both the implications.