모든 템플릿

eDiscovery Platform Usability & Workflow Assessment

Evaluates e-discovery software usability, workflow pain points, and feature priorities across the EDRM lifecycle. Designed for legal professionals, litigation support teams, and legal operations who use e-discovery platforms on active matters.

샘플 질문

템플릿에 포함된 내용을 미리 확인해 보세요. 모든 질문은 설문 공개 전에 자유롭게 수정할 수 있습니다.

질문 27개 · 약 12분
Q01
메시지

Welcome to the eDiscovery Platform Usability & Workflow Assessment. This survey asks about your experience with e-discovery software on recent matters. Your responses are confidential, will be reported only in aggregate, and will be used to identify usability improvements and workflow priorities. There are no right or wrong answers — we are interested in your honest opinions and experiences. Participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time. Estimated time: 8–10 minutes.

Q02
드롭다운

When did you last use an e-discovery tool on an actual matter?

  • Today
  • In the last 7 days
  • 8–30 days ago
  • 1–3 months ago
  • 3–12 months ago
  • More than a year ago
Q03
객관식

Which of the following best describes your primary role on matters involving e-discovery?

  • In-house counsel
  • Outside counsel
  • Litigation support / e-discovery manager
  • Paralegal / reviewer
  • IT / legal operations
  • Compliance / investigations
  • Other
Q04
순위 매기기

Rank the following e-discovery workflow steps by the amount of time you typically spend on each (drag the most time-consuming to the top).

  1. Data ingestion/processing
  2. Culling (deduplication, deNIST, date scoping)
  3. Search and filtering
  4. Document review
  5. Coding/tagging decisions
  6. Privilege/quality control
  7. Production/export packaging
드래그하여 순위 지정
Q05
의견 척도

Overall, how satisfied are you with your primary e-discovery tool's usability over the last 30 days?

척도: 17
최소:Very dissatisfied최대:Very satisfied
Q06
순위 매기기

Rank the following factors by how much they influence your e-discovery tool choice (drag the most important to the top).

  1. Speed and performance
  2. Search power and accuracy
  3. Ease of use for reviewers
  4. Privilege and QC capabilities
  5. Production and export reliability
  6. Analytics and AI features
  7. Total cost of ownership
  8. Security and compliance certifications
드래그하여 순위 지정
Q07
장문형

If you experienced a frustrating moment with your e-discovery tool in the last 90 days, please briefly describe what happened.

Q08
드롭다운

How many years have you worked with e-discovery tools?

  • 0–1 years
  • 2–4 years
  • 5–9 years
  • 10–14 years
  • 15+ years
  • Prefer not to say
Q09
메시지

Thank you for completing this survey. Your responses are confidential and will be used in aggregate to improve e-discovery tools and workflows. If you have any questions about this research, please contact the study team.

Q10
객관식

Which e-discovery platform do you use most often on active matters?

  • Relativity
  • Everlaw
  • DISCO
  • Logikcull
  • Reveal / Brainspace
  • Nuix
  • Microsoft Purview eDiscovery (Premium)
  • Other or mixed tools
Q11
의견 척도

Thinking about the last 60 days, how easy or difficult was data ingestion and processing in your primary tool?

척도: 17
최소:Very difficult최대:Very easy
Q12
의견 척도

How would you rate your primary tool's speed and performance during peak review periods in the last 30 days?

척도: 17
최소:Very poor최대:Excellent
Q13
순위 매기기

Rank the following potential improvements by how much they would help your team (drag the most helpful to the top).

  1. Faster performance at scale
  2. Smarter search (concepts/AI)
  3. Simpler reviewer interface
  4. Stronger privilege/QC tools
  5. Easier, more reliable productions
  6. Smoother integrations and data imports
드래그하여 순위 지정
Q14
AI 인터뷰

Based on your responses in this survey, we'd like to explore your e-discovery experience in a bit more depth. An AI moderator will ask you a couple of follow-up questions.

Q15
객관식

What type of organization do you primarily work in?

  • Law firm
  • In-house legal department
  • Government/regulator
  • Consultancy/ALSP
  • Corporate IT / Legal Operations
  • Other
  • Prefer not to say
Q16
객관식

During an active matter, how frequently do you use e-discovery tools?

  • Multiple times a day
  • Daily
  • Several times a week
  • Weekly
  • Less than weekly
  • Only at specific milestones
Q17
의견 척도

Thinking about the last 60 days, how easy or difficult was search and filtering in your primary tool?

척도: 17
최소:Very difficult최대:Very easy
Q18
의견 척도

How likely are you to recommend your primary e-discovery tool to a colleague?

척도: 17
최소:Not at all likely최대:Extremely likely
Q19
장문형

If you could change one thing about your primary e-discovery tool, what would it be?

Q20
드롭다운

Approximately how many employees are in your organization?

  • 1–10
  • 11–50
  • 51–200
  • 201–1,000
  • 1,001–5,000
  • 5,001–20,000
  • 20,001+
  • Prefer not to say
Q21
객관식

Which matter types have you supported with e-discovery in the last 12 months? Select all that apply.

  • Civil/commercial litigation
  • Internal investigations
  • Regulatory inquiries/response
  • Arbitration
  • Data subject access requests (DSARs)
  • Compliance audits/monitoring
  • M&A or due diligence
  • Other
Q22
의견 척도

Thinking about the last 60 days, how easy or difficult was document review in your primary tool?

척도: 17
최소:Very difficult최대:Very easy
Q23
객관식

Which of the following issues did you encounter with your primary e-discovery tool in the last 60 days? Select all that apply.

  • Slow page loads or timeouts
  • Indexing or processing delays
  • Search misses or inconsistent results
  • Export/production failures
  • Confusing error messages
  • Tag/coding conflicts or overrides
  • Permissions or access confusion
  • Unexpected billing/usage spikes
  • None of the above
Q24
객관식

In which region is your primary work location?

  • North America
  • Europe, Middle East, or Africa (EMEA)
  • Asia-Pacific (APAC)
  • Latin America
  • Other
  • Prefer not to say
Q25
의견 척도

Thinking about the last 60 days, how easy or difficult was production and export packaging in your primary tool?

척도: 17
최소:Very difficult최대:Very easy
Q26
객관식

How did you primarily learn to use your current e-discovery tool?

  • Formal vendor training
  • Internal training program
  • Self-taught (docs/videos)
  • Peer coaching/mentoring
  • External consultant
  • No formal training
Q27
드롭다운

Approximately how many people on your typical matter team use the e-discovery tool?

  • 1–2
  • 3–5
  • 6–10
  • 11–20
  • 21–50
  • 51+
  • Varies significantly

포함된 기능

  • AI 후속 질문

    정형화된 설문이 놓치는 세부 내용을, 주관식 답변에 맞춰 AI가 심층 질문으로 끌어냅니다.

  • 주의력 확인 장치

    성의 없는 답변과 저품질 응답자를 걸러내는 내장 안전장치입니다.

  • AI가 작성한 문안

    문구, 질문 순서, 분기 로직까지 AI가 연구 목표에 맞춰 작성합니다.

  • 자동 리포트

    응답이 모이면 주요 주제, 인용문, 이해하기 쉬운 요약이 자동으로 작성됩니다.

다른 서비스와 비교

다른 설문 도구의 가장 유사한 템플릿을 검토했습니다. 그 도구들이 잘하는 점과, 이 템플릿이 한발 더 나아가는 지점을 정리했습니다.

이 템플릿을 선택하는 이유

  • Purpose-built for the EDRM lifecycle, covering ingestion/processing, search/filtering, review, and production as distinct usability checkpoints rather than a single generic usability score
  • Includes role, platform, matter-type, and organizational firmographic questions so results can be segmented by litigation support role, org type, and team size
  • Combines structured opinion-scale, ranking, and multiple-choice questions with two open-text prompts and an AI follow-up interview that probes deeper into a respondent's specific frustrating moments and tool-change requests
  • Pairs quantitative usability ratings (satisfaction, performance, recommend-likelihood) with qualitative detail on issues encountered and how users learned the tool, giving both benchmarking and narrative insight

QuestionPro

System Usability Scale Survey Template | Sample Survey, Examples, Questions & Questionnaires

This is a generic, industry-agnostic System Usability Scale (SUS) template rather than anything built for e-discovery or legal workflows specifically. It's useful as a general usability-scoring instrument but would require heavy customization to capture EDRM-stage pain points, matter types, or platform-specific issues. It reads as a static questionnaire template rather than a fielding-ready, domain-specific assessment.

잘하는 점

  • Based on the well-established, validated SUS methodology for measuring perceived usability
  • Simple, short format that's easy to field quickly across any software product
  • Produces a standardized usability score that's comparable across studies

아쉬운 점

  • Not tailored to e-discovery workflows, EDRM stages, or legal-industry terminology
  • Static question set with no adaptive AI follow-up to probe individual pain points or frustrating moments
  • No mechanism for guided screen-share tasks, automated per-response quality scoring, or auto-generated reporting

설문을 공개할 준비가 되셨나요?

이 템플릿을 편집기에서 열어 보세요. 첫 응답자가 보기 전에 모든 부분을 원하는 대로 바꿀 수 있습니다.