Insights Articles

Summary: Managed and traditional document review both aim to analyze data, but differ significantly in structure, scalability, and oversight. This blog breaks down how each model operates—and when a managed approach can drive greater efficiency, cost savings, and defensibility. 

As data volumes continue to grow and timelines tighten, document review remains one of the most resource-intensive phases of litigation. Yet not all review models are structured the same way.  

For teams evaluating their options, understanding the distinction between managed vs traditional review is essential. While both approaches aim to analyze documents for relevance, privilege, and key issues, the structure, oversight, and operational impact of each model can differ significantly.  

This foundational understanding helps clarify when a more structured approach—often involving outsourcing—may deliver measurable advantages.  

What Is Traditional Document Review?

Traditional document review typically follows a straightforward model:  

• A group of attorneys are assembled to review documents.  
• Review protocols are developed internally.  
• Supervision is handled by members of the case team.  
• Productivity, quality control, and reporting are monitored internally.  

In this structure, responsibility for staffing, training, workflow management, and quality oversight largely remains within the organization handling the matter. If contract reviewers are engaged, they are often treated as temporary extensions of the internal team.  

This model can work effectively for smaller matters or cases with limited data volumes. However, as the scale or complexity increases, the administrative burden can grow quickly.  

Common challenges with traditional review include:  

• Time spent recruiting and onboarding reviewers  
• Limited scalability when deadlines shift  
• Inconsistent quality control processes  
• Reduced visibility into productivity metrics  
• Strain on internal resources managing logistics
• Inflated costs and more time invested 

 The core issue is not the quality of legal analysis—it is the operational load required to support it.  

What Is Managed Review?

Managed review is a structured service model designed to address those operational challenges.  

Rather than simply supplying reviewers, a managed review provider oversees the entire document review workflow. This includes:  

• Project scoping and resource planning  
• Reviewer recruitment and training  
• Defined workflows and batching strategies
• Technology management and optimization  
• Layered quality control  
• Reporting, analytics, and budget tracking  
• Ongoing case analysis to drive time and cost savings  

In a managed vs traditional comparison, the key difference lies in accountability, infrastructure, and experience. Managed review centralizes operational responsibility with a dedicated team whose sole focus is executing document review efficiently, effectively, and defensibly to complete the review on time and on or under budget.  

It is not just staffing—it is structured, highly experienced oversight.  

A Closer Look at Managed vs Traditional Review

To better understand the distinction, consider how the two models approach several core components of document review.  

1. Staffing and Scalability

In traditional review, staffing often happens reactively. If data volumes increase, additional reviewers must be sourced and onboarded quickly, which can create delays or inconsistencies. Quality suffers, and what seems like a time saver becomes a time drain.  

In managed review, staffing networks and onboarding processes are already established. Teams can scale up or down with minimal disruption, providing greater flexibility when deadlines shift.  

2. Workflow Design

Traditional review workflows are frequently developed alongside substantive case strategy, with operational management layered on top of existing responsibilities.  

Managed review incorporates workflow design as a primary function. Processes are structured from the outset to maximize efficiency, reduce redundancy, and align with production requirements. They drive accuracy and maximize cost savings to bring you the best quality possible at the best price.  

3. Quality Control

In traditional models, quality control may rely heavily on informal oversight or limited sampling. Case teams already manage heavy workloads, and the time required to run a process that ensures 95% to 98% accuracy can become burdensome. 

Managed review embeds layered quality control measures and dedicates highly experienced management resources towards a process that can guarantee that 95% to 98% accuracy. This process includes, but is not limited to, sampling protocols, calibration sessions, decision logs, targeted issue QC, robust privilege and redaction safeguards, and structured escalation processes for all levels of review. These safeguards strengthen defensibility, reduce the risk of rework, and keep projects on or below budget. 

4. Technology and Reporting

Traditional review may rely on existing platform configurations with limited optimization or analytics deployment.  

Managed review integrates technical specialists who configure platforms strategically to reduce human error, automate process, drive cost savings, deploy analytics tools when appropriate, and provide real-time reporting on productivity and progress.  

Review managers leverage their experience as technical specialists to take a proactive rather than reactive approach—driving efficiency and generating time and cost savings by anticipating issues and consulting on the best course of action before they become problems. 

Visibility into metrics—such as documents reviewed per hour, error rates, and projected completion timelines—supports more informed decision-making on a daily basis.

5. Administrative Burden

Perhaps one of the most significant differences in managed and traditional review is the distribution of responsibility.  

In traditional review, internal teams often juggle substantive case work alongside reviewer management, budget monitoring, and troubleshooting.  

In managed review, those operational responsibilities shift to the service provider. This allows internal teams to focus on legal strategy while maintaining full transparency into review performance. Experienced managers—discovery experts—work as partners with the case team to create effective synergy. 

6. Ongoing Case Analysis to Drive Time & Cost Savings

The other most significant difference between managed and traditional review is an experienced review manager who can conduct ongoing case assessment to reduce manual review document counts and generate time and cost savings.  

Through Early Case Assessment and Ongoing Case Assessment, review managers employ multiple high-level analyses that reduces manual review of responsive, privilege and confidential documents by auditing search terms, looking at sender and receiver information, domain analysis, file types, file sizes, extracted text analysis and more.  

These tactics can reduce the overall manual work required by a review team, speed up project completion, and generate massive cost savings.  

Is Managed Review Just Outsourcing?

The term “outsourcing” can sometimes create the misconception that control is lost when review functions are handled externally. In reality, managed review works hand in hand with case teams as a true partner and is structured to enhance control through defined processes, clear communication, and detailed reporting. 

Unlike ad hoc outsourcing, managed review emphasizes:  

• Clearly documented protocols and process
• Transparent communication channels  
• Measurable performance metrics  
• Continuous alignment with case strategy  
• Consultation on available review options and tactics
• An efficient, end-to-end approach that emphasizes quality, speed, and value

The goal is not to replace legal judgment but to support it with operational discipline.  

When structured correctly, outsourcing document review through a managed model can reduce risk, improve predictability, speed up discovery, generate cost savings for the client and create a more defensible process overall.   When structured correctly, a managed review model can reduce risk, improve predictability, accelerate discovery, generate cost savings for the client, and create a more defensible overall process.

When Does Each Model Make Sense?

Traditional review may be appropriate when:  

• Data volumes are limited  
• Timelines are flexible  
• Internal bandwidth is available  
• Oversight demands are minimal  
• Internal experience with e-discovery review  

Managed review becomes particularly valuable when:  

• Large datasets require rapid scaling  
• Budgets must be tightly controlled  
• Deadlines are fixed or court-imposed  
• Internal teams need to focus on higher-level strategy  
• Internal experience with platforms and processes is limited
• Consistency and defensibility are paramount 

Understanding the difference helps organizations choose the model that aligns with their operational realities.  

Building a Strong Foundation

As data complexity continues to increase, the question is no longer whether document review will demand significant resources—it will. The more important question is how those resources are structured and managed.  

The managed vs traditional distinction provides a framework for evaluating that structure. One model relies primarily on internal coordination. The other incorporates specialized infrastructure and experience designed to streamline execution.  

At Array, managed review is delivered as part of a comprehensive litigation support strategy. By combining experienced review professionals, structured workflows, and integrated technology, we help clients reduce administrative burden, improve efficiency, reduce time, generate cost savings, and maintain defensible processes at scale.  

Effective document review is not just about analyzing documents—it is about building the right operational foundation to support it.