Knowledge Management
Critical Update: Between Second and Third Generation Knowledge Management
May 16, 2006 21:58 Filed in:
Speaking
Scheduled Presentation | 2006 LawTech Summit
Hyatt Regency, Windwatch, Hauppage, NY
May 15-16, 2006
www.lawtechsummit.com
Presentation Outline
• Revisiting what made second generation KM
• Understanding what technology did – and did not do
• The organizational impact of working KM
• The link between KM, CRM, Governance and Business Development
• Is there Knowledge without people?
• Integrating portal, CRM and intranet technology for a seamless flow applying innovation to technology to develop client-centered sites and generate revenue stream and market development of your firm
More...
|
Considering Electronic Matter Files
February 01, 2006 22:00 Filed in:
Technology 3.0
Document management will become
the strategic responsibility of the records department - You are in
a great position because you control (as I recall) both Records and
IT. That was essential, because the conversion to Electronic Files
as we call it, is first a product of the Professional
Responsibility Committee (PRC) and Records Department and second a
product of IT. Tanya, who runs our records and conflicts has become
a defacto senior member of my organization ... and Ron, our General
Counsel and head of the PRC is on my speed dial. Records and IT
people have practically eaten and slept together each week for two
years.
There are two conversions: document management and file management – ... And the file management conversion will last at least two years after the DM conversion. We ran two conversions, the standard IT new desktop hardware, new OS, new version of ... and an Electronic Files conversion that’s still underway. If you are like us, they last time you trained all your secretaries on how to use file folders was ... Never. This was a lesson that we learned late, the existence and value of the institutional knowledge on how to manage files for lawyers.
Here are some of the things we had to teach secretaries:
We initially thought that with the Recent Documents, Recent Workspaces, and Favorites features in iManage, we could simply add new matters to the My Workspaces list and that would be it. Imagine a merged support team of 20 people from IT and records, web based surveys of all firm members, a status level of red, yellow, or green for each person as to their ability to work in electronic files.
Each secretary had to be taught nearly one-on-one
independent of the technology conversion that showed secretaries how to use the software, they needed each to be sat down separately from the technology and taught how to manage file folders for their lawyers electronically.
There are two conversions: document management and file management – ... And the file management conversion will last at least two years after the DM conversion. We ran two conversions, the standard IT new desktop hardware, new OS, new version of ... and an Electronic Files conversion that’s still underway. If you are like us, they last time you trained all your secretaries on how to use file folders was ... Never. This was a lesson that we learned late, the existence and value of the institutional knowledge on how to manage files for lawyers.
Here are some of the things we had to teach secretaries:
- How to request custom top level electronic file folders via the New Business Process
- How to manage the primary matter worklist for a lawyer
- How to setup shortcuts to multiple lawyer’s matter workspaces
- How to setup shortcuts and favorites for a lawyer to access his and other folders within matter workspaces
- How to remove items from the matter workspace
- How to re-file large sets of documents
We initially thought that with the Recent Documents, Recent Workspaces, and Favorites features in iManage, we could simply add new matters to the My Workspaces list and that would be it. Imagine a merged support team of 20 people from IT and records, web based surveys of all firm members, a status level of red, yellow, or green for each person as to their ability to work in electronic files.
Each secretary had to be taught nearly one-on-one
independent of the technology conversion that showed secretaries how to use the software, they needed each to be sat down separately from the technology and taught how to manage file folders for their lawyers electronically.
Where's Knowledge Management in the Legal Information Infrastructure?
December 15, 2005 11:23 Filed in:
Technology 3.0
This document provides an analysis of
knowledge management at law firms and describes our approach to
implementing KM Best Practices at Pillsbury.
This document attempts to answer the following questions:
see full PDF
More...
This document attempts to answer the following questions:
- Can we create a culture that promotes knowledge management across the firm?
- Can we stop the leakage of knowledge capital?
- Can we leverage knowledge capital to improve the efficiency and quality of legal services?
- Can we provide technology that facilitates knowledge management on-line and off-line?
- Can we integrate KM with Outlook and other collaboration tools?
see full PDF
More...
Electronic Files
December 10, 2005 12:03 Filed in:
Technology 3.0
We spent several years at
Pillsbury creating a pure electronic files and knowledge management
capability. While you will see other material from me talking about
the long road to e-files, this document is a sign at the end of the
road. It shows in six simple steps how a new employee performs the
mundane tasks of opening an electronic record and saving documents
to it.
see Full Report
Adobe Acrobat
XML version readable by Visio 2003 and OmniGraffle
see Full Report
Adobe Acrobat
XML version readable by Visio 2003 and OmniGraffle
Autonomy Customer Advisory Forum - New York, NY
October 28, 2005 11:00 Filed in:
Technology 3.0
topic Speaking
I spoke at a Customer Advisory Forum gathering hosted by Autonomy Software at the Ritz Carlton in South Central Park, Manhattan Thursday and Friday morning. Autonomy is a company based in Cambridge, UK and San Francisco, USA that provides some amazing tools for finding and managing information. They support search in just about any language and any type of information including text, audio and video. As can be the case with these events, there was more energy spent converting the converted than needed. But overall, the event was well planned and executed. I heard a some good presentations and learned a few things.
I've made heavy use of Autonomy technology when building PWSP's information infrastructure. Autonomy offered a powerful search platform that includes every conceivable search related facility. Autonomy's search links our enterprise systems and enables employees to simultaneously search expertise, best practice documents, contacts, clients, prior work, docket (calendars), intranet and internet content. The PWSP LLP infrastructure includes millions of pages of documents and other media types, each requiring some level of security. Autonomy's security is rock solid.
My presentation provided an overview of the development of Information Infrastructure at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. I showed our first and second generation systems and described our lessons learned with each. I also gave a glimpse at the next generation, currently under development. Presentation in Acrobat PDF format.
At the seminar, there were a dozen attendees from the U.S., U.K., and Austrailia. Media and healthcare companies were well represented. The most interesting presentation was presented by Joseph Britto, MD of Isabel Healthcare who was motivated to develop a medical diagnostic KM system after the loss of a patient. Dr. Britto provides a good demonstration of the potential of KM software in the medical profession and also a great human interest story.
Next Generation Legal Services: The Governance Model
February 17, 2005 00:30 Filed in:
Technology 3.0
The Governance
Model was the
first of three
experimental models for next generation legal services
I worked to develop
between 2002 and 2005. After the Knowledge Folders initiative
proved successful at answering the technical question of how to
manage knowledge, these new models sought to answer the next
question, "How do you apply information
infrastructure to maximize the utility of client
service?". The basic conclusion of the governance model was that
law firms should cease allocating resources for marketing
activities other than brand awareness. Instead, law firms should
concentrate resources on assuring the delivery of precise and
timely information for each and every client.... Said otherwise,
law firms should focus systems on enabling lawyers to be an
indispensable source of information on the client's governance
team.
One reason driving the development of the Governance model was the high cost of servicing Client Teams. Most large law-firms have been unable to service more than a few dozen teams although many have more than 1,000 active clients. This is due to that manpower intensive nature of current client team organization. By sitting ten people at a table each month with an average bill rate of $500, a single team can annually cost more than sixty thousand dollars. Consider additional administrative expenses and you have clarity on this issue.
The goal of client teams was to address the new reality that specialization necessitates collaboration among lawyers when serving a client. This does not just apply to the client as a company, but to each individual in within a client company. As a CIO with more than a dozen years with law firms, I can write my own contracts. Yet I still will need the services of both a corporate and labor lawyer on any given year. My legal service needs are completely independent of peers such as the CFO or our General Counsel.
When we count the individuals served, the average top 100 law firm may have as many as 100,000 clients that need multi-counsel service. Obviously the Client Teams model cannot meet this need and another model is required.
To ensure information delivery would indeed be precise and timely, the governance model requires that a risk profile be established for each client (person) at the start of each engagement based upon his or her roles and responsibilities with the client company. Setting up a profile would be no more complicated than creating an account at Yahoo. Technology would then be used to automatically route knowledge and enterprise information related to the profile to his or her lawyers. Lawyers would in-turn quickly forward relevant risk information using the same technology.
Sources for risk information would include content created expressly for the client (i.e. Docket dates, documents) and general content that could be applicable to any client (i.e. news, written Alerts regarding changes in the law, invites to training events hosted by the firm). Since the provision of general content and invitations to clients is typically the purview of marketing, re-assigning those resources seemed a natural fit. Companies requesting legal services almost without exception request more of law firms.
One reason driving the development of the Governance model was the high cost of servicing Client Teams. Most large law-firms have been unable to service more than a few dozen teams although many have more than 1,000 active clients. This is due to that manpower intensive nature of current client team organization. By sitting ten people at a table each month with an average bill rate of $500, a single team can annually cost more than sixty thousand dollars. Consider additional administrative expenses and you have clarity on this issue.
The goal of client teams was to address the new reality that specialization necessitates collaboration among lawyers when serving a client. This does not just apply to the client as a company, but to each individual in within a client company. As a CIO with more than a dozen years with law firms, I can write my own contracts. Yet I still will need the services of both a corporate and labor lawyer on any given year. My legal service needs are completely independent of peers such as the CFO or our General Counsel.
When we count the individuals served, the average top 100 law firm may have as many as 100,000 clients that need multi-counsel service. Obviously the Client Teams model cannot meet this need and another model is required.
To ensure information delivery would indeed be precise and timely, the governance model requires that a risk profile be established for each client (person) at the start of each engagement based upon his or her roles and responsibilities with the client company. Setting up a profile would be no more complicated than creating an account at Yahoo. Technology would then be used to automatically route knowledge and enterprise information related to the profile to his or her lawyers. Lawyers would in-turn quickly forward relevant risk information using the same technology.
Sources for risk information would include content created expressly for the client (i.e. Docket dates, documents) and general content that could be applicable to any client (i.e. news, written Alerts regarding changes in the law, invites to training events hosted by the firm). Since the provision of general content and invitations to clients is typically the purview of marketing, re-assigning those resources seemed a natural fit. Companies requesting legal services almost without exception request more of law firms.