Above and Beyond KM

This session is entitled “How corporate legal departments are using analytics to measure the value of the products and services they buy.” The panelists are Bob Ingato (Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, CIT Group); James Partridge (Chief Counsel, Outside Counsel Relations, Ally Financial (formerly GMAC)); and Anne Sonnen (Deputy General Counsel & Chief Amdinistrative Officer, Legal, Corporate & Compliance Goup, BMO Financial Group). Timothy B. Corcoran (Corcoran Consulting Group), was the moderator.

[These are my notes from the 2013 Ark Group Conference: Business Intelligence and Analytics in the Legal Profession.  Since I'm publishing them as soon as possible after the end of a session, they may contain the occasional typographical or grammatical error.  Please excuse those. To the extent I've made any editorial comments, I've shown those in brackets.]

NOTES:

• CIT’s Story. Pre-2000, they were working with 1000 different law firms. Firms were hired on a matter-by-matter basis, and fees were negotiated on the same basis as well. To make matters worse, they collected very little data regarding outside counsel performance other than basic fee information. Bob Ingato reduced the number of firms substantially and shifted them away from negotiating hourly rates with discounts. In his view, it’s a waste of time to negotiate discounts. At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what actually was paid for the services obtained. In addition, they have broadened the range of providers they use. Besides traditional law firms, they are using outsourcers and alternative providers such as Axiom. In Ingato’s view, creatively designed alternative fee arrangements are critical to a corporate legal department’s success. However, an AFA won’t work well UNLESS it represents a win-win for the client AND the law firm. Once the fee arrangements are in place, CIT focuses on performance and predictability. For example, a law firm must submit a budget for each of its matters. If they fail to submit a budget for a matter, then they can’t submit a bill for that matter.
• Ally Financial’s Story. Ally Financial was formerly GMAC. They have done a great deal of work to collect and make sense of the data they need to manage their outside counsel relationships. They began with eBilling — particularly to manage rate increase requests. Because they did not initially have a systematic way to handle these requests, it resulted in automatic (almost magical) wealth creation for the law firms, but at the expense of the client. By putting a system into place, they were able to respond to the requests more rationally and consistently. Another huge benefit of collecting and analyzing data was that they were able to evaluate outside counsel claims regarding unexpected cost increases. (In this case, the data showed that the outside counsel’s theory explaining the cost increases was wrong.)
• BMO Financial Group’s Story. They began by building an analytical model that reflected their values and what they wanted to see in their law firms. Then they recruited firms based on that model using data provided via RFPs. Some data they collected: the length of relationship between a firm and BMO, fee information over 25 matters, was it commoditized work or complex work, what firms were innovative (were they using hourly rates, AFAs, alternative outside providers, etc.), diversity, etc. They also use these data to inform their very forthright annual review conversations with their outside counsel. Where firms are falling short, BMO uses the data to help outside counsel understand what can and should change in outside counsel’s behavior and processes. BMO, like any client, gets to define what constitutes value. For example, BMO values more highly outside counsel that help BMO solve specific problems (e.g., providing CLE or consulting services). BMO does not value as much the money spent taking the client out for a meal. Ultimately, they use the data to change behavior internally within BMO’s legal department and externally within outside law firms.

Lisa J. Damon is a member of Seyfarth Shaw’s Executive Committee.

[These are my notes from the 2013 Ark Group Conference: Business Intelligence and Analytics in the Legal Profession.  Since I'm publishing them as soon as possible after the end of a session, they may contain the occasional typographical or grammatical error.  Please excuse those. To the extent I've made any editorial comments, I've shown those in brackets.]

NOTES:

• LEAN. Lean is “a way to think” at Seyfarth. They use it for their high-end work and in their commodity work. They use it to increase efficiency and quality so they can charge less while delivering more.
• Data is Ridiculously Powerful! The challenge for lawyers and law firms is to understand the value and power of data. This will require moving beyond their natural discomfort with numbers and discomfort with messy data. Perfect data are hard to find. To do this, they should start with the data they have. For example, look at billing data — your clients are. Each law firm should know at least as much about its billing as its clients know.
• Business Analytics Are a Framework for Innovation. Use the data to change what you are doing and how you work. Use the business analytics not simply to understand the past, but to design the future.
• Case Study: The Conflicts Process. They started by focusing on a universal pain point — the conflicts process. They used it as a pilot project for their Lean Six Sigma initiative. The problem was that the conflicts process was slow. “Solution jumping” suggested that the firm simply hire more conflicts researchers. However, data revealed how long it took to move through each step of the conflicts process. Further, the data revealed that the slowest part of the process didn’t involved the conflicts researchers. Rather, it was the attorneys who were slowing down the process. This was a great example of using data to avoid solution jumping and to focus on the root cause of the problem. Next, they continued to collect monitoring data to show how the new and improved process was working.
• Case Study: Using Business Analytics on Cycle Time. In this case, the client was concerned that they were spending too much time and money on low-value, high-volume work. They asked Seyfarth to find a way to improve this situation. Seyfarth started by collecting data to understand better what was going on. They learned that a lot of time was spent by the client trying to determine which firm should handle the work. (There was low-risk work that could be sent to an outsourcer. Medium-risk work went to a specific person. High-risk went to a panel of firms, including Seyfarth.) The data suggested that if they could triage the matters (e.g., what kinds of work is involved and which law firm should support each type of work), then the client could assign matters to the appropriate law firms, which then reduced the cycle time.
• Case Study: Using Business Analytics to Drive Financial Performance. The client wanted to lower costs and increase recovery in connection with a specific type of litigation matter. Seyfarth established a base data set (e.g., how long was the case, what was the recovery, what fees were paid?). What were the variables that affected legal fees and recovery? Their study identified key correlations that helped them understand what affected recovery and costs. For example, did a specific delay result in a reduction in recovery? Since the correlation was clear, Seyfarth designed a workflow whereby the client was able to reduce that delay.
• Case Study: Using Business Analytics to Measure Firm Performance. At the behest of their client, Wolverine, Seyfarth had to demonstrate greater efficiency and effectiveness, while reducing costs. They monitored their processes (and sub-processes),collected data, and then used that data to change their processes to meet the client goals regarding efficiency, efficacy and cost. Part of the extra challenge was that in addition to improving Seyfarth’s processes, they had to help the client improve its processes. To do this, Seyfarth used the data to see what the sticking point was and then created an iPad app to help the in-house lawyers make the key decisions more quickly so that entire cycle time was reduced.
• Conclusions. Treat the clients as “true north.” Let them guide you to what matters. Use that data to improve your efficiency and quality, while reducing your risk — and the clients risk. Data can change behavior within your firm, make sure you use it to bring about the right behaviors.

This session is entitled “Objective Business Strategy: What Are You Trying to Measure and Why?” The panelists are: Doug Doerfler (Chief Financial Officer, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP), Stuart Kay (Director, Global Business Systems, Baker & McKenzie), and Timothy B. Corcoran (Corcoran Consulting Group)

[These are my notes from the 2013 Ark Group Conference: Business Intelligence and Analytics in the Legal Profession.  Since I'm publishing them as soon as possible after the end of a session, they may contain the occasional typographical or grammatical error.  Please excuse those. To the extent I've made any editorial comments, I've shown those in brackets.]

NOTES:

• How does the Choice of Metrics Affect Behavior? Stuart Kay started as a lawyer working on a fixed fee basis. This taught him to be “super efficient.” Doug Doerfler’s firm rewards lawyers for business origination, so this tends to make lawyers compete more for new business. Tim Corcoran noted that the compensation model absolutely drives behavior: if you compensate for new business, you’ll get a lot of subpar new business; if you compensate for current business, you won’t get any new business.
• How to Show the Value of Your Support Service? Measuring how much you spend is straightforward. Showing the return on that investment is harder. Stuart Kay believes that if you “took out” the KM team, there would probably be little impact on the bottom line today. However, down the road there will be an impact. This has happened time and time again in law firms: there is an initial push for KM that results in a new KM system. If it runs reasonably well, it is taken for granted. When there’s a market downturn, it’s easy to reduce KM staffing because the firm doesn’t realize the value embedded in creating and maintaining that KM system. Then a few years down the road, a partner realizes that they cannot compete for lack of a well-running KM system, so the firm begins to invest in KM again.
• If You Had All the Necessary Tools, What Would You Measure? Doug Doerfler says that he would measure cross-selling success and attorney investment in marketing efforts (are those marketing dollars being spent wisely?). Stuart Kay would like to be able to make better use of the available data. For example, he would like to generate more reliable forecasts rather than just “guesstimates.” He would also like to measure based on a scorecard. This could include measuring attorney satisfaction. Tim Corcoran would measure both short-term and long-term profit. He would also like to improve quality (reduced cycle time, reduced defects in work products). Finally he would measure lawyer satisfaction and voluntary departure rates. Above all, he would measure client retention rates.

This session is presented by Daniel Martin Katz, Assistant Professor of Law, Michgan State University & Co-Director, Reinvent Law Laboratory at MSU Law.

[These are my notes from the 2013 Ark Group Conference: Business Intelligence and Analytics in the Legal Profession.  Since I'm publishing them as soon as possible after the end of a session, they may contain the occasional typographical or grammatical error.  Please excuse those. To the extent I've made any editorial comments, I've shown those in brackets.]

NOTES:

• What’s Driving the Move to Business Analytics? Moore’s Law is happening right in front of our eyes — exponential growth of computing power. Kryder’s Law is showing the exponential decay in the price of data storage. The book, Race Against the Machine, provides more detail on the unrelenting drive to artificial intelligence.
• Law will be affected. The IBM team working on Watson, is focused on putting all that computing power in a device as small as an iPhone. They will apply all that power to the healthcare industry because that industry is worth trillions. The legal industry is worth billions, so it is a lower priority, but it will be on the list.
• Technology has Clear Advantages. In some jurisdictions, it is possible to obtain a license for a driverless car to drive itself. (In other words, the license is given to the car, not a human driver.) Why is this? Because the driverless cars have proven to be safer than human drivers. Katz says that for him, this is “the end of history.” Why? Because this is a case where the machine outperforms humans AND the tasks involved are very complicated. Katz suggests that that the process involved may be more complicated that most legal processes. So human lawyers can’t really claim that their exceptionalism will protect the legal industry and keep it safe from machines.
• How can Machines Chip Away at the Legal Industry? (1) With enough data concerning legal fees, the machine can help drive down legal rates. This is a powerful tool in the hands of savvy general counsel. And, this capability is available now. (2) Predicting outcomes in legal disputes is another area in which machines can outperform humans because the machines can handle many more data points in a systematic fashion. Lex Machina (which combines IP experts and computing experts) is very advanced and able to predict whether a patent will survive scrutiny by a court. To do this, they have collected and analyzed data from 30 years of patent disputes. (3) Professor William Henderson has a company that predicts how well law students can do in particular law firms. (4) Peter Thiel has provided support to Judicata, a company focused on “mapping the legal genome.”
• Parting Words: Welcome to law’s information revolution (and math will be on the exam)!

For years optimists have said that things will get better once Millennials become associates in law firms. According to these optimists, this younger cohort will bring new values and new ways of working to hide-bound firms. At this point in time, several classes of digital natives are now beavering away in law firms around the country, but we haven’t seen a huge wave of change. In fairness, they are still very junior and probably do not have the requisite power within their firms to insist on improvements. Further, in harsh economic times one could be forgiven for putting one’s head down and working hard rather than rocking the boat. Finally, and most importantly, their law school education was fairly traditional so they were not trained to buck the traditional ways of doing things within their firms.

Does this mean that nothing will change? Not necessarily so. At least one law school is training its students to think differently about the practice of law.

On April 17, Georgetown Law School will be hosting its second annual Iron Tech Lawyer Competition. It is the capstone of the practicum taught by Professor Tanina Rostain and Adjunct Professor Roger Skalbeck called “Technology, Innovation and Legal Practice Practicum – Access to Justice.” The focus of this seminar is to ground law students in the possibilities and practicalities of  law practice innovation enabled by technology. Here’s how the curriculum guide describes it:

This practicum course exposes students to the varied uses of computer technologies in the practice of law. During our seminar meetings, students become familiar with various innovative software platforms that are being adopted in law practice to enhance access to justice, capture legal expertise, interface with clients, manage litigation and transactional processes, and increase the efficiency and quality of legal services. Topics include: legal expert systems, virtual law practice, automated document assembly, technology assisted document review, and electronic legal research. For the field placement component, students work in small teams for a legal service organization to develop a platform, application, or automated system that increases access to justice and/or improves the effectiveness of legal representation. These organizations include civil rights organizations, direct service providers, and government agencies. The course culminates in a design competition, The Georgetown Iron Tech Lawyer Contest, which is judged by outside experts in the field. Along the way, students learn teamwork, an understanding of the relationship among the rules and doctrines that apply within a particular legal regime, and visual literacy skills. The goal is that, by the end of the semester, each team will have built a functional app that is adopted by the legal service organization and put into use for the organization or its clients.

This course is not about using Microsoft Office efficiently. It’s about unleashing the power of technology to unleash the power of the law.

Wow.

I, for one, cannot wait to see what happens when these Georgetown Law School graduates begin to practice law. They have been taught how to use technology to practice smarter for the greater good. More law schools need courses like these. And every law firm needs graduates like these.

[Hat tip to Neota Logic for providing the expert system that was so critical for the Iron Tech Lawyer program.]

Update from Professor Rostain on April 16: “If you want to catch a glimpse of the action, go to http://apps.law.georgetown.edu/webcasts/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=2007 or click through our home page. The link will go live shortly before 1:30 {Wednesday] afternoon.”

For most sophisticated companies, the issue of social software is not a new one. If you’ve read my reports from the Enterprise 2.0 conference, you’ll see summaries of some interesting and innovative deployments of social software within the enterprise. But for every success story, there are far too many organizations that have “tried social and don’t understand what the fuss is about.”  In other words, their internal deployment of social media tools has not moved the needle in terms of their business performance.

What’s Gone Wrong?

Here are just a few of the many examples of things gone wrong: For some, their social software experiment was initiated by a few enthusiastic individuals or teams at the grassroots level who were unable to obtain the requisite management support for their efforts. For others, there was a top-level edict that “we should do social,” but that edict was not supported by significant participation by key leaders within the organization. Another dead end is the social platform that is launched with much fanfare but does not integrate smoothly with the systems of record, with the systems in which the core of the business takes place.

As a result of these and other missteps and miscalculations, we haven’t seen the wholesale adoption that one might expect from a set of tools and capabilities that have swept the consumer web.

How To Make it Better

John Hagel, co-chairman of Deloitte’s Center for the Edge, has some excellent pragmatic advice for organizations: Use social software to solve problems that matter to your business. In a CIO Insights video interview (see below), he recommends the following steps:

1.  The senior executives of your organization are typically measured by financial metrics, so start with the financial metrics that are the most challenging or present the greatest business opportunity.
2. Then drill down to the operating metrics that drive those financial metrics. For example, are the financial metrics on revenue growth impaired by operating metrics that indicate a high level of customer churn?
3. Then drill down further to the frontline metrics. In the example of customer churn, do the frontline metrics indicate poor customer service or inadequate responses to customer requests?
4. Ask what you can do with social software to help the customer support function reduce customer churn. This is a real problem worth solving that can have a meaningful impact on business performance.
5. Develop a social software plan that reduces customer churn and generates meaningful metrics.
6. Collect metrics that demonstrate your success at the operating level and in terms of the positive impact on revenue.

In a similar vein Alan Lepofsky, VP & Principal Analyst at Constellation Research, recently provided a step-by-step approach to implementing social software for what he calls “purposeful collaboration” in which employees use social software hand-in-glove with the business processes and tools that help them get their work done (see video below):

1. Investigate a key business process inside your organization that currently presents challenges (e.g., is new product development too slow?). Identify what part of the process needs improvement.
2. Determine how you need to improve that process. What are the relevant milestones and goals you would like to set?
3. Identify appropriate social software that can help you improve that process. Look for social software that integrates neatly with your existing key business tools; be cautious about purchasing a standalone platform. And be sure to confirm that the social software can be deployed in a manner that meets your business needs (e.g., via the cloud, mobile-friendly, etc.).

Now take a look at your organization. Is there a business challenge that really matters to your organization or its constituents? If standard approaches have failed to yield the desired results, is there an opportunity here to use social software to make a meaningful improvement in your business results? If so, is it clear what metrics you can track to actually demonstrate this impact? If your answers to these questions are positive, you may have a terrific opening to show your organization how social software is more than a trendy sop for the millenials and actually can be a useful tool for professionals of all ages within your organization.

The best way to make your social software deployment a real success is to tie it to a demonstrable improvement in business results.

That’s the path to success. The rest is up to you.

[Photo Credit: Leo Reynolds]

A few kind readers contacted me recently to tell me they were worried that something had happened to the RSS feed for this blog. It turns out that they had reason to be concerned. Something was wrong and we were having trouble diagnosing the problem. We tried one approach after another, but were unable to find an obvious solution. This is the point at which even a calm technologist thinks seriously about hitting the monitor with a heavy object!

The good news is that after much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair, we think it is fixed now. That said, I’d be grateful if you could let me know if you are a subscriber and are not receiving my posts. In the meantime, I’m going to resume blogging in the hope that everything is working with the RSS feed.

In my early days as a blogger I assumed that my blog offerings, once published, dropped into some deep dark hole, never to see daylight again. When I received my first blog comment, I was delighted to discover that somebody actually was reading my post. Since that time lots of somebodies have been kind enough to provide comments on my blog, as well as reactions via Twitter and Google Plus. This in turn has triggered exactly the kind of conversation I hoped would emerge.

Thanks for bearing with me through this technological bump in the road. I’ll continue to work to upgrade things on my end so that problems of this sort are minimized going forward.

[Photo Credit: HiMY SYeD]

Earlier this year I wrote a post entitled, If Dominos Ran Your Law Firm. That post focused on the window on its operations that Dominos Pizza provides to its customers via the Dominos Tracker. Of course, I was drawing a pointed contrast with the lack of transparency that most law firms offer to their clients.

In that spirit of pointed contrasts, let’s take a look at Southwest Airlines. Since its beginning, Southwest Airlines has followed a distinctive path. The company has made some choices that other companies find difficult, if not impossible, to make. As a result, Southwest has developed a unique company culture that is known as “Living the Southwest Way.” According to the post, Southwest Airlines “Gets It” With Our Culture, their culture has three components:

• Warrior Spirit:  work hard, desire to be the best, be courageous, display a sense of urgency, persevere, and innovate.
• Servant’s Heart:  follow The Golden Rule, put others first, demonstrate proactive Customer Service (that includes both Internal–SWA Employees–and External Customers), and embrace the SWA Family.
• Fun-LUVing* Attitude:  don’t take yourself too seriously, maintain perspective (balance), celebrate successes, enjoy your work, and be a passionate Teamplayer. [*LUV is Southwest's ticker symbol.]

Perhaps the most significant way in which Southwest is not like most other companies flows from Southwest’s priorities. Herb Kelleher, cofounder of Southwest, explains what he sees as the false choice regarding corporate priorities:

When I started out, business school professors liked to pose a conundrum: Which do you put first, your employees, your customers, or your shareholders? As if that were an unanswerable question. My answer was very easy: You put your employees first. If you truly treat your employees that way, they will treat your customers well, your customers will come back, and that’s what makes your shareholders happy. So there is no constituency at war with any other constituency. Ultimately, it’s shareholder value that you’re producing.

Putting Employees First

Can you give me the name of a law firm that puts its employees first? If you ask most law firms, they’ll tell you that they “put the client first.” (As a practical matter, many actually put their shareholders (i.e., the partners) first.) At Southwest, the approach is quite different. In fact they express it with the following “magic formula“:

Happy Employees = Happy Customers = Increased Business/Profits = Happy Shareholders! 

They also express it quite explicitly as part of the mission statement posted on their website:

The Mission of Southwest Airlines

The mission of Southwest Airlines is dedication to the highest quality of Customer Service delivered with a sense of warmth, friendliness, individual pride, and Company Spirit.

To Our Employees

We are committed to provide our Employees a stable work environment with equal opportunity for learning and personal growth. Creativity and innovation are encouraged for improving the effectiveness of Southwest Airlines. Above all, Employees will be provided the same concern, respect, and caring attitude within the organization that they are expected to share externally with every Southwest Customer.

Imagine that? Treating employees as you expect them to treat your clients. Encouraging creativity and innovation rather than conformity and rigid adherence to tradition. Supporting employees as they find new ways to build the business and keep customers happy. The cynic in you might say that words are cheap. In fact you might question whether it is possible to run a financially viable operation in this manner. According to Southwest’s most recent “One Report,” 2011 marked the 39th consecutive year of profitability for the company. Can you name a major law firm that can match these results?

Southwest’s website features the following quotation from Gary Kelly, their CEO:

Our people are our single greatest strength and most enduring longterm competitive advantage.

I suspect senior management of your firm has said that from time to time, but how have they demonstrated it? Aside from moving from the jargon of  ”professional development” to that of “talent management,” has anything materially improved for the employees of your firm? Is there a sense of teamwork and shared mission regardless of whether or not the members of the team have law degrees? Is there a commitment to mutual learning and growth? Is there explicit encouragement of creativity and innovation, not only in the practice of law but in the business of law?

Herb Kelleher once observed that competitors can buy your tangible assets, but they cannot buy the competitive advantage your company culture gives you. Has your law firm invested in a company culture that keeps your best employees engaged and encourages every employee to become one of the best? As the economic environment becomes more challenging, your people will truly be your greatest strength. Now would be a good time to start thinking like Herb Kelleher if you’re serious about being in this game for the long haul.

*************************

Just for fun, here’s an example of a Southwest Airlines employee at work:

[Photo Credit: Jim Ellwanger]

All healthy things evolve. According to the comedian, Jimmy Fallon, even “Mom Dancing: evolves. If you don’t believe him, take a look at the video above. (It’s Friday, folks!)

So if everything evolves, what’s happening to your knowledge management program? Is it moving on an upwards trajectory as it adapts to meet new and changing needs in your organization? Or is it stagnating like a fetid pond hosting malaria-laden mosquitos?

If you’re not sure, chances are you are stagnating. What are some signs of stagnation?

• little introspection or analysis regarding your KM program
• a lack of energy about KM on the part of your KM group or, worse still, your organization
• a dearth of actionable new ideas for your KM program
• your KM efforts are focused primarily on maintenance, without scope for R&D or innovation
• you are stuck at one level of development (e.g., creating document collections or keeping the intranet functioning) and aren’t growing and stretching to explore new forms of knowledge sharing
• malaria-laden mosquitos

What about some signs of growth and evolution?

• you have established sensible and stable information management practices
• the people in your organization recognize the pitfalls (and benefits) of knowledge silos
• your organization has active communities of practice that facilitate knowledge sharing
• your KM program is considered to be of strategic importance to your organization
• the people in your organization conduct themselves as individual personal knowledge managers who also have a stake in the enterprise-wide KM effort

If you’d like a more structured approach to gauging your evolution, I’d suggest you take a look at one of the many KM maturity models that the wonderful Stan Garfield has collected. And, while you’re at it, see some of the articles he has included that question the usefulness of maturity models. As with many things in knowledge management, there is ample room for diversity and disagreement!

(For those of you unfamiliar with the concept of a maturity model, it is a diagnostic tool developed to help assess programs or organizations against a common standard of accomplishment and development. If you’d like a further explanation of the concept see Consultant’s Tool: What is a Maturity Model.)

This may be more than you can think about on a Friday, but I’d strongly suggest that you set some time aside in the next week or two to go through these models and see how your KM program stacks up. It might give you some new ideas and new energy to move out of that stagnated pool into a more vibrant future for KM in your organization.

*****************************

For those of you who remember music from the 1980s, you’ll have recognized the inspiration for my title: Tracy Chapman’s “Talkin’ Bout a Revolution.” Here’s a video of the song for nostalgia buffs.

On Thursday, March 21, the family and friends of Carl Frappaolo are gathering in Boston to celebrate the life of one of the leaders of the knowledge management community. Since I cannot be in Boston for that gathering, I am writing some remembrances here.

I last saw Carl at the KMWorld conference in October 2012 where he accepted the KMWorld Reality Award on behalf of his organization, FSG. In many ways, the Reality Award typifies what Carl stood for:  moving beyond the rhetoric to actually getting something useful done through KM.  To underscore the point, here’s what the announcement of the award said:

This award recognizes an organization in which knowledge management is a positive reality. The recipient of the KM Reality award is an organization demonstrating leadership in the implementation of knowledge management practices and processes by realizing measurable business benefits.

While Carl was not about mere rhetoric, he certainly had a deep understanding of the vocabulary and theory of knowledge management. He knew what it takes to be “a good knowledge leader.” This provided the foundation for his more than two decades as a widely respected KM practitioner. His bio at Delphi Group (which he co-founded) is impressive. Here are just a few excerpts:

• “With over 25 years of experience working with a broad array of business solutions including knowledge and content management, portals, search engines, document management, workflow, BPM, records management, imaging, intranets and electronic document databases, Mr. Frappaolo is well versed in the practical business aspects and technical aspects of implementing large scale e-applications.”
• “Mr. Frappaolo has been recognized by AIIM International (the Association for Information and Image Management) as a Master of Information Technology and as an Information Systems Laureate, and in 2000, was bestowed the Distinguished Service Award by AIIM.”
• “Mr. Frappaolo has authored over 300 studies on the technology and practices of e-business, portals, Knowledge Management and Electronic Document Management and has been cited and published in leading industry periodicals….”
• “Recognized as an industry leader with great technological foresight, Mr. Frappaolo is a frequent speaker at conferences and trade shows and has delivered the keynote address at numerous national and international trade and user conventions. His audiences consistently find his presentations thought provoking and always on the cutting edge.”

I had the good fortune to hear Carl speak on many occasions. One memorable keynote talk he gave was at the 2010 Enterprise 2.0 Conference at which he asked “Can E2.0 Crack Through KM Culture?” While I cannot do it justice, my notes of his talk coupled with his slides should give you a glimpse of his knowledge and insight.

At KMWorld and shortly thereafter, Carl and I spoke about his work with FSG. He was inordinately proud of the accomplishments of that organization in the world.  This pride is evident in his quotation featured on his FSG bio page:

What attracted me most to FSG was the mission of the organization. After a long and successful career as a consultant assisting hundreds of organizations advance their causes by maximizing the value obtained from their intellectual property and experience, I was looking for a chance to use my experience and skills in a way that would have a serious and positive impact on pressing and important social issues. FSG gives me that opportunity.

What is equally evident is the high regard in which Carl’s colleagues at FSG and beyond held him.  He will be missed.