@Mark and @ Samuel - You are precisely right. The challenge is that the people with the most direct experience of the benefits of what we do frequently are not the managers with the purse strings. Mark's advice about how to demonstrate the worth of our work is apt. One challenge is that if it is the junior lawyers who are benefiting the most, then it takes a great number of their stories to validate our work as compared to the views of a single influential senior partner or manager. The key is to find clear evidence that connects our work directly to benefits to the firm and its clients. But once again, because we are a little removed from the action, we will have to depend on the reports of lawyers on the front lines who are more likely to see the impact.

@Doug - I know that KM has been funded for years, but I always worry that some firms consider it a boom time luxury rather than a downturn necessity. As insurance ,it would be better if individual lawyers within the firm were so pleased with the resources KM provides that they become vocal about it at budget time.

@Susan - Feel the fear and do it anyway! This may well be the year when we have to prove our claims about KM.

- Mary

Interesting post. While I believe my service is valued, I'd be afraid to put it to the test like this!

Mary,

The PBS/NPR approach to funding has always intrigued me. I am not sure that the BBC could manage to replace its £3.5billion annual income from the licence fee with anything close to a similar amount if they had to appeal directly to listeners and viewers.

This post and your earlier one "Will They Miss You When You're Gone?" (http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/02/will-they-m...) together pose an interesting question (which Samuel's comment makes explicit). Typically, the benefit of KM activities is felt more directly by individuals, whereas the cost is dissipated across the whole firm. As a result, there is a real risk that the organisation fails to see the value in KM. (We have found that the same is true for Learning & Development (training) and (perhaps to a slightly lesser extent) Information Services (library).) By contrast, the firm sees real institutional benefit from support departments like IT and Finance, but individuals do not necessarily value them as highly.

The answer to this conundrum is to ensure that the firm understands what individuals feel. This requires us to communicate those feelings effectively -- especially by way of validated stories. By this, I mean accounts of the practical impact that our KM, L&D or IS work has had for people. That might be a pitch won because of research provided in a timely manner, client work done more profitably or in a way appreciated by the client because of KM tools, or measurable improvements in someone's performance because of training received.

If the lawyers don't feel that they have been well-served, then something has gone wrong. Either we have paid too much attention to the firm's needs, and missed what people really needed or, worse, we failed to do the right things at all -- so neither the firm nor the lawyers are happy.

Mary -

How do you compare that to budget season at your firm? You funding source is the firm management. If they keep you around then they are funding you.

A cynic might say that a law firm cannot disband its KM program after it puts one into place. After all, would you want your clients to know that you are no longer devoting resources to create better work product more efficiently?

Very nice post, Mary. Good question! The interesting thing is that in my practice I think 'regular' employees would pledge (if they had a personal budget), but managers would be more reluctant (and they have budget...). Does this have to do with fact that employees (knowledge workers) know what KM initiative (could) mean in their daily practice and managers don't?