Above and Beyond KM A discussion of knowledge management that goes above and beyond technology.

Awards & Recognition

2011 Canadian Law Blog Finalist

2009 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner

2008 Canadian Law Blog Awards Winner

2008 Blawggies

Subscribe to Above and Beyond KM

Subscribe in a reader

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Facebook

Disclaimer

This publication contains my personal views and not necessarily those of my employer. Since I am a lawyer, I do need to tell you that this publication is not intended as legal advice or as an advertisement for legal services.

  • KM’s Worst Enemy

    What’s one thing that will doom your law firm knowledge management program? Your knowledge manager’s inability to question premises. (To be honest, this can be a problem with most disciplines, but I don’t presume to speak to any other areas of expertise.)

    For example, lawyers (being people who value precedent) have historically placed a high premium on document collections.  Consequently, it was natural for early law firm knowledge managers to assume that their first priority was to create and manage document collections for lawyers.  Is this the way it should be?  Does this fondness for collections make sense any more?  In fact, as the rate of information production grows exponentially, is it even practical to think we can create and maintain a collection that is either comprehensive or current?  Or, should we be thinking more about search and retrieval? Check your premises.

    Here’s another example:  lawyers (being people who write professionally) have historically placed a high premium on model documents.  (For those of you outside the legal profession, these are contracts that do not contain client-specific information, but generally do collect the firm’s knowledge of that type of contract by providing annotations containing drafting advice and negotiation guidance.) Most lawyers would love to have a model document for every kind of contract they typically prepare for their clients.  To be honest, some lawyers dream of a fill-in-the-blanks model that they can just pull off the shelf and use.  In reality, however, model documents can be extremely time-consuming and expensive to produce.  And, they can be a bear to maintain.  In short, they are an expensive undertaking.  Nonetheless, many law firm knowledge managers have assumed that a top priority should be creating a comprehensive set of model documents.  But does your firm have the human commitment and financial resources necessary to provide properly maintained model documents?  And, even if it does, is this a good use of its resources?  Check your premises.

    Knowledge managers should lead by example when it comes to finding creative solutions to practical problems.  The first step along this path is to question our premises.  When we fail to do this, we pursue outdated goals and methods, thereby relegating our KM programs to an increasingly irrelevant position within the firm.

    ***Update, 26 Oct 2009 ***

    If you’re willing to take a radical, critical look at the things you do and the way you work, the following reading might help:

    [Photo Credit:  oberazzi]

    Published on October 25, 2009 · Filed under: KM, knowledge management, law firm knowledge management;
    9 Comments
  • http://www.adamsdrafting.com/2009/10/26/problem-with-law-firm-template-initiatives/ AdamsDrafting » Blog Archive » The Problem with Law-Firm Template Initiatives

    [...] these challenges, I wasn’t surprised to see what Above and Beyond KM had to say on the subject today: [L]awyers (being people who write professionally) have [...]

  • http://DougCornelius.com Doug Cornelius

    Mary -

    True. Model documents are expensive. Even worse, they have a negative ROI when you are billing by the hour. If the model saves you a hour (or more) of drafting that is time that will not appear on the bill. (I will ignore collect-ability and quality since they are not meaningfully measurable.)

    Switch to fixed billing and flat fees, then the investment in form documents is truly an investment that can yield a measurable financial return. That hour (or more) of drafting time saved makes the engagement that much more profitable for the firm.

  • VMaryAbraham

    Doug -

    You're right that a fixed fee billing structure makes the benefits of model
    documents more intuitively obvious. Nonetheless, my point about checking
    premises remains. We won't know for sure that a model has been helpful
    unless we can actually identify and measure the impact of that model.
    Alternatively, we'll need solid and consistent anecdotal evidence that a
    particular model was helpful. Are firms ready to do that kind of due
    diligence review?

    - Mary

  • http://speakerinteractive.com Swan

    Agree with you completely that the full cost of ownership should be evaluated on any investment, KM or otherwise. Benefits are great, but there is rarely a free lunch. Usually there is cost involved. If that cost outweighs the benefit, it's a non-starter.

    This sounds simple, but especially with KM, there are often a lot of soft benefits that are hard to quantify. Though we try, there are many assumptions compiled that rarely are accurate. Many initiatives in a large organization will claim that they will cause or caused the same benefits.

    Nonetheless, we should always strive to quantify costs and benefits the best we can.

  • VMaryAbraham

    Swan -

    Given the “soft benefits” of KM, it may be hard to actually quantify the
    full cost of ownership. Nonetheless, knowlege mangers are not off the
    hook. We just have to work harder to be sure we have a defensible way of
    explaining and substantiating the costs and benefits of KM. But even if we
    can't nail down every last item, I suspect that simply making the effort
    will prove beneficial.

    - Mary

  • VMaryAbraham

    Doug -

    You're right that a fixed fee billing structure makes the benefits of model
    documents more intuitively obvious. Nonetheless, my point about checking
    premises remains. We won't know for sure that a model has been helpful
    unless we can actually identify and measure the impact of that model.
    Alternatively, we'll need solid and consistent anecdotal evidence that a
    particular model was helpful. Are firms ready to do that kind of due
    diligence review?

    - Mary

  • http://aboveandbeyondkm.com/2009/10/dating-a-beautiful-model.html Dating a Beautiful Model | Above and Beyond KM

    [...] KM’s Worst Enemy [...]

  • http://speakerinteractive.com/ Swan

    Agree with you completely that the full cost of ownership should be evaluated on any investment, KM or otherwise. Benefits are great, but there is rarely a free lunch. Usually there is cost involved. If that cost outweighs the benefit, it's a non-starter.

    This sounds simple, but especially with KM, there are often a lot of soft benefits that are hard to quantify. Though we try, there are many assumptions compiled that rarely are accurate. Many initiatives in a large organization will claim that they will cause or caused the same benefits.

    Nonetheless, we should always strive to quantify costs and benefits the best we can.

  • VMaryAbraham

    Swan -

    Given the “soft benefits” of KM, it may be hard to actually quantify the
    full cost of ownership. Nonetheless, knowlege mangers are not off the
    hook. We just have to work harder to be sure we have a defensible way of
    explaining and substantiating the costs and benefits of KM. But even if we
    can't nail down every last item, I suspect that simply making the effort
    will prove beneficial.

    - Mary

 
Designed by 110Words InfoZoft
Copyright © 2008 · Above and Beyond KM