Peer to Peer Magazine

P E E R T O P E E R : I L T A ' S Q U A R T E R L Y M A G A Z I N E | S U M M E R 2 0 1 9 27 At the most basic level, clients seek legal advice to capture value or to minimize or prevent lost value. That value can manifest as risk identification, risk reduction, revenue enhancement, cost reduction, time savings, reduced effort, and regulatory compliance. In 2019 the procurement of external legal services is a "make or buy" decision. A "win-at-all-costs" mentality is rarely acceptable as clients are looking to demonstrate a tangible return on investment to their own internal and external stakeholders. The nature of legal services as "experience goods" means that it can be difficult to assess the value of time spent on project management at the outset of a matter. So, if a client does not demand the application of project management techniques, or the law firm does not routinely apply them in how they work, it is highly likely that Legal Project Management debt could materialize. What are the behaviors that cause and prevent build-up of Legal Project Management debt? If you recognize that Legal Project Management debt has occurred on your past projects, you can identify potential root causes of that undesirable outcome. By applying a behavioral lens we can recognize some common behaviors that cause a build-up of Legal Project Management debt throughout the matter lifecycle. Similarly, if you can determine what bad looks like, it should also be possible to identify behaviors and activities that could contribute to success i.e. what good looks like. Examples are highlighted for key LPM activities throughout the project lifecycle in Table 1. Examples LPM activities Example behaviors and factors that cause Legal Project Management debt Example behaviors and factors that support successful project outcomes Planning & Scoping • A lack of willingness (by either party) to engage in a detailed scoping dialogue. • The absence of a clear plan of work, which sets out expectations on both sides, roles and responsibilities, timelines and deliverables (what by when). • The development of a clear scope of work, what constitutes a good outcome and explicit expectations in terms of timelines and deliverables. • A detailed plan that implicitly demonstrates the firm's track record in undertaking a specific type of project. Project Budgeting & Pricing • The absence of a detailed budget or pricing discussion based on what the project will likely cost rather than a "best case" or unrealistically optimistic scenario. • An unwillingness to explicitly define the implications to the project budget should scope be exceeded, and the circumstances in which that could happen. • Mutual understanding and trust to develop an equitable risk-reward model that is equally attractive for both parties and fairly reflects the value of the project. • Explicit agreement of the pricing model to be applied should work exceed the agreed scope, and on what terms. Resourcing • Team members and/or client team is unclear of who will deliver the work / specific tasks, which leads to confusion at best and inefficient ways of working at worst. • Due to a lack of clarity on resourcing, the emergence of "Parkinson's Law" means that work can expand to fill the time available. • The project is staffed based on the most optimum resourcing model required to achieve a satisfactory outcome, while enabling cost and client service efficiencies. • All team members are clear of expectations of them in relation to deliverables, timelines and tasks. Managing to plan • A lack of upfront and on-gong dialogue and engagement in relation to the plan, potential scope-creep and impact to timeline, budget and project outcomes. • An unwillingness to deliver "bad news" in a timely manner impacts on- time delivery. • Creation of a project plan that is transparent and realistic for all parties to manage to. • Kick-off meeting to align expectations and roles and responsibilities. • Regular progress calls throughout the course of the engagement to track progress against the plan i.e. the plan becomes the reference point around which all progress discussions are based. Client reporting • The absence of a predictable and agreed rhythm of project reporting. • Lack of a client reporting framework means that updates are in free form and lack structure to exhaustively cover progress, project risks, scope and budget updates. • An agreed reporting schedule is determined at project outset – based on project size, scope and complexity • Use of a standard method of LPM reporting and / or the development of a tailored approach based on the client's own reporting framework. Project closedown • Limited focus placed on continuous learning – for both internal and external teams e.g. the absence of a lessons learned discussion to determine what went well and opportunities for improvements on similar projects in the future. • Explicit knowledge capture is not coordinated with the firm and/ or client's broader knowledge management framework. • The project closedown process is agreed to up front to set expectations in terms of knowledge hand-over, including all project deliverables. • Lessons learned session(s) are held, which serve multiple purposes for the internal and external teams e.g. further strengthen working relationships, celebrate success and enable tacit knowledge to be shared to support continuous improvement. T A B L E 1 – V I E W I N G L E G A L P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T D E B T T H R O U G H A B E H A V I O R A L L E N S

• Cover