Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/18157
RETHINKING THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN LEGAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT firms have concerns about how well this “piggy-back” approach will work outside of large portfolios of routine projects. And, interestingly, other firms have not followed suit, opting instead to train lawyers to efficiently manage matters. My experience in training hundreds of large firm partners has been that lawyers, jealous of their independent thought, judgment and action, usually do not take gladly to “rigid” and “mechanistic” approaches to doing their work. In short, they think legal project management is the same as other types of project management, in that it will require a steep learning curve and will increase their workloads. Once they learn that LPM is, in fact, a flexible framework for managing legal tasks, they begin to appreciate its value, both in increasing efficiency and in providing business development leverage with clients clamoring for firms that can deliver LPM. Unfortunately, many legal technology experts see LPM primarily as “a software issue,” a matter of buying, building or converting project management tools and “installing” them. They see technology as the “driver” of LPM, rather than as its facilitator. This recalls the utter failure of CRM, which was a case of the tail wagging the dog — or the technology wagging the lawyers. As we saw then, lawyers will shut the door on this mindset quickly and firmly. UNLEARNING AND ADAPTING Legal technologists need not act passively or resign themselves to a secondary role; however, those who really want a seat at the table would be wise to do the following three things: 1) walk a few miles in the shoes of the lawyers with whom they must collaborate to empower and implement LPM; 2) move from being an “authority” in a narrow technical discipline to being a supportive strategic player; and 3) make themselves as useful as possible to other LPM stakeholders by serving as a project booster and sponsor, and by positioning themselves as an instrumental player on the LPM project team. Given their skills and knowledge, it certainly is appropriate for legal technology experts to lobby for a role on LPM planning teams. However, these requests should be accompanied by a clear indication of the type of support they can provide and, perhaps, a clear indication that they do not expect to lead the team. First and foremost, this support can include helping to identify measurable objectives and standards that help provide “evidence” for LPM’s value and ROI on the firm’s LPM investment. They can and should demonstrate how their capabilities can support LPM-related objectives (e.g., demonstrating how effective mining of data in current billing systems can support LPM budgeting and monitoring). They also might seek roles on particular client teams — whether litigation or business — where they can help lay the groundwork for identifying practical, useful metrics and show how various forms of information capture can improve the team’s sophistication and flatten its learning curve. Legal technologists can reposition themselves as essential contributors to the LPM implementation process, valued for more than just possessing technical expertise that no one else in the firm has. This repositioning process will help legal technologists redefine what it means to be “indispensable” at their firms. ILTA www.iltanet.org Project Management 9