Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/34417
To answer these questions and determine whether rational business processes could be applied, Littler’s KM group developed an approach that would meet the shareholder’s and the client’s objectives. The approach the KM group helped develop involved three major elements: the establishment of a project team to conduct a comprehensive workflow analysis to examine and re-engineer how the firm handles administrative agency charge work; the development of a case management system that would help implement the efficiencies and enhanced processes discovered through the workflow analysis; and the development of a cadre of Littler flex-time attorneys dedicated to using the new case management system and enhanced work processes. THE WORKFLOW ANALYSIS The KM group brought together a multidisciplinary team (including individuals from the firm’s IT, accounting, project management and information security departments, as well as attorneys with vast experience handling administrative agency charges) who, over the course of many weeks, spent hundreds of hours together developing a detailed workflow analysis of how administrative agency charges were being handled, from the receipt of a charge to the closing of the file. They analyzed every step in the process to develop a deep understanding of which steps could be automated, which routine functions could be performed by dedicated administrative resources and which steps could be improved through well-designed workflows, document automation or other knowledge management tools such as KM databases and wikis. They even conducted mini time-motion studies to examine how administrative assistants processed the relevant paperwork and 36 Knowledge Management ILTA White Paper how attorneys conducted investigations, made risk assessments and prepared responses to the agencies. Through its analysis, the team found a process that was remarkably repetitive: attorneys routinely draft and file notices of appearance; repeatedly prepare the same types of documents for the client (e.g., memos analyzing claims and litigation hold letters); review and produce personnel file documents for agency inspection; interview witnesses; conduct a risk assessment analysis and either engage in the conciliation process to settle the charge or defend the client by drafting and filing a statement of position. Significantly, the team discovered that for a client with a high volume of charges, much of the work became even more repetitive since the letters to the agencies and to the clients were largely the same, the personnel policies being reviewed and produced were the same, and the defenses to certain types of allegations were the same. However, because these were proceedings that had always been considered quasi-adversarial, no one had thought to look at the common processes that lent themselves to standardization, perhaps due to the old thinking that litigation is an art, not a science. From this in-depth workflow analysis, the team envisioned and subsequently set out to develop a comprehensive case management system that would force efficiency and, thus, maximize profitability. THE CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM At the heart of the solution was a unique approach to case management and legal service delivery that greatly streamlined the handling of charges, providing working attorneys with a “smart system” that could anticipate many of their needs. The system’s design included