Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/34417
will be, i.e., how the project team defines “done.” The project team then determines how best to get to that point and develops a plan. In doing so, the team defines the project scope, including what will be done (in-scope) and what will not (out-of-scope), and develops time estimates that lead to cost estimates (which ultimately give an overall budget for the project). Many lawyers will argue that they already do many of these steps. This is true — many lawyers have picked up the basic tenets of project management, often learning them through experience. The problem is, to use the KM terminology, all of their thinking is tacit knowledge rather than explicit. To the extent that a legal project is planned, it is done in the lawyer’s head or on the back of an envelope. This is totally contrary to the PM approach, where the plan must be made explicit. By documenting it thoroughly, it can be shared, assumptions can be challenged and risks can be identified and managed. Adherence to an agreed plan also requires a much higher degree of communication between law firm and client, which can only be a good thing for both parties. NOT EVERY MATTER IS A PROJECT But not everything undertaken by a law firm qualifies as a project. If we examine the typical work areas of a large corporate law firm, we will see that certain project types quickly emerge; for example, mergers and acquisitions work and large litigation matters are clearly projects and lend themselves to analysis from an LPM perspective. But there are certain categories of legal work that are much more process-oriented. For example, much compliance-driven work in areas such as labor and employment and certain types of intellectual property agency work are clearly 50 Knowledge Management ILTA White Paper more process-oriented than project-oriented. This type of work is often dismissed by commentators as “commodity work” and more suited to the “law factory.” But just because work is process-oriented, it doesn’t automatically mean it is cheap commodity work. Certain types of compliance work such as securities regulatory work are undoubtedly process- oriented, but are also highly specialized and justify a premium price. But even a process can be improved. In this area, law firms are beginning to borrow from the existing process improvement literature (particularly the Lean Six Sigma discipline) and we are seeing the emergence of a nascent process improvement movement in private practice with firms such as Seyfarth Shaw leading the charge. In doing so, Seyfarth and others are borrowing from more innovative corporate legal departments such as Dupont, Tyco and United Technologies, all of which have been applying these approaches for many years. WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE KM? If we compare knowledge management with legal project management and process improvement, we can see a commonality of goal: all are focused on more efficient work methods, improved quality and thus the reduction of risk. But their approaches differ radically. KM has been positioned as inward-facing and focused primarily on software implementation, and in the U.K. and Canadian environment, also focused on specialized content development and maintenance. KM is not an analysis and data- driven approach, as metrics are often more of an afterthought on initiatives. Legal project management is focused on training, template development and use and possibly software implementation. Finally, process