Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/68817
www.iltanet.org example, the success of Flickr (the photo-sharing site). The social aspect is a benefit that's immediately obvious to photographers or information professionals, but not to the average person. However, if Flickr were presented as an easy way to share holiday photos with relatives overseas, its value would be clearer. The technology is great, but the social aspect of this site adds an additional layer of value, and it is one that is independent of any conscious choice to "be social." My pictures on Flickr are visible to the public. As such, they have the potential to be a useful resource for people I have never met — helping them see what places look like when planning a vacation, for example, or allowing them to research a topic on which I have gathered a body of information for my own use. This social software example teaches a lesson that is applicable to KM technology more generally. Lawyers have no interest in doing KM. They want to be able to do their work as well as possible. If we build systems that concentrate on KM objectives, there is no guarantee that they will enhance lawyers' work. If we build systems that match what people need to do and incorporate default sharing behaviors, the firm's work will improve. The Value of KM Must Be Evident So what does KM in the law firm of the future look like? I think there are a couple of key themes. The most important is that all KM work (whether individual PSL activities or major technology projects) needs to deliver tangible value to the firm and/or to clients. This is not new, but it is a more pressing obligation now. There is also a need to rebalance the division of responsibilities between the firm and individual lawyers. Many KM projects in the past have focused on the firm's interests. This is why people keep referring to the "What's in it for me?" question in KM. That should never need to be asked — making people's work easier and more effective is the reason for doing KM. As we concentrate more on the needs of individuals, there is a concomitant responsibility on lawyers to take some responsibility for their own learning and knowledge development. I suspect that this is an area where U.S. lawyers have an edge over their British counterparts. I look forward to seeing how the different educational and legal cultures on both sides of the Atlantic express themselves as the approach to KM converges. 64 ILTA White Paper