Issue link: https://epubs.iltanet.org/i/74024
www.iltanet.org Legal project management at Crowell & Moring was not about having an online tool; it was about changing timekeeper behavior. couple of partners and then develop training protocols and rollout workshops to the firm. After all, there are several well-qualified consultants who have done this for other firms — and seemingly successfully. However, that's exactly what the leadership of the firm did not want to do — implement an outside, one-size-fits-all approach that wasn't aligned with the Crowell & Moring culture. Leadership at the firm thought that consultants would use buzzwords, such as "stakeholder," "project charter," and "work breakdown structure" that would either intimidate or turn off most attorneys. Instead, Crowell & Moring decided to develop the training internally with attorneys who managed their matters well, even if they did not know that they were employing project management skills. With respect to online resources, we did our due diligence, but in the end decided that there was not an off-the-shelf program that would suit our needs. We decided to build our own online system that was tailored to the way we envisioned project management working at our firm, using SharePoint technology as a platform. Looking back now, it is clear that not having an off-the-shelf product that suited our needs was a real benefit, because we did not have a slick "tool" to manage matters for us. The legal project management working group was forced to develop a training program and a comprehensive implementation approach that did not rely on technology, but that relied instead on process. 30 ILTA White Paper Tailoring Training to Timekeepers As our planning progressed, it became clear that legal project management at Crowell & Moring was not about having an online tool; it was about changing timekeeper behavior. We learned that we had to change the mindset of how our lawyers and paralegals approached a project. Before diving into myriad legal tasks, they needed to take a step back and ask: What did success look like in the client's eyes? What is in-scope versus out-of-scope in developing the budget? Do they have the right resources for the task? What outside influences could derail them from achieving success? What could they do in advance to mitigate such usage error risks? How would they communicate with the client, as well as to the timekeepers working on the matter? We wanted to teach timekeepers how to approach a matter proactively, instead of simply charging ahead and then reacting to events. In developing the firm's training, we practiced what we preached. We: • Outlined the objectives of the training • Developed a scope and acknowledged what was in and out • Identified assumptions, constraints and risks