Digital White Papers


publication of the International Legal Technology Association

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 6 of 62

7 WWW.ILTANET.ORG | ILTA WHITE PAPER KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT KM Structure When we conducted our initial survey in 2008, most participating organizations had no separate KM department. The percentage of responding organizations with KM departments rose from 48% in 2008 to 52% in 2014 and sits at 51% in 2016. Although KM in firms with multiple offices remains mostly centralized in one office that delivers services across offices, the percentage has dropped consistently over the past six years, from 75% in 2012 to 66% in 2014 and down to 41% in 2016. Even so, KM appears to remain centralized to one extent or another, with either one office or a dispersed virtual team supporting all offices in most of the responding firms and only 10% reporting a decentralized model where each office directs its own KM initiatives. The 2016 results reveal something of a surprise in who leads KM efforts. While the 2014 results showed practicing or non-practicing lawyers leading KM at 47% of responding firms and the second largest group being librarians at only 17%, 2016 results have practicing or non-practicing lawyers leading KM at 29%, librarians at 24% and a technology person at 18% of responding organizations. This year, one organization interestingly reported that an individual with a "Knowledge Management Degree or Certificate" leads KM. Perhaps the biggest change over the survey's 10 years has been in reporting structures. The person to whom KM staff report continues to shi from a senior legal person to a senior administrator, with 28% reporting to information technology (IT), 21% reporting to the senior administrative officer (for example, the chief operations officer) and only 15% reporting to the most senior person on the legal side (for example, chief executive officer, a Board or managing partner). The primary disciplines that report directly to or are part of KM are Library (50%), Innovation and Research and Development (39%), Research (33%), and Business and Competitive Intelligence (30%), with Legal Project Management, IT, Records Management, and Professional Development and Training also ranking fairly high. In 2016, most organizations report having a formal KM strategy either in place or in development, although 44% report having no KM strategy. From the many respondents willing to share their KM vision or mission statement, we learned that encouraging knowledge-sharing, increasing access to knowledge and information, creating efficiency, driving excellent client service, supporting collaboration, and connecting people and processes are the most common themes. Two respondents described their mission as "to be the Google of our firm." Resources Investment in KM seems to be holding steady, with most respondents that have a distinct KM budget reporting that their budgets stayed the same in 2016. Similarly, most reported that the number of people in their department remained the same. However, a clear majority (57%) report having no separate KM budget. For those with a KM budget, salaries and benefits were the single highest expense, followed by soware licences, consultants and development, and non-soware external resources. Departments continue to be lightly staffed, with the majority having no or only one full-time person, and a scant six of the 148 organizations reporting 20 or more people on their KM teams. A very slim majority reported having at least one lawyer dedicated to KM at least part time and a slightly higher, yet still small, majority reported having at least one technology person on their KM teams. Two respondents described their mission as "to be the Google of our firm." 2016 ILTA Knowledge Management Survey Results

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Digital White Papers - KM17