This is the most important technological breakthrough I've seen in 10 years. The fact that it was not designed specifically for the legal profession should not deter you from availing yourself of this resource starting NOW.
Google is amazing… Wolfram Alpha transcends it. Try it out !
WATCH THIS DEMO - 13 minutes that will change your life.
(Thanks to my son Daniel Riskin, PhD for making me aware of this.)
Over the past decade, IT organizations have worked hard to improve services and in turn increase IT’s impact on the business. But in the quest to deliver great service, IT actually may have been disabling rather than enabling the enterprise.
How? In two ways. First, continual hand-holding leads to a loss of precious time that could be devoted to more important activities. Second, helping others who can help themselves circumvents learning. It lets them off the hook and alleviates their sense of responsibility. And ultimately it slows down progress as communication is constantly being run through an intermediary. In delegation lingo, this is called taking on someone else’s monkey.
Allow me to transpose one of Susan’s comments for Managing Partners and CIO’s in the legal profession:
- poorer client service by failing to capitalize on the efficiencies technology offers
- competitive disadvantage (clients do not find incompetency charming ever)
- wasted IT personnel time
- distracting and therefore delaying or discouraging the latest IT initiatives
- <I’ll bet the IT folks out there can add lots to this list>
Pleasing partners shouldn't be IT’s ultimate goal (or that of the Managing Partner). Rather, the ultimate goal of the Managing Partner and the CIO is to ensure the success of the firm. Help IT serve you and the firm by making sure that IT isn’t doing anything for individuals that they can, and should, do for themselves.
Joy London of excited utterances has done a masterful job of reporting on a reference to Robert Cialdini's six factors of influence: (1) Reciprocation, (2) Consistency, (3) Social proof, (4) Liking, (5) Authority, and (6) Scarcity by Knowledge Management presenter, Browning Marean III, partner at DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary.
Robert B. Cialdini's Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, 1993 has been a favorite within our Edge International group for a long time.
Joy's post is a solid report on Browning presentation which constitutes a refreshing addition to the Knowledge Management landscape. Managing Partners, Executive Committe members and Practice Group Leaders should take a close look.
Joy, thank you for this valuable report.
Steve Matthews, of "Vancouver Law Librarian Blog" fame, titled his post today: Kay, MacEwan & Riskin on KM ROI (Knowledge Management Return on Investment).
Steve summarizes comments made by Stuart Kay from Baker & McKenzie, Australia, Bruce MacEwan, known in the blogosphere as Adam Smith Esq., yours truly, with an honorable mention of David Maister.
I do not want to do Steve Matthews a disservice by trying to further summarize the already superb summary in his post so I will let it speak for itself.
A tangental point: As far as "Kay, MacEwan & Riskin" is concerned, that is the beauty of the blogosphere. We can collaborate, learn from each other and come together in any combination or permutation in an instant everyone/anyone can. For now, you can experience Kay, MacEwan, Maister Matthews & Riskin (alphabetical order) at Steve's post I think that is very cool do you?
Here's the punch line of the question (position) posed to David Maister at his web site:
[Knowledge Management] in fact is an iffy investment long term investments are not necessarily the right thing to do Putting the cash into image, marketing and golf may pay off more (JH of CT)
David couldn't believe it! He begins his reply:
"It is hard to believe I have just read the conclusion as written here"You can see his entire well reasoned response on his web site (IS IT ALWAYS WORTH IMPROVING? (scroll down to it)).
The questioner also opined:
If the firm thinks client demand is inelastic -- lowering prices won't increase volume enough to make up the revenue loss -- then KM is a net loss (although societally valuable). If the lawyers don't have to work as many hours to turn out a contract, then they have to bring in even more business by taking it from other firms.
Here are my questions of you, reader:
Do you agree with JH's views? (Do you think lowering your cost is self-defeating?)
Do you think that reference to "elasticity" proves JH is not a lawyer?
Why do you think people hold these peculiar views?
Where do you think competitive advantage resides?
On Moday September 26th, Steven Matthews posed some questions in his post:
Legal KM Economics & Realization Rates (Some Questions...)
Steven Matthews is the Knowledge Services Director at the Vancouver law firm Clark Wilson LLP. In this role, Steve combines his skills as a web developer with the administration of the Law Library and KM initiatives within the firm. From conceptualization to coding the final product, Steve has been responsible for all Clark Wilson LLP Intranets and public websites since 1998.
David Maister's response is captured in Steven's subsequent post:
David Maister Speaks and I'm Listening!
David Maister calls it
[getting] sucked into a very old "short-term impact v. long-term impact" debate.and is unassailably correct when he argues:
Is it ever worth getting more efficient than your competitors? The answer must be yes, surely?FastForward: So why do we have these interminable debates? Because law firms strip mine taking as much as possible for today. Few trust how revenue will be distributed tomorrow. The same attitude reduces a good deal of the long term investing that would yield competitive advantage over time.
Enter keywords:
