Want matter management workflow software? Get a new firm, says Report Factory
Yes, I know I’ll be smashed for this opinion , but being popular isn’t necessarily in my top 10 motivations in life.
Matter management, Matter lifecycle management, Matter control, Matter workflow management, these are all common terms for software which helps you define the steps associated with a particular work-type, automate them, add quality control to auto-produced documents, tasks, deadlines, task allocations etc (the list goes on).
Often this includes containing all emails and documents (in both directions), together with tasks and other notes in one single “electronic file” and by tracking task allocations, expected durations, expected deadlines etc. provides a modicum of resource planning as well. There’s normally promises of integrations to your PMS, DMS, CMS, CRM and other TLA’s (three letter acronyms).
It sounds wonderful, and indeed the software packages do go from woeful to wonderful on the capability and quality scale. But as is the usual theme, the software and its capability is NOT the problem. The problem is simply inertia.
What is a simple definition of inertia?
- :a property of matter by which it remains at rest or in unchanging motion unless acted on by some external force.
- : a tendency not to move or change.
Inertia is real, it’s weight, heavy heavy weight. Inertia will kill you.
There is one aspect of the software which is to blame, however, and that’s being too flexible. In doing so, the professional staff believe they can bend the software to their will, and they can, but as we all know, that is a constantly changing position. Lawyers make money by identifying the tiniest aspect of a situation which makes every single problem unique, and every verdict positive or negative depending upon these tiny specifics and the arguments of the day. It’s not their fault, that’s the business and the way they are trained to think.
As a result, defining the parameters, designs, workflows and implementation of the software is like 5 people simultaneously trying to solve 50 Rubik’s Cubes simultaneously by discussing the methodology to use and which moves to make first and by whom.
I’ve written matter management software, I’ve implemented it, I’ve advised firms on which ones to purchase based on their requirements, I’ve advised software companies on it, and been a beta tester. Generally the software is actually pretty good.
Unfortunately what usually happens is an endless (and I do mean endless) trail of meetings, design discussions, alterations and failed prototypes (and that’s when it’s done well !!). Don badly, its designed away from the lawyers by well-meaning business analysts and technology teams who present a shiny finished product to the (existing firm / business unit) Legal team, who spend 3 days with it and declare it a waste of time and money. At this point it’s pretty much over, and unlikely to ever recover.
In the very few instances (two from memory) I’ve seen it work (I mean really work make things better faster cheaper easier more profitable) not just get complied with by adding historical data after the lawyer has already done the work, it was implemented by a dictator. A benevolent dictator, sure, but a dictator nonetheless.
So my contention is that if you build a brand new firm by designing the processes, enshrining them in software, testing them to that spec and THEN hiring the Lawyers and support staff, you’ve got a pretty good shot at it. The compliance with the process becomes a pseudo condition of employment. It might just work. Do anything else, I think you’re doomed. You’ll waste a lot of time and money. You might also die of stress.
Of course you could, maybe, start a new business unit in your existing firm or ideally a second brand. Treat it as a startup and follow the same rules as above. Nobody has to work for it, but they can apply to transfer to it, with employment conditions. That could work, if someone is brave enough to have a crack at it.
But retro-fitting definitions, processes and changes into an existing practice group, I don’t think so. But you go ahead.
If you are one of the brave ones who want to try building a new firm, or a new brand, I’ll offer to help, at a huge discount on my fees. Assuming you run with my advice, I’ll take 2% of the super profits in the first 3 years, over an above a traditional approach (measured at the start). However, if you just want an advice document telling you that the old approach will work and that the (magic bullet) software will turn things around, I’ll do it, but that’s normal consulting rates I’m afraid, possibly with a premium.
