SC Lawyer, March 2004, #5. Bringing order out of chaos.

• Author: By Kevin Bell

South Carolina Lawyer

2004.

SC Lawyer, March 2004, #5.

Bringing order out of chaos

South Carolina LawyerMarch 2004Bringing order out of chaosBy Kevin BellWhile most law firms realize that technology changes rapidly, few are prepared to systematically evaluate technology and manage the process of change.

Most attorneys are focused on practicing law and would prefer to let someone else worry about the firm's technology. Unfortunately, the firm that fails to manage its technology may find itself wasting time and operating inefficiently. Since time truly is money for a law firm, no firm can afford waste or inefficiency. This article is about lessons learned the hard way and pitfalls to avoid as law firms manage changing technology.

Over the course of a weekend in August 2002, Robinson, McFadden & Moore moved into new offices and opened up our first satellite office, went live with all new computer hardware, a new word processing program, a new time and billing system, new remote access and direct faxing and a new, integrated case management system. While the physical move was daunting, the overhaul of our computer technology presented the greatest challenge.

Creating and implementing a process for evaluating workflow, assessing needs, selecting a vendor and implementing the new technology are all part of the process, but so is overcoming the natural human tendency to resist change. Successful change depends upon an atmosphere that supports change. Creating that atmosphere is critical.

Have a representative group study what the firm is doing now

Many technology changes fail because the people who use the system are not firmly in control of the outcome. Avoid this mistake by having both attorneys and support staff involved in deciding the direction the firm's technology will take. We formed a committee, headed by an attorney, but that included administrative and technical support staff, to create and oversee the process of needs evaluation, vendor selection and implementation of a new system. Everyone had a chance to be heard at every step in the process.

After a committee is formed, the first step is to find out what and how work is done. Don't guess at what staff are doing, how they are doing it and what would make it better. Ask them, watch them and then analyze what is seen and heard.

Our investigation revealed that our firm did not have a unified system for managing case documents and work flow. Over the years the firm had acquired an eclectic array of standalone products that did not "talk" to each other. Despite the creative, best efforts of all to make do, it became clear that everyone really had his own filing and calendaring system. The two dozen or so discrete systems of supreme logic that had evolved made accessing even routine word processing documents from a file supervised by a different partner difficult, if not impossible. In reality, even those who felt they had a good system only had a system that was as good as could be expected without an interface between the data and the end user.

Decide what the firm needs based on the input from users

Before calling in vendors, take time to define the firm's objectives. Starting from what we knew did not work, our committee proceeded to gather information about what mattered to people who would be using the system; researched the current state of the art in standalone products and case management technology; separated features and capabilities into "must haves", "would be nice" and "do not need"; and set our objectives.

The most critical need was to replace or integrate the separate legacy systems for calendaring, contact and file management so that all network users could easily access all information related to a file, especially a file that they did not work on routinely. In our case, integrated also meant integrated at the most basic level such that all parts of the network would flow from a single source supported by a single vendor. If things go wrong, a firm should have one vendor to call. Other vendors may need to be brought in, but only under the management and responsibility of the primary vendor.

After our investigation, we determined that our objective was to implement an integrated system, preferably from a single vendor that provided:

* consistency in the way data was stored;

* integrated data types (word processing, e-mail and calendar);

* integrated primary network components;

* support for enhanced remote access, direct faxing, peripheral devices and similar technology; and

* support for a remote office.

At the outset, we were not sure whether this objective would lead to a formal case management system or to an enhanced document management system with upgrades to the various other office suite components (WordPerfect, GroupWise, etc.). It is critical not to make too many decisions too early in the process. If uncertainty exists as to how best to accomplish a firm objective, the objective should be identified conceptually and the final decision deferred until additional information is gathered during the vendor selection process.

Use a request for proposal to avoid buying more or less than needed

A formal request for proposal (RFP) stating the specific objectives of the firm and the desired system capabilities is an excellent tool to use for vendor selection regardless of the size of the firm. Avoid specifying particular software products unless it is absolutely necessary, but even then be prepared to be flexible if specific products prove to be incompatible with other desired capabilities. For example, we specified WordPerfect in our RFP but are now using Word as our primary word processor.

The RFP allows both the firm and the vendor to stay grounded in what the firm actually needs and wants. Without specific objectives clearly stating the essential features and capabilities, it is very easy to get caught up in the sales process where vendors are promoting the latest and greatest technology regardless of whether it is a proper fit for a particular firm. In our case, the RFP provided an opportunity to identify vendors that were willing to adapt their processes or customize their products to the specific and individual needs of our firm's business and commercial practice. One size definitely does not fit all when it comes to the practice of law.

Other specific issues to be raised in the RFP concern training and support, cost, time to implementation, conversion of existing data and the ability to access legacy data. The question of how legacy data will be handled is critical and must be answered as part of the system selection process.

Select a vendor that is the best match

Try to send the RFP to an array of qualified vendors who work primarily or solely with law firms. General business integrators may have very skilled technicians, but law firm technology is different from hospital technology. Success is much more likely if the integrator has significant experience both with law firms and the particular products needed by the specific firm.

Within the group of integrators and software vendors that begin to emerge, pay attention to size. Too small a vendor is unlikely to be able to provide service, support and long term commitment, while the mega corporate integrator may lack incentive or authority to tailor the product. Make the vendor identify who will be responsible for implementing the project and providing service on an ongoing basis.

Ask for and check references. Ask specific questions about how the installation went, how data conversion was handled and the level of service post-installation. Talk to the end user attorneys and staff to see how satisfied they are with the process and the outcome. Also find out from management how well the integrator worked within the budget. Technology projects always go over budget, but if the budgeted amount represents a substantial commitment by the firm (as it should), a 30 percent overage may be a tough pill to swallow.

There is a certain amount of natural instinct that must be brought to bear on the vendor selection process, the same type of instinct that lawyers use to size up a witness. We began to favor case management solutions from smaller, specialized companies believing that they would tend to be more responsive and more willing to customize the product. Smaller does not mean mom-an-pop operations, but simply that the case management product was not one of several software ventures within a large corporation. The longevity of the company, maturity of the product and history of continuing to develop the product were also areas of concern. We wanted a vendor with a product that had a proven track record and was clearly able to regularly and easily upgrade to take advantage of the latest technology. While cost is always an issue when selecting a vendor, product capabilities, vendor history, service and attitude are more important.

Another issue that is often neglected is an exit strategy. Before agreeing to a contract with any vendor, both parties should know exactly what the other expects in the event the products selected prove unsuitable or the relationship with the vendor deteriorates. Negotiate a time period for determining that the system meets the firm's needs and specific buy back provisions for both software and services. While buying back software is one thing, don't expect a vendor to reimburse a firm for services simply because the firm decided it didn't like the product. A vendor should, however, be willing to apply a specified percentage of money spent on services towards implementation of a new system. Don't overlook the other provisions of contracts such as forum selection clauses, waivers, etc., that law firms generally advise clients not to sign. The exit strategy negotiated should strike a balance between making it painful enough to ensure that the vendor will be committed to the success of the project while avoiding making it so attractive that the partners will invoke it the first week the firm goes live with the new system.

After reviewing the proposals and having a seemingly endless parade of meetings and telephone calls, the decision was made that a true case management system was needed to achieve our objectives. There are several excellent case management products out there -ProLaw, PerfectLaw and Client Profiles- just to name a few. We selected Client Profiles-, an Atlanta-based company that has specialized in case and financial management system for more than 16 years. We felt its product offered the appropriate mix of functionality and integration for our general corporate and litigation practices with different areas of emphasis. Client Profiles- also had a unique advantage in its relationship with its sister company DataTrends Technology Corporation, a network integration company, which satisfied the stated objective of our RFP to deal with as few vendors as possible.

Caveat: There is never a perfect integrated solution for any law firm; therefore, each law firm must choose the products that offer the best match to the needs of its individual practice areas. The goal is to find the product and integrator who can meet all of critical objectives and whose weaknesses, if any, do not affect mission critical needs.

Create an implementation plan - don't forget the people

Successful implementation of a major technological change requires a high level of planning and coordination between the vendor and the law firm, but the law firm that neglects to consider the people who must use the new technology risks resistance, hostility and internal sabotage. The fact is that people don't like change, and that fact should be confronted directly. The attorney on the committee should be the initial champion for change, but the goal is to get buy-in from as many users of the new system as possible before the change occurs.

The first step is to involve attorneys and support staff in the initial discussions about what did and did not work in the current system. People who are expert in the old ways will be threatened by a change that reduces them to a novice. Those that believe that knowledge is power will be reluctant to give up that power. Generally, adding the most resistant, invested person to the decision making group is the best strategy. Once that person is on board, he or she will become the best advocate for the change.

Other elements of change management include:

* making sure the partners understand and are comfortable with the change;

* dealing with rumors;

* providing specific information;

* training and technical support; and

* supporting the old ways, if possible.

Recognize the importance of honest, open communication. Schedule one or more meetings of attorneys and staff to explain what is going to change and why. Allow people to vent. Don't be afraid to acknowledge that things will in fact get worse before they get better, but reinforce that the changes will benefit the firm and enable users to work more efficiently. If any aspect of the new system requires additional work on the part of any users, explain how that additional work will further a particular firm objective.

Buy-in is more likely when people understand why the change is necessary and see that there is something in it for them. To that end, emphasize to support staff that they are being asked to be part of the change and that, if they participate, they will have an active role in how the products are finally deployed. Also reassure users that they will be fully trained on the system before they have to use it in practice.

Create an implementation plan - don't forget the plan

An implementation plan starts with getting firm management and the vendors in the same room for as long as it takes to create a schedule, specify deliverables, set benchmarks and decide on contingencies - what will the firm do if the system is not available on time? Plan for delays and missed deadlines. Once the plan is agreed to by all parties, it is imperative to have an attorney, aided by the firm administrator, in charge of monitoring the plan at every step of the way.

In our case, time was very short because of our fixed move date, so the schedule was correspondingly compressed to 60 days. While this was agreed to by everyone, a more realistic schedule for such a complete overhaul would have been at least 90 days from contract to cutover.

Training

A well thought out training program is critical to the success of a large technology project. Every aspect should be planned in advance: who, what, when, where, why and how. Training on a new system is much more successful if the trainees can experiment with the firm's existing data, using computers that will be part of the firm's new network, if possible. Set up a classroom in a room large enough for several computers. It doesn't have to be fancy. Make sure everything works. Training allows the vendor to instill confidence in the new users, but the converse is equally possible if training is not executed correctly.

Training is expensive and it takes time, but cutting corners is a short term savings that will pay negative dividends. Work with the vendor during the selection process to determine training requirements, building the cost into the budget even if it means delaying other aspects of the project. Show the firm's commitment to the new system by making training mandatory. Schedule training so that users can concentrate on the training without trying to work. This is especially hard for attorneys, but the fact is that attorneys need training as much or more than support staff, and it is very hard to give attorneys on the job training after the real trainer is gone.

Plan document conversion

A firm with a large number of existing word processing documents faces a daunting task if it seeks to bring every document into the new system. If the firm is switching word processing systems, converting all documents is an even more difficult task. Large scale conversions are also expensive, so before devoting a substantial portion of the budget to converting and importing documents into a new system, consider whether the result will justify the cost or whether other solutions exist.

We decided not to convert any of our old word processing files from WordPerfect to Word and not to import all documents into our new case management system. We realized that tens of thousands of our old word processing files were just ordinary documents for which there was no need in the new system. Documents that were needed could be easily recreated in Word or converted and imported into the new case management system on an as-needed basis. The conversion utilities built into Word XP are much better than in prior versions. Before investing in a third party conversion product, test the conversion capability of the firm's current word processing system.

The decision not to do a mass conversion was supported by the decision to copy the old network file server onto the new server and have it mapped to each user's desk using the same name. If users became confused or were pressed for time in the early going, they could navigate the old "common" directory quickly and get the work out that needed to be done. What had been the single greatest concern among the attorneys in our firm, the switch to Word, almost became a non-event.

While this was originally conceived as a way to ease users into the new case management and word processing systems, it saved the day when we were not able to go live with the case management system the first week after we moved to the new offices. By preserving the old network directory we were able to keep working while our accounting database for the new case management system was rebuilt. The particular way in which this saved the day for our firm may or may not benefit other firms, but any firm making major changes should always have a fallback position as part of the transition to a new system.

Do as I say and not as we did

In retrospect, our firm spent too much time selecting a vendor given the deadline for the move. Time spent in the final stages of vendor selection would have been better allocated to implementing the new system. Even with the tight time frame we created, there might have been enough time had we been more attentive to interim deadlines and the schedule we set. Instead, we learned an important lesson about the importance of overseeing implementation of a major change.

Our plan called for a test conversion of our accounting and case identification data in June and live training on real data in early August. The conversion was done in June, but it was never verified either by the conversion vendor, the integrator or by us. We should have asked to see the converted data in operation instead of simply assuming that the conversion had been done correctly.

When the converted data arrived on the morning training was to begin, we realized the converted data was unusable such that we would have to train on generic data. We ended up taking several months to resolve the conversion issues with the new time and billing system, all of which could have been avoided by a better conversion plan on the part of the accounting vendor and better monitoring on our part to make sure all sub-vendors were communicating with each other.

Another lesson learned was the importance of separating mission critical components such as the case management system from less critical subcomponents. The level of coordination and testing required to implement a complicated subcomponent can easily monopolize the time of the technicians at a point where every hour counts. An example in our case was RightFax. While RightFax is an important aspect of our network, it could have waited a month.

Happy endings are possible

With proper planning, budgeting and appreciation of human factors, any law firm can overhaul its technology without shutting down operations or causing an office mutiny. Client Profiles- has become the centerpiece of our daily workflow, and our support staff takes pride in finding new ways to leverage its ability to make our workflow more efficient. Attorneys, who previously gave up in frustration when trying to find documents on our old network, are now seen at the scanning stations importing documents into the new case management system. When a problem arises, there is no longer a hue and cry about "why did we do this?" Instead, our attorneys and staff are more interested in working with our vendors to find a solution than they are complaining about the problem. That, as much as anything, is the sign that the change to a new system has been successful.

Kevin Bell is a partner in Robinson McFadden & Moore, P.C. in Columbia.

Copyright (c) 2004 by the South Carolina Bar. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written permission.