KM  is  a  Wicked  Problem

Top down "big bang" technology centric solutions have failed miserably. The fundamental premise asserted here is that KM is primarily a “wicked problem.” H.J. Rittel and M. Webber first developed the concept of “wicked problems” (as in difficult) in their work on social planning. Wicked problems always occur within a social context and have certain key characteristics — ones that provide a basic framework for considering the problem at hand: (1) You don’t understand the problem until you have developed the solution; (2) Wicked problems have no stopping rule; (3) Solutions to wicked problems are not right or wrong; (4) Every wicked problem is essentially unique and novel; and (5) Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one shot operation.” You can further explore wicked problems in a law firm KM context by reading Search, KM & the Practice of Law.

Overview

It is time to debunk the myth that the legal industry is so different from other knowledge-based industries, that from an enabling technology perspective, it must be treated as a completely separate “beast.” LawTechTV’s (LTTV) knowledge management engagement is designed to leverage best practices and lessons learned both within and without the legal domain. Why is it that the legal industry has lagged in its usage of knowledge management? There are many plausible answers to this question, but one obvious one—the billable hour. The legal industry has heretofore resisted the relentless push for efficiency that drives the global economy. Despite the obfuscation, the underlying reason for this is that the industry did not perceive it to be in its economic interests to do so. That is changing. There is no industry that will not be disrupted by enabling technologies, especially pure knowledge-based industries such as the law.

The bottom line is that inefficiency in the delivery of legal services will no longer be rewarded, at least not vis-à-vis sophisticated clients. You can be sure that most clients worth having will become more and more sophisticated over time and that the legal industry cannot escape the economic realities that are driving globalization. Given this reality, law firms must find a way to significantly increase how they leverage their most talented staff and improve margins. Of the four variables that make up the Profit Per Equity Partner calculation (PPEP = “average realized rate” x “leverage” x “margin” x “utilization”) knowledge management targets the two that remain “up for grabs.” Rates will not continue to rise and there is only so much blood that firms can squeeze from the utilization stone.

While the forces that are driving the legal industry to knowledge management are compelling and inexorable, the roadmap for achieving the desired outcome is far from clear. The legal industry (and others) is littered with billions of investment dollars scattered in unused and unusable “knowledge landfills.” It is clear that “big bang” technology only approaches do not work—so the critical question that remains is what does? The LTTV knowledge management engagement is a collaborative approach that addresses this question head on. It focuses on three key challenges: people, process and platform. Of the three, the people challenges are by far the most daunting.

Approach & Methodology

At LTTV our knowledge management engagement is delivered as a subset of our project management services.  Our knowledge management (KM) methodology is therefore also built upon the foundation of an iterative approach. This is a “feedback centric” as opposed to “task centric” approach. It is the antithesis of the “big bang” approach that has failed miserably within the legal industry and elsewhere.

The LLTV approach assumes that if KM is to be successful within a firm then it must do so within the context of organic growth. That is, it will become widely adopted within a firm once it has been proved successful somewhere in the firm. The best way to do that is to start small and deal with the people, process and platform vectors within a limited (but substantive) context.

This engagement posits that “story telling” is the primary vehicle for the transmission of knowledge and that the creation of narratives around a substantive area of the law is the key objective—essentially reinforcing the idea that the problem is more organization centric than technology centric. It therefore focuses on building a practice narrative that positively impacts the PPEP. Process and platform issues required to enable the narrative are also considered.

Additional Information

To read the entire knowledge management service description click here. To review our other consulting services click here. To contact us click here. If you want to see an example of where these ideas are implemented click on Internet Lawyer.

To review LTTV KM related posts peruse the list below.

• If the CIA likes it, why wouldn't a law firm?
• KM is for the "Grinders"
• Law Firm KM Paradox
• It's All Beta, All the Time!
• Wikis & Law Firms
• Video Blogging & Podcasting
• Enterprise 2.0
• Rainmakers, Raincollectors & KM
• Snake Oil, KM & the Practice of Law
• New Media, Geeks Still Rule
• It's the Platform Stupid, Revisited
• Infotainment?
• The Future of KM?
• If it ain't broke..., Caveat Emptor