| | June 20169CIOReviewsubsumes the practical advantages for which they were originally intended. So much so that, in many cases,there has arisen the need for a separate "manager" within legal departments to oversee legal operations, including technology deployments and applications training. Whether or not that evolution has been a good or bad thing, the fact that it has occurred, and is continuing apace, should, at least, force those developing legally focused technologies to ask whether they may have missed the mark. 2. Ease Implementation and Training. Does the solution re-quire integration with the corporate IT infrastructure or can it be deployed as a service? How significant are the IT demands? Can the technology be used without exten-sive attorney training? With IT departments typically overwhelmed by revenue focused projects, whether inventory management, manufacturing flows, cus-tomer support or the like, it is not uncommon to have legal support systems de-prioritized. The more labor intensive the project, the more integration required or the more complex the IT needs, the less likely is the legal department to receive implementation support­at least in a timely manner. Ease of implementation should be a principal consideration, not an after-thought. I If the inherent complexity of the technology requires ex-tensive training, it becomes that much less appealing to the rank-and-file attorney who may not wish to dedicate days to technical training.3. Consider Payment Terms. Legal budgets are not typically over weighted with technology expense. They require a certain level of flexibility and adaptability to enable departments to address unbudgeted or unforeseen expenses that occur throughout a year, such as litigation. When managing a budget that may experience unknown variations, upfront commitments to material capital expenditures may create pause, especially if the returns from that investment are far off or not readily quantifiable. And, while capital expenditures may be necessary, pricing structures that afford flexibility can offer more value. With a business that experiences seasonality, for example, there may be demands in certain quarters for the legal team aggressively to manage its budget below forecast. In that light, alternative fee arrangements with external counsel can address those types of issues, adjusting payments throughout the year to align more effectively with seasonal expectations. In quarters where revenue is expected to be lower, legal expense, for known areas of expense, can be managed lower if fee arrangements are designed with that foresight in mind. If that can be accomplished with external counsel, why can't technology providers have a similar sensitivity and offer equivalent pricing flexibility and adaptability?4. Think about the Sale. Purchasing decisions for legal technology should reside within the legal department. While integration, deploy-ment and support may require IT collaboration, the purchase deci-sion should be made by those who will use, and benefit from, the technology. In some cases, "tack-on" offerings by larger enterprise solutions companies seem to offer a path of least resistance. While perhaps one "data" point in the calculus, it should remain just one data point among many. For legal technologies, it should be clear that the legal department is responsible for the purchase, responsible for using it effectively once deployed and responsible for ensuring that it enhances productivity. Legal technology can offer a powerful productivity tool. It can enhance transparency, responsiveness, and internal analytical capabilities. But it should not be an end in itself. For typically resource constrained in-house legal departments, ease of implementation, ease of deployment and ease of use must remain paramount. The value in these solutions will only be realized once they become as simple to use, and as intuitive, as basic word processing. Until then, there will remain a continuous "push-and-pull" that counsel undertake as they attempt to assess the full costs (hidden and otherwise) and benefits of any of these so-called "solutions". For typically resource constrained in-house legal departments, ease of implementation, ease of deployment and ease of use must remain paramount
< Page 8 | Page 10 >