Reprinted from the November 2001 issue of "Lexpert, the business magazine for lawyers." Used with Permission

KM Is Not A Separate Process
Printer Friendly Version

The practice of law is almost entirely dependent on the use and reuse of "knowledge". Most of what lawyers have to offer to clients is based on their knowledge, whether it consists of a particular skill, an acquired experience, a learned expertise or some other form of wisdom. The more a lawyer can reuse his or her knowledge and the collective intellectual capital of others in the firm, the more productive and valuable he or she becomes.

In practical terms, Knowledge Management (KM) is the process of using and leveraging what the organization collectively "knows." Some refer to this as simply delivering the right knowledge to the right person at the right time. It may take the form of using in-house research or document precedents to eliminate redundant effort and lower costs. It could mean drawing on a collection of skills, experience and best practices to achieve a better result or faster response. Or it could be as simple as sharing client intelligence to develop new business or improve service and relationships. The better the firm manages and leverages these knowledge assets, the greater the financial benefit for all involved. Put another way, the failure to re-use what you know means that you will be always re-inventing the wheel at the expense of your client, your profitability and your competitiveness.

If a vast repository of information, skills and experience were easily available to the lawyers in your firm, there is no doubt they would use it as readily as picking up a case digest. Lawyers are trained to work with information, references and precedents, so the use of knowledge resources fits their natural work process. However, the problem has never been in the use of knowledge, but in the gathering of "good" knowledge.

The Major Obstacle
By far the biggest challenge for all organizations is to find effective ways to gather relevant, up-to-date knowledge from the minds and materials of their busy professionals. A top-down KM process, where management commands that every lawyer dissect personal files and memories to submit reusable knowledge, does not really suit the culture of the legal profession. No one has time for a knowledge inventory.

As an alternative, many have focused KM efforts on capturing and reusing written work product. They find it is easier to bypass lawyers and deal directly with their work product. By culling through opinions, pleadings, agreements, e-mails or other tangible work product, they can build narrow KM document repositories. However, this process is particularly labour-intensive and limited in scope.

Many dispute whether a document alone fully conveys the sophisticated levels of knowledge, such as tax or negotiating considerations, contained within Also, the culling process often requires a dedicated task force to find the one or two per cent of reusable knowledge contained in the vast volumes of law firm work product.

The Myth That Lawyers Will Not Share
Since most early law firm KM initiatives failed to meet expectations, there has been much talk about the lawyer's inherent unwillingness to share. While it is true that KM requires a shift in firm culture, this conclusion unfairly blames the lawyer for the failure of the process to engage, accommodate and benefit the individual.

Lawyers are no different from any other busy knowledge professional. They juggle great responsibilities and are subject to tremendous demands on their time. Yet, the vast majority lawyers are ready and willing to share their knowledge given the right circumstances. For example, if you walked into the office of a colleague with a need for specialized information or expertise, I am confident that nine times out of ten he or she would try to help you or point you in the right direction-time permitting.

So, what are the right circumstances that facilitate vigorous lawyer contribution and participation in the KM process? Let's look at the four most important factors: Timeliness (When), Proximity (Where), Simplicity (How) and Payback (Why).

1. Contribution When You Think Of It
Knowledge contribution cannot be isolated from the daily workflow or separated from people. It is not a one-time collaboration or a collection of greatest hits. Contribution must be immediate, while you are thinking of it.

What does this mean in a legal context? We know that the one moment when a lawyer is thinking about the client, the case, the practice, and the law is when he or she is doing or recording the work. Therefore, any technology that allows the contribution or capture of knowledge to take place at that moment when it is freshest in the mind of the contributor is likely to produce the broadest, most accurate range of knowledge.

2. Contribution at the Intersection of Thought
The best place to gather knowledge is the place where lawyers go each day - at the "intersection of thought." The physical location is not as important as positioning KM in close proximity to the lawyer's work. Therefore, the most effective strategy is to provide the lawyer with an easy means to contribute and consume knowledge from within the normal workspace.

For example, while reviewing a document, can he click to save it as a personal precedent? While entering time, can she click to make a note about the client, the case or the practice? While sending advice by e-mail, can they click to send copies to the knowledge base?

Knowledge management will not survive as a separate process. Many experts predict that KM will soon lose its separate identity as it becomes embedded within existing work systems. Mario D'Amico, Chief Technology Strategist at PensEra Knowledge Technologies, describes this "knowledge funneling" approach as like a windmill versus a treadmill. Instead of constantly prodding the user to contribute tremendous effort (the treadmill), you attach or embed the means for contribution and usage within existing lawyer work processes, so knowledge is funneled naturally from work.

3. Simplicity Increases Participation
The method to contribute knowledge must be clear, concise, simple and quick. Most KM projects result in elaborate, time-consuming questionnaires that discourage participation. Yet, the most effective KM system is one that is used most frequently. A firm can increase the likelihood of success by ensuring it takes very little time, effort or training to contribute or access knowledge. Lawyers should be encouraged to just "jot down" knowledge notes while they are thinking about it. Knowledge categories can be used to make it as basic or sophisticated as needed.

Simplicity also applies to ease of access. The process should be built for anytime, anywhere access without complex implementation (i.e. browser-based), and it should allow the lawyer multiple ways of access, such as from PDAs or other mobile devices.

4. Payback-Co-benefit the Contributor
Lawyers will be more likely to contribute to a KM system if they derive a direct benefit from the results. This goes beyond performance incentives. If a lawyer is to be motivated to enter knowledge notes, the primary beneficiary should be that lawyer. By structuring the knowledge base into personal and enterprise zones, the law firm can provide a lawyer with a means to record, organize and access knowledge that first and foremost benefits him or her, while secondarily building knowledge assets for the firm.

For example, if a lawyer jots down notes about the case, a recent client conversation, a practice shortcut, or a business opportunity, she can access and reuse this personal knowledge for his or her own benefit. If he or she chooses to share some or all of the information with the firm, he or she then gains other benefits from team collaboration.

Similarly, if a team contributes multiple knowledge notes on a file, each member can stay briefed and in-touch with a simple knowledge inquiry. A self-serving system is also a self sustaining KM process.

KM Perseverance has Great Rewards
It is often said that knowledge management requires a cultural change by the organization. But the "art" of knowledge management is also evolving and adapting to the business context and needs of the professional. The myth that lawyers will not share will soon be refuted by a new generation of knowledge-gathering tools that are geared to suit the work and thought processes of the professional. A KM process that captures and delivers knowledge where and when work is being done will gain greater participation and produce greater rewards for all parties involved

Dan C. Felean a principal of PensEra Knowledge Technologies, a national consulting firm that specializes in knowledge management strategies and technologies for law firms and corporate law departments. See www.pensera.com.