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

KM: Finding And Connecting People (Part 2)
by Dan C. Felean  |  Printer Friendly Version

Knowledge Management (KM) is quickly becoming the most important strategic initiative in the legal profession. Major accounting and consulting firms have known this for years. Now, many law firms are investing serious resources to gain leverage from their collective experience and expertise. Those who succeed can dramatically improve efficiency, profitability and effectiveness, both for the professional and the organization.

Creating a process for finding people with knowledge or expertise is the most fundamental KM process. It avoids all the complications of context and obsolescence inherent in static documents. The searcher has the motivation to save time, work better and gain a competitive edge, while the expert benefits from direct, high-level participation in more deals. It also results in the most efficient transfer of information and knowledge: conversation. Most lawyers would agree that the active participation of someone who has "done it before" can increase the value of the work and all the workers.

However, as a firm gets larger and caseloads get heavier, finding expertise in the organization becomes increasingly difficult. Calling around and e-mailing in a frantic, last-minute hunt is time-consuming, hit-and-miss, and disruptive to the firm. Using technology to catalogue the skills, expertise and experience within your firm or department will allow others to more readily find and use resources when they need it.

I recently interviewed representatives from more than a dozen major Canadian firms to find out how they approach the "who-knows-what" process. Their experiences show how leading firms are creatively changing the culture of legal practice.

Create An Objective Resource
Many firms now use some form of databases as an objective source of information to leverage talent and skills within the organization. The pervasive use of Internet and Intranet tools have now made access and use of this information more viable. The rapid expansion of firms has made it a necessity.

An expertise database can store multiple pieces of information in fields that can be searched in many different ways. Therefore, a law firm can build a quite elaborate information profile about every lawyer in the firm for access by others without interrupting the individual.

The success of all such systems depends on how the law firm handles the four basic challenges of any knowledge management system:

1. Definition: What information effectively represents "expertise"? 2. Capture: How can the knowledge be gathered? What are the barriers and incentives to participation? 3. Manage: How is the database organized, monitored, updated and corrected? 4. Design: How effectively is this information accessed, searched and shared? Can the bare database be transformed into a valuable expertise "system" to enhance use and value?

What Represents "Expertise"?
Most firms start with the lawyer profile information collected for the law firm's Internet site or legal directories (e.g. Lexpert Directory, Canadian Law List). Basic information usually includes education, bar admissions, practice areas, publications, professional activities, awards and memberships, etc.

To be useful to other lawyers, the expertise profile must be expanded with information that reflects and relates to the lawyer's expertise, experience and skills. Expertise profiles can include lists of major clients, representative cases, areas of personal expertise or practice interests, languages spoken, and even non-law activities and hobbies. One Toronto law firm had the bright idea to catalogue the expertise and experience of its administrative managers, paralegals and professional support staff as an additional source of knowledge.

Thinking up new categories and criteria to classify is not hard. But determining what information most closely represents a person's "knowledge" is the real challenge. KM experts tell us that knowledge is situational and tacit, not overt, but we still have to try to capture those pieces of information that are most likely to result in finding expertise. I think the best benchmark for relevance that I heard came from a lawyer long involved with KM at his firm. He said most lawyers want to know three basic things: what you did; how many times you've done it; and when was the last time you did it.

Increasing the complexity of the database may increase the usefulness to some while confusing others. More data almost certainly increases the difficulty of gathering the information and keeping it up-to-date.

A few major firms are discussing ways to allow individuals to rate their own relative levels of competence and skills in aspects of practice. Self-assessment can be a mixed bag, but it may be the only alternative for certain subjective categories. Yet, it is hard to imagine many lawyers would rate themselves as poor in any category. Every effort should be made to set forth objective standards to ensure consistency.

Gathering Information-The biggest hurdle
By far the biggest problem with every expertise system is the difficulty of gathering the information. Whether a law firm buys or builds an expertise database, the resource can be made meaningless without the direct contribution of each lawyer.

Given the importance of the information, each firm has to use the combination of co-operation, reward and coercion most likely to extract this information from the lawyer. Most law firms have recognized the need to "go the extra mile" to help the lawyer create an expertise profile (see "Capturing Expertise" sidebar). Once the original record is created, it will be much easier to update.

Currency
Most knowledge management systems must be continuously renewed to be valid. Fortunately, an expertise locator system is less time-sensitive. Last year's expert will not suddenly become obsolete or misleading, like a brief based on overturned case law. The inherent advantage of a people referral system is that there is a final layer of personal validation and authentication of expertise. However, the system does require active management of information and categories to stay relevant. If the data becomes stale and unreliable, users will leave and never come back.

The update process must be simple and always available. That said, we all recognize that a lawyer will need an occasional reminder to update the information. If the process the lawyer must complete is arduous, most firms say it is not cost-effective to attempt more than annual updates. However, if collecting and updating the information becomes part of the lawyer's workflow, it can be self-sustaining.

Build It Where There Is Traffic
The real dividends come from creating an easy method for professionals to access and use the information. If the Intranet is your primary information channel to the lawyers, this is the obvious location for your expertise locator. If other systems, such as existing internal directories or precedents systems are well-entrenched, understood and accessible, you may consider positioning the expertise database as an adjunct to these systems to leverage the existing comfort level.

There is a big difference between a database and a system. The database is the container (and indexer) of information, while the system is what makes it usable. A system includes the interface, security, navigation, workflow, rules, presentation of results and more.

An expertise system must be intuitive so that it is usable by some of the least computer-literate in the firm. By all means, conduct training sessions to call attention to the resource, but do not create an expertise system that requires training to use.

Share with clients?
Sometimes the casual unguarded exchange of expertise information is necessary to attract greater participation. Opening the system to clients interjects a whole level of standards, editorial approval, and formality that can stifle the free exchange of expertise referral within the firm.

However, if your database of expertise information is broad enough, some of the data categories can be exposed through an Extranet version for clients.

Next Generation KM
With the recent popularity of KM processes, one of the most interesting trends is the emergence of software systems that help locate expertise by mining the information activity flowing through the firm. These systems have the advantage of producing pointers to expertise without as much effort from the expert. For example, one system sifts through e-mail to automatically create personal profiles of potential expertise based on e-mail dialogue - sort of a "who-discussed-what" system. Another asks a series of questions to try to "harvest" the expert process. It is easy to see how an existing precedent, document or case management system in the law firm could be mined to find authors as a source of expertise - as a "who-did-what" referral assist.

No Canadian law firm has yet implemented these passive-profiling systems. However, as this intelligent "spidering" technology gets more sophisticated (and less expensive), these systems can strengthen the people-to-people referral process.

Minimum KM
Pick up any article on law firm Knowledge Management and it will repeatedly emphasize that KM requires a firm-wide cultural shift. To many firms this is understandably daunting and dissuasive. As a result, there is a temptation to either postpone the process (i.e. we can't really expect our senior people to change) or go for the quick fix (i.e. try to buy KM and turn it over to the firm's technology people). Yet, the leading North American law firms are now committed to continuously building and revising KM processes. Interestingly, most of the firms I spoke to for this article are doing more than they are prepared to publicly say. KM does require more effort to implement that most production system, but that should not prevent any firm from taking the first small steps. Facilitating use of expertise within a professional organization is so obvious that it is no longer a luxury; it is a competitive necessity.

Capturing Expertise

Make it short and simple. Develop a uniform, standard, multiple-choice ("pick list") questionnaire. No essay questions, but allow for free text lists, such as descriptions of major cases. It should use objective benchmarks (more than 5, less than 10, etc.)  Provide multiple ways to respond. Post the questionnaire where it is convenient to complete from anywhere, such as on your Intranet. If your Intranet is not too popular, create and send the form by e-mail. Provide printed copies for completion the old-fashioned way. Open a voice mailbox for call-in responses.  If all else fails, interview the lawyer. Assign someone to schedule a 15 minute interview with each lawyer who fails to otherwise respond. Once the first version is created, it will be much easier to update.  Show direct benefit. Clearly communicate the relevance, benefit, or incentive to contribution. Acting for the greater good of the organization may be desirable, but it is not a priority unless the individual co-benefits from acting. Circulate specific examples, however rare, of how your firm shared expertise and won new business or produced better results. Some US firms now assign billing codes for KM activities so their attorneys can get credit for participation. Other firms make KM participation part of performance evaluations.  Get to them early. Make the questionnaire part of the new employee welcome package, so everyone can benefit from the new arrival's expertise and experience.  Canvas and compile. Don't rely only on the lawyers. Send KM staff members to practice group meetings. Interview the research lawyers and librarians who know most about other lawyers' skills and experiences. Gather expertise information from internal and external published articles by your firm members.  Get creative. One KM director swears by free hot lunches as the best method to attract lawyers to discuss their experiences and update their profile information.

© 2000 PensEra Knowledge Technologies

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.