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

Document Management's role in a Knowledge Management Strategy
by Peter Zver  |  Printer Friendly Version

The legal profession was one of the earliest adopters of enterprise Document Management (DM), and these systems have been widely implemented by law firms looking to improve productivity and preserve their intellectual assets. Next to the obligatory word processing, e-mail and accounting systems, document management systems are the most prevalent enterprise system in law firms. However with the recent flurry of Knowledge Management (KM) initiatives, how does DM fit into the equation? If a law firm has DM, does it also have KM? Is DM needed as a pre-requisite to KM, and can the DM system enhance or hinder the KM initiative. To address these questions let's look at the roles and definitions of both DM and KM and see what types of synergies/ relationships exist between them.

Document Management - a production workhorse
Document Management is an enterprise system used to classify, organize, and manage the massive amount of documents generated by cases and files. In modern parlance, the term "document" now includes all forms of electronic files - including word processing, e-mail, spreadsheets, presentations, scanned files, images, digital faxes, video and more. Although every law firm has some process for organizing documents, these DM systems impose a discipline and structure on the classification, indexing, retrieval and archival of important legal documents. By indexing a document, a DM system turns it into an enterprise resource that can be leveraged across the organization. These systems improve accessibility by removing dependence on the individual, be it the typist or the author.

Most document management systems were originally acquired to improve the production process. Over the years, many firms have been attracted to a DM system based on its ability to find information both vertically (by client & matter) and horizontally (by type, content, author, subject, etc.).

Production vs. Consumption
Even prior to KM initiatives, DM implementations faced a production vs. consumption dilemma. The debate revolves around the needs of the producer to generate and classify documents quickly, versus the professional's need to find and retrieve documents for daily reference and re-use opportunities. In most instances the person classifying the document is the secretary or assistant to the lawyer, not the content author. The assistant is skilled in document production, but is often not qualified to make the expert subject matter classifications that would later be useful for legal research and retrieval.

Although most DM systems provide a tagging mechanism (i.e. key words, practice, type, etc.) to categorize documents for retrieval purposes, the initial enthusiasm for such detailed classifications usually loses momentum over time. Even if the producers are lawyers, they often cannot afford the time to create detailed profiles of every document. All this contributes to building a complete document inventory system, but a less than stellar research and retrieval system As a result, many DM installations become a compromise between two competing perspectives. Either the firm adopts an elaborate profiling requirement that is less than optimal for production purposes (i.e. too many fields taking too much time to complete). Or, the firm adopts a cursory categorizing system, resulting in a less than optimal system for legal research and retrieval.

In general, the only self-sustaining process in all DM Systems is the vertical classification of the document in the lawyer/matter/case. All other processes attached to DM need regular motivation and incentives to contribute, or they tend to dissipate over time. Yet, DM systems serve the fundamental purpose of preserving and archiving the law firm's inventory of important and potentially valuable documents.

Top Down vs. Bottom Up Approaches
With the emergence of the Knowledge Management movement, there is renewed interest in tapping the potential knowledge contained in the document repository. After all, the primary objective of Knowledge Management is to uncover and exploit the firm's intellectual assets of information and experience to increase the velocity of innovation and responsiveness (definition by Delphi Group). Every law firm's challenge is to try to gather qualified useful information from busy, preoccupied lawyers and transform it into usable knowledge. This is more easily said than done.

Law firms now realize that knowledge management cannot be a separate process. To be effective, a KM process must attach to or become embedded in the normal work processes and information intersections of the firm. By connecting to a regular business processes, such as the DM process, KM can tap the flow of information to create accessible knowledge bases.

So how does KM connect to DM or vice versa? The answer depends on the culture of the firm and its approach to Knowledge Management. Top-down KM initiatives focus on creating independent external forces that will continually stoke the KM fire. This is usually accomplished by adding a layer of information gatherers who tap information streams and repositories to gather knowledge content. Knowledge gathering agents may include people, such as KM officers, committees, and practice group administrators, who circulate within the firm to uncover information. They may also include technologies that automatically search and parse the existing data sources of the firm.

If the firm takes the top-down approach, it is easy to see the importance of a well-defined DM system. An enterprise level DM system creates a single shareable document depot that is accessible for creating more tangible knowledge assets. By externalizing the knowledge gathering process, the document producers are relieved of the dual role dilemma. They can avoid time-consuming categorization tasks and use the DM system for production, inventory and organization.

The bottom-up KM approach relies on the content experts (authors) to contribute valuable assets to the KM process. It recognizes that while all documents must be managed, 90% or more of the documents in the DM inventory have no reusable value or leverage as a knowledge asset. So, instead of invoking processes to find the gems among all the masses, this approach asks the most qualified individuals (authors or users) to select and contribute only those documents that have KM value. New DM systems designed on this basis have recently entered the marketplace.

Obviously, a bottom-up system in a law firm requires clear, tangible incentives to motivate individuals to contribute and share those select documents. The DM decisions and strategy must also support this approach. If the incentive program is effective, then staff contribution also becomes valuable to both the DM and KM processes, essentially replacing the external culling and tapping process.

Who "Owns" the Document?
The one fundamental question that must be addressed with either approach is how the process respects the individual's work and his/her right to control its use. It is easy for management to assume that the firm owns the document as soon as it is produced and logged in the DM system, since it immediately becomes available for internal consumption (subject to security restrictions). However, to create an effective incentive for information sharing, the law firm must distinguish between the physical document and the intellectual content.

Both authors and producers value their intellectual contribution to the document and resist making it accessible for firm consumption unless they choose to submit it voluntarily. Indeed, most firms have encountered the "My Document" resistance during implementation of enterprise DM, and the issue will resurface during KM initiatives. Some are concerned about privacy, others may be less certain about quality or use by unqualified users. A top-down KM initiative must recognize the document ownership issue or members will start shielding their work. A combination of management commitment, contribution incentives, and a selective right-of-refusal can give respect to the individual and encourage cooperation.

The bottom up approach implies ownership rests with the author until the document is submitted to the firm repository. This allows a law firm to take a different approach to implementing DM.

The Knowledge Transformation Process
Simply identifying valuable documents does not suddenly make them knowledge assets. Once a knowledge gatherer or contributor submits a document for KM, it must undergo a publishing and editorial process to transform the information into usable knowledge. (See Exhibit A).

Some KM thinkers compare this KM transformation process to a typical newsgathering scenario where a reporter, editor and publisher all perform defined roles to find, gather, distil, edit, standardize and publish information in a way that can be easily consumed by others. For example, users may submit potential KM documents to librarians or research lawyers who act as editors to sift, evaluate, check citations, provide context, create head notes, and classify by standard terms and key words. Once the document is approved, it can then be published to an area (i.e. intranet) for others to access using more transparent web search technologies and research-specific search words.

In either the top-down or bottom-up scenario, the layering of a publishing and editorial process over the DM system is significant. It eliminates the detailed classification tasks from the DM system for greater efficiency in production. Also, by transferring the classification and editorial process to specialists, it facilitates easier contribution and ensures the accuracy and predictability of results. This in turn leads to greater usage.

Help DM feed KM
Document Management systems can play an important role in KM strategy, but that role must be defined based on the realities of the law firm culture and the way members currently use DM. The reason KM processes often are so hard to implement is that each initiative must respect how the individual works and tap into that process. (See Knowledge Funnelling Strategies, Nov. 2000 Lexpert)

In the rush to create KM assets, firms should be careful to not demand too much from busy individuals with no time or incentive to contribute. Alternatively, some firm should not be so quick to bypass the individual in favour of top-down systems that "raid" the DM repository and offend the user's sense of privacy and ownership of content.

There is no DM-KM mix that fits all firms. The two processes must be blended to optimize both results. Top-down KM processes require more investment in external resources to gather information, but they are less dependent on the cooperation of individual lawyers. Bottom-up KM systems require less resources, but require more cooperation and incentives. Although a voluntary contribution process can focus on quality over quantity, it has yet to be proven sustainable in the legal profession. In some situations a mix of both may be the answer.

To be effective, DM processes must be tailored to efficiently feed the KM publication and editorial process. In turn, the DM systems can be fine-tuned to benefit from a KM strategy that removes the knowledge classification burden from DM. Solid knowledge management strategies will make a document management system shine in the role that it was originally designed for and help leverage DM to feed the KM process.

Peter J. Zver is the president and founder of PensEra Knowledge Technologies, a national consulting and development firm that specializes in Knowledge Management technologies for law firms and corporate law department. See www.pensera.com