Category: Enterprise Legal Management

Onit Secures $200 Million Strategic Investment from K1 Investment Management to Accelerate Global Growth

Onit is thrilled to announce that K1 Investment Management has made a $200 million strategic investment in our company. With the investment, Onit will scale operations to meet the increasing demand for innovative, market-leading process automation technology and enhance its back-end infrastructure to increase its scalable platform to meet continued growing client demand. Additionally, the investment will help fund go-to-market strategies, accelerate new product development and increase functionality of existing product offerings.

Onit’s CEO Eric M. Elfman is especially thrilled about this investment – “We are very excited to partner with K1 and their significant investment in our company further demonstrates the continued growth trajectory for Onit. We believe that we are clearly proving that our approach to streamlining business process – creating better workflows and not better databases – fundamentally sets us apart in the industry and is driving growth. We have the only end-to-end platform that solves workflow and process challenges across the enterprise. In fact, we have configured and deployed more than 200+ solutions and are instrumental in driving the transformation with some of the most innovative global companies in the world. As we scale to meet increasing demand, we are excited to also accelerate our investment in product development, resources and operations.”

Likewise, K1’s Managing Partner Neil Malik shares enthusiasm about this deal – “Onit’s platform has raised the bar on what users expect from software that extends beyond legal across the enterprise. We’ve seen the company more than triple its customer base and revenue in two years and we have tremendous confidence in the management team’s long–term vision. It’s exciting to partner with a team that pioneered the legal software space nearly 20 years ago and to now see how their innovative solutions are transforming the way Fortune 500 companies and legal departments operate.”

Onit’s client Anna-Lisa Corrales of Jaguar Land Rover North America offered her excitement on hearing the news – “We are on a legal transformation journey at Jaguar Land Rover toward greater efficiency and effectiveness, and the partnership between our law department and Onit has been instrumental in accelerating this process. We had to rethink the use of our internal and external resources and knew that we wanted to build partnerships with technology experts to help drive this revolution. We found that commitment from Onit and its management team. Rooted in an innovative system architecture that supports our needs for process automation, workflow and collaboration, Onit’s platform can enable best-in-class solutions for our growth today and in the future.”

Read the press release.

Corporate Counsel Best of 2019 Survey: A Great Opportunity for Onit Customers

It’s that time of year for the 4th annual Best of Corporate Counsel reader choice survey! Today is your chance to let your voice be heard: Who are the top law firms and legal service providers serving the nation’s legal industry? As a valued Onit customer, we wanted to pass along an opportunity to participate in Corporate Counsel’s Best of Corporate Counsel 2019 survey. We at Onit are hoping that you’ve been happy with our services, and if so, we encourage you to vote.

It’s time to recognize and celebrate your trusted business partners’ products, services and expertise in the 2019 Best of Corporate Counsel – a survey of the top solution providers servicing the legal industry. Whether it’s the best service, best product, best value – now is your opportunity to shower them with praise. Vote today!

Voting is open through 11:59 pm ET January 4, 2019. While voters do not need to cast their opinion in every category, we do encourage you to answer as many as possible! Finalists in each category will be determined by the popular vote, so we encourage you to forward this survey across your network — best of luck, and congratulations to all of our 2019 nominees!

There are a lot of categories in the survey, so here’s a shortcut to finding Onit. We’re in category #30, “Who offers the nation’s best matter management software?”

Click here to take the survey.

Enterprise Legal Management and Process Problems: Take Ultimate Ownership of Your Process Management

“Most people have a very strong sense of organizational ownership, but I think what people have to own is an innovation agenda.”

-Satya Nadella, CEO Microsoft

Have you been looking at your department’s process management in terms of data problems? Join the crowd – we’ve all be guilty of that. But 2019 is right around the corner and we should be ringing in the New Year by thinking in terms of process problems and a workflow-based approach. Traditional data-centric enterprise legal management (ELM) is a thing of the past and we need to move on. A solution-based approach to legal operations management by breaking up ELM into individual task-based solutions and processes is not some passing high-tech fad, but the way of the future – and challenges the older data-focused matter management model.

A system that allows its users to create and incorporate the discrete capabilities and components of a broader enterprise system “as they need them” is the way to go. Core matter management and e-billing functionality that can be augmented through a collection of solutions designed to address discrete operational activities allows users to scale the system in an appropriate manner consistent with operational goals.

Again, we should be looking at the elements of ELM as process problems instead of data problems. When we do this, we’re clearly taking more ownership in business process management, even though we may not immediately realize it. And in order for corporate legal to be a true corporate citizen, it needs to have a deeper stake in business processes.

Learn more about Onit’s enterprise legal management solution.

How Can Legal Departments Add Value to Law Firms During Onboarding?

Getting your law firms onboarded as efficiently and painlessly as possible is a key factor in the overall success of a legal e-billing project.

Although e-billing vendors now have considerable experience in supporting legal departments through the implementation, there needs to be more emphasis placed on the problems and issues law firms face. While the technical aspects of the e-billing solution may be well documented, it is often the overlooked non-technical issues that cause law firms the most significant problems.

These issues can include: How should the law firm be organized to implement e-billing – should it be a centralized function or not? What additional processes must the firm implement to ensure that billing data is accurate and timely? What additional resources and IT system changes will be needed to meet the requirements of e-billing?

While most law firms can overcome these major issues, either on their own or with some external consultancy, there are detailed aspects that can be unique to your project. When you start onboarding, you can expect to receive a list of questions from your firm that cover these specific areas. These questions include:

  • What is the scope of the implementation, i.e., which law firm offices, which of your entities, and what matter types are in scope?
  • Will you require UTBMS codes, i.e., which Task/Activity/Expense codes are mandatory?
  • What are the recognized timekeeper classifications?
  • Which LEDES file formats are accepted, or how else can law firms submit billing data?
  • Do you require Work in Progress (WIP) information to be submitted?
  • Are there any special billing requirements, and how should fixed fee work be billed?
  • How will the firms be instructed on new matters?
  • How are charging rates managed and validated?
  • What are the payment processes for valid invoices?
  • What validation rules apply, e.g., what expenses will you reject, and which timekeeper types cannot get a charge?
  • It helps to be proactive and think about these questions from the start of the project.

You must also provide a Billing Guidelines document containing rules and processes for the firms to follow. We recommend a dedicated law firm success resource to help ensure the project addresses these questions and removes frustration for firms.

Onit’s European legal spend management solution BusyLamp eBilling.Space provides this for every project in the form of Bryan King, who has over 15 years of e-billing onboarding experience, initially at Clifford Chance. While indirectly working for the legal department, this person assists all law firms with onboarding and implementation and provides a single liaison point between vendors, firms, and the legal department. Many law firms are familiar with e-billing now. Still, those less experienced firms welcome the opportunity to have the assistance of an individual who understands the issues often faced by the law firm.

These two quotes show how valuable this is for firms; the first is from the e-billing Manager of a large international City firm, and the second is from the Finance Director of a smaller regional UK firm.

“I have been involved with e-billing for around ten years at various major UK law firms. As it evolves, the challenges are increasing. Clients often have dramatically different approaches and requirements. What is undoubtedly critical to the successful implementation of e-billing is an effective onboarding process. I firmly believe that BusyLamp appointing Bryan King as a lead was an excellent business decision. With his law firm insight and expertise, he has been able to play a vital role of considerable value by assisting both the client and BusyLamp with law firm questions and confirming when those firms have raised pertinent questions or made observations of merit. This drives a more effective onboarding process which focusses on key areas of challenge which historically have been overlooked until post-implementation, which typically manifest in a backlog of rejected e-bills.”

“This is the first time that we have seen someone like Bryan working for an e-billing vendor. Usually, the vendor sends us a letter about a client requiring Billing, and we are left to get on with it (…) so useful having someone to answer our questions and who understands our concerns and issues.”

HOW CAN LEGAL DEPARTMENTS HELP THEIR FIRMS WITH E-BILLING?

Every e-billing implementation will benefit from a clear set of rules documenting working practices and expectations around the client billing function. Your e-billing vendor will advise you on what to include. Download this handy guide for some examples. Providing these clear rules will mean your firms will be ready and able to use the solution and provide successful e-billing.

  • Go above and beyond ‘help desk’ level support for your firms by appointing someone (or selecting a vendor who provides someone) who understands law firm issues and works collaboratively with them through their onboarding process.
  • Work with your vendor to answer a list of questions in anticipation of receiving them from your firms and be prepared to work with the law firm success manager to answer further queries as they arise.
  • Make sure you have selected a solution that prioritizes the law firm experience in the interface through training and onboarding and using the latest technology to reduce the administrative burden for outside counsel.

E-billing offers great opportunities for you and your law firms to work collaboratively on a non-legal project with common goals. The aim should be to reduce billing errors, enhance the quality of billing information and improve decision-making processes. Implementing e-billing software is also a chance to work more effectively and efficiently with your outside counsel in a win-win partnership.

Request a demo of BusyLamp eBilling.Space today.

The Hidden Costs of Legal Spend Management Software

Legal spend management technology generates savings for in-house teams in many ways. We wrote a blog on six of these ways. The most obvious is cost savings, whether through a greater ability to ensure firms adhere to billing guidelines, have spend visibility, or use data to make future budgeting decisions. Time savings also come through the automation of laborious tasks like invoice review and reporting, which get calculated into monetary amounts.

Using these savings areas, different eBilling software providers will estimate savings from $46,000 to $800,000 per year for a “typical” legal department. However, to truly know the financial impact, consider the investment cost; this is typically less publicized!

Below are some cost considerations to consider when planning your legal spend management project and selecting a vendor.

PRICE OF LEGAL SPEND MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE

This is usually a fixed subscription fee per annum and may or may not include hosting, training, and maintenance costs, so look out for these in the proposal. The first year may be higher than subsequent years due to initial set-up costs. Subscription fees may come from a few factors: legal spend, number of users, volume of matters, and number of law firms. Consider the best pricing model for you now but also bear in mind your department might grow; how long is your subscription price fixed for, if at all? If you grow, how does the price increase? Also, consider the cost of additional features not included in standard packages.

LEGAL SPEND MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION FEES

Unlike ongoing subscription fees, these are one-off costs payable to the software vendor and/or consultants you may have involved, usually in the first year, but you may have requirements further down the line that add a cost. These fees cover onboarding internal users and law firms, integrations, and customizations such as reports, data migrations and add-ons outside the basic package. Be sure to find out the charges for these.

INTERNAL COSTS

Most modern solutions are now cloud/SaaS based. Security concerns were the main reason for housing software on-premises when e-billing first launched, but cloud security is far more robust these days. If this is a concern, ensure your vendor has the appropriate certifications, like Onit’s European legal spend management solution BusyLamp eBilling.Space, such as ISO/IEC 27001:2013. SaaS solutions carry a much lower internal IT cost than on-premises solutions. However, you may still have to factor in contractor or project team costs.

TRAINING AND SUPPORT COSTS

A user-friendly, familiar, and easy-to-learn legal spend management interface reduces the training required for your in-house teams and law firms, but it will still be necessary. Consider what level of support and training you need at implementation and beyond, as these range from online help only through to fully managed services and the costs vary considerably.

UPGRADE COSTS

Do you need to pay to upgrade to future versions and updates of the software, or is this included? If the upgrade cost is prohibitive, you could fall behind on the latest legal spend management features. Consider the internal costs and impacts of these upgrades, which are lower with SaaS solutions.

FUTURE COSTS

While you don’t have a crystal ball, anticipate potential integrations or features you might need and ask a) if they’re available and b) what these will cost. You want to avoid migrating to a different legal spend management solution if your current one no longer meets your needs or becomes too expensive to do so, so try your best to predict this; ask the vendor about the typical growth pathways of their other clients. A factor that affects most legal departments is cost increases as you add more users, spend and/or firms. Familiarize yourself with the pricing model to avoid surprises.

BusyLamp Legal Spend Management is cost-effective. Even with these expenditure areas, BusyLamp generates a quick return on investment. You can work out your potential savings with our Guide to Building a Business Case for Legal Spend Management or contact us directly and a team member will be in touch to help you calculate your costs and projected ROI.

3 Big Essentials to Look for in an Enterprise Solution Provider

The time inevitably comes when most legal departments need to enhance their process automation, while others may be looking for their first automation solution. There are many things to keep in mind when researching providers and doing due diligence, but we don’t want to overwhelm you with a long list right now. For the purpose of this blog, there are three critical things we wanted to share with you — three of the most basic things you should be looking for in a solution provider:

  1. Enterprise Solutions – The provider should be capitalizing on the broad applicability of workflow-based task management, and eager to expand into functional areas outside of legal and aggressively solicit customer needs to write custom applications for other corporate-wide departments. Whether it’s an off-the-shelf solution or a platform on which the client can create their own applications, a provider that is well-versed in developing solutions for both legal and non-legal applications could be the way to go.
  2. Process Automation –  A workflow-centric approach that seeks to deconstruct matter management into independent, collaborative functional lifecycles that lawyers and operations managers use on a regular basis is critical. An a la carte model can empower users to add capabilities and components as needed. The ability to scale your enterprise legal management system in a manner consistent with operational requirements is your key to success.
  3. System Architecture – The providers that are on top of their game offer a modern architecture that showcases class-leading technology and a decidedly Saas-based approach to legal business application management. It needs to be flexible and agile, and designed for rapid deployment, flexibility and agility. Last but not least, it needs to work the way your team works.

If these three things are at the top of your list when you begin your search for a solution provider you’ll be a huge step ahead of the game.

Enterprise Legal Management Insufficiencies? Don’t Be So Hasty with that RFP

Some companies struggle with their current enterprise legal management (ELM) systems that focus on just core matter and spend management. But when the day comes that they discover there are other business processes that also need automated solutions, it’s time to issue another RFP and undergo another long, expensive and drawn-out path to implementation.

But we’d like to offer another solution. We believe we should be looking at the elements of enterprise legal management as processproblems instead of data problems. When we do this, we’re clearly taking more ownership in business process management (BPM), even though we may not immediately realize it. And in order for corporate legal to be a true corporate citizen, it needs to have a deeper stake in business processes. If you already use automated process solutions, congratulations. You already have a stake since business process automation is inseparable from business process management.

Again, ELM systems that are only capable of core matter and spend management have a clear disadvantage. But on the other end of the spectrum are systems that are loaded with features that will never be used; either because the company doesn’t need them or they don’t want to use them. These solutions were likely an outsize investment to begin with, which already puts the company at a distinct disadvantage. But the situation needn’t be so bleak, and it’s not even necessary to proceed on a quest to find a happy spot somewhere on the spectrum.

The ability to scale your Enterprise Legal Management System in a manner consistent with operational requirements is your key to success.

Seems simple, but how do we do it? By breaking up enterprise legal management into discrete, individual task-based processes, it becomes clear that an “app-based” solution is the most logical way to go. With these, users have the ability to develop and incorporate these discrete process capabilities into the larger enterprise system as they are needed – a la carte. The old “ELM as monolith” approach is, for the majority of legal departments, obsolete. The resounding answer is that we should be looking at ELM as a process problem, rather than a data problem.

Smart companies are now seeking core matter management and e-billing functionality that can be augmented with other process solutions as they are needed. With such systems, scaling could not be easier. In many cases, a company will already have an existing ELM installation, and augment it with process solutions from other providers. These add-ons will be completely compatible with their existing ELM system. There are off-the-shelf, focused solutions as well as platforms on which the company can build their own custom solutions. In any case, the ability to enhance and optimize your system without going the painful RFP route is always a good thing.

Staying the Course with Your Subpar Process Automation Strategy? Think Twice

In our new white paper, Embracing Legal Department Transformation with Technology, we investigate the new legal department landscape and how a legal service request solution is a key player in the makeover. But this blog focuses on one section in this paper, “The Case of Consensual Neglect,” which we feel deserves a bit more airtime.

Successful transformation with technology usually comes with a price tag attached. Those who are willing to put in the time, effort, research and money likely stand a better chance of success than those who skimp on any or all of these four factors. Which brings us to another point on the spectrum where we find people who insist on being committed to an irrational or failing strategy. In some cases, the strategy in question was once successful, which can add salt to the wound by means of the “sentiment” factor. In the Harvard Business Review Professors Freek Vermeulen and Niro Sivanathan detail a number of biases that explain why leaders stay committed to failing strategies. Dubbed “consensual neglect” by Karl Weick of the University of Michigan this is a very real phenomenon that hurts businesses in the near and long term:

In combination, these biases lead a company’s decision makers to ignore signals that their strategy is no longer working. It is what Karl Weick, of the University of Michigan, calls consensual neglect: the tendency of organizational decision makers to tacitly ignore events that undermine their current strategy and double down on the initial decision in order to justify their prior actions. 1

Here are six of the most common biases as described by Vermeulen and Sivanathan: 2

  1. The sunk cost fallacy, in which people focus on the investment already made in a particular course of action and hope that, if the approach is continued, invested costs will be recouped and the prior investment decision vindicated
  2. Loss aversion, in which people prefer to gamble on the future success of a previous commitment to a currently questionable strategy – even if it means the investment of additional resources – rather than to incur an immediate loss by changing direction
  3. The illusion of control, in which people regularly overestimate their ability to control future events, thus reinforcing the first two biases described above
  4. Preference for completion, the inherent bias of people toward completion of tasks, such as seeing a particular course of action through
  5. Pluralistic ignorance, in which people who might disagree with a particular course of action remain silent because they think they are the only dissenters and that everyone else is on board
  6. Personal identification, in which people perceive that their identities and social status are tied to their commitments and that withdrawing their support for a course of action they previously approved would risk loss of reputation or status

According to research, this phenomenon of consensual neglect is fixed deeply in our brains, making us more apt to stay the course with a particular strategy – even when it is clearly not the best, or even failing. Worse yet, some companies will double down on their old strategy instead of trying something new, sending them further into a downward spiral. This can easily apply to every facet of a company, but we’re focusing on driving technology transformations. Again, the right technology is readily available to those who genuinely want to avoid falling prey to consensual neglect.

1, 2  Freek Vermeulen and Niro Sivanathan, “Stop Doubling Down on Your Failing Strategy – How to Spot (and Escape) One before It’s Too Late,” Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec. 2017, at 110-17.

Your Guide to Seamless Legal Tech Implementation: Part 2 — Get Project Stakeholders on Board

Part two of a three-part “Guide to Seamless Legal Tech Implementation” Parts one and three are below.

Part 1 – Scoping the Project Before Buying
Part 3 – Change Management Before and After Implementation

The importance of stakeholder engagement is vital, both during technology project definition and implementation. So how can you identify key project stakeholders and get the buy-in required?

As you read in part one, collecting and analyzing stakeholder and end users’ requirements is a crucial enabler of success when designing and implementing a new system. It is possible to outline solution requirements without considering stakeholder needs, but to do so presents a real but avoidable risk of project failure.

Some of these stakeholder groups or individuals may be fully on board and require little management regarding expectations. However, there are likely to be key stakeholders who will have other priorities or may be resistant to the change that a new software tool brings.

When software projects fail to deliver expected benefits because of stakeholder/end-user issues, these projects fall into two categories:

  • Those that do not independently verify stakeholder requirements (“one of the users said this, so that’s what we must do”)
  • Those that treat project stakeholders and their requirements as a kind of inconvenient truth (“they exist but we don’t really agree with them/want to listen to them”)
  • Neither of these positions are desirable or helpful. However, it is possible to mitigate them.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE?

Effective solution selection requires understanding the needs of all stakeholders and the ultimate users of the application.

As learned in part one, producing a scope document helps eliminate confusion within the project by managing expectations from the start. With the users’ needs captured, you can define the objectives of the software purchase and identify additional project stakeholders.

IDENTIFYING THE PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS

After defining the project objectives, identify the relevant stakeholders. Gather their requirements and learn the solution’s impact on their teams. A successful project requires the buy-in from not only the legal department, but of the entire management level. If you miss the input of some project stakeholders can seriously affect the successful implementation of your software. Stakeholder identification can be time-consuming as it may include parties beyond immediately obvious ones. Who are typical stakeholders? There are immediate system users (for e-billing, this would be accounting and legal/legal operations), but there are also legal service providers and law firms, sales, IT, and procurement users.

A structured and consistent approach can help you identify stakeholders and their roles. Tools and techniques include focused interviews, multi-media communications, surveys, role-playing, and follow-up action workshops. This will ensure stakeholder groups are fully engaged and supported.

USING THE INFORMATION

Once you capture the stakeholder requirements, the next stage is interpreting the results and choosing what to act on. At this stage, achieving balance is vital; keep the stakeholder who shouted the loudest from dominating the requirements. Remember what the legal department is trying to accomplish and select only those items of feedback that will help. Try to prevent the project scope from becoming too broad. Remember that the best solutions are both effective and efficient and that a positive ROI will measure success.

If you have access to an experienced project manager/analyst, they can record and interpret the results of the stakeholder and user sessions and feed the conclusions into the overall project requirements.

ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS

Finally, it is essential to let stakeholders know what you have done with their feedback and why. This is vital to engage them in the project.

You cannot always please all project stakeholders, so use data-based justification for the decisions taken when you can. Stakeholders, particularly the primary users, can make the new process sink or swim. When it comes to implementation, you will need their support to encourage their teams and peers to use the new system. While they may not like what they hear, they value the reach out (and will find out in the end anyway).

Finally, you will need to continue using the stakeholders for validation of the project as it progresses, primarily to ensure that the delivered system does not “drift” from the agreed objectives and to check that the original requirements are still valid as they may change time. This is also a benefit of having a scope document. Plenty of applications have gone live to a user population that says, “great, but that’s not what we need now!”

THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR EFFECTIVE STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

So, what lessons are there for those involved in system selection and implementation?

  • Be clear on what the project is trying to accomplish?
  • Identify the project stakeholders in context; what are their roles and responsibilities?
  • Use relevant capture methods; keep them consistent and unbiased.
  • Incorporate the feedback into the solution requirements. Maintain balance and remind yourself of the project objectives.
  • Keep the stakeholders informed of the consultation outcomes and be prepared to adapt the project if it doesn’t achieve the agreed objectives.

Part 1 – Scoping the Project Before Buying
Part 3 – Change Management Before and After Implementation

LEGAL TECH ERFOLGREICH IMPLEMENTIEREN: PROJEKTBETEILIGTE MIT INS BOOT HOLEN 

Diese dreiteilige Blogserie ist ein Leitfaden für die Umsetzung eines erfolgreichen juristischen Technologieprojekts. Dies ist Teil zwei. Klicken Sie unten, um Teil eins und drei zu lesen: 

Teil 1 – Projektumfang vor dem Lauf einer neuen Technologie definieren 
Teil 3 – Change Management während und nach der Implementierung 

Dieser Leitfaden zeigt die wichtigsten Bereiche auf, die es bei der Implementierung einer Rechtstechnologie zu berücksichtigen gilt. 

Die Einbindung von Interessengruppen ist sowohl bei der Definition von Technologieprojekten als auch bei deren Umsetzung von entscheidender Bedeutung. Wie können Sie also die wichtigsten Projektbeteiligten ermitteln und die erforderliche Zustimmung erhalten? Wie Sie im ersten Teil gelesen haben, ist die Erfassung und Analyse der Anforderungen von Interessenvertretern und Endnutzern ein entscheidender Faktor für den Erfolg bei der Entwicklung und Implementierung eines neuen Systems. Natürlich ist es möglich (und leider auch häufig der Fall), die Anforderungen an die Lösung zu skizzieren, ohne die Bedürfnisse der Interessengruppen zu berücksichtigen, aber dies birgt ein reales, aber vermeidbares Risiko des Scheiterns des Projekts. 

Einige dieser Stakeholder-Gruppen oder Einzelpersonen sind möglicherweise voll und ganz dabei, unterstützen das Projekt und benötigen nur sehr wenig Management in Bezug auf ihre Erwartungen. Allerdings gibt es wahrscheinlich auch wichtige Interessengruppen, die andere Prioritäten haben oder sich gegen die Veränderungen wehren, die ein neues Software-Tool mit sich bringt. 

Wenn Softwareprojekte aufgrund von Problemen mit den Beteiligten/Endnutzern nicht den erwarteten Nutzen bringen, lassen sich diese Projekte in zwei Kategorien einteilen: 

  • Diejenigen, die die Anforderungen der Stakeholder nicht unabhängig verifizieren („einer der Benutzer hat das gesagt, also müssen wir das tun“) 
  • Diejenigen, die die Projektbeteiligten und ihre Anforderungen als eine Art unbequeme Wahrheit behandeln („es gibt sie, aber wir stimmen nicht wirklich mit ihnen überein/ wollen ihnen nicht zuhören“) 

Beide Positionen sind weder wünschenswert noch hilfreich, und beide lassen sich relativieren. 

PROJEKTZIELE DEFINIEREN 

Eine effektive Lösungsauswahl erfordert ein Verständnis der Bedürfnisse aller Beteiligten und der Endnutzer der Anwendung. 

Wie im ersten Teil erläutert, trägt die Erstellung eines Scope Dokuments dazu bei, Verwirrung innerhalb des Projekts zu vermeiden, da die Erwartungen von Anfang an gesteuert werden. Mit der Erfassung der Benutzerbedürfnisse werden die Ziele des Softwarekaufs definiert und zusätzliche Projektbeteiligte können identifiziert werden. 

IDENTIFIZIERUNG DER PROJEKTBETEILIGTEN 

Nachdem die Projektziele definiert wurden, ermitteln Sie die relevanten Interessengruppen. Erfassen Sie deren Anforderungen sowie die Auswirkungen der Lösung auf ihre Teams. Ein erfolgreiches Projekt muss nicht nur von der Rechtsabteilung, sondern auch von oben nach unten getragen werden. Wenn die Projektbeteiligten ignoriert wurden, kann dies die erfolgreiche Implementierung Ihrer Software ernsthaft beeinträchtigen. Die Identifizierung der Stakeholder kann eine zeitaufwändige Aufgabe sein, da es sich dabei um Parteien handeln kann, die nicht nur auf den ersten Blick erkennbar sind. Wer sind typische Stakeholder? Die unmittelbaren Systemnutzer (bei eBilling wären dies die Buchhaltung und die Rechtsabteilung/ Legal Operations), aber auch Rechtsdienstleister und Anwaltskanzleien, der Vertrieb, die IT-Abteilung und das Beschaffungswesen sind potenzielle weitere Beteiligte. 

Ein strukturierter und kohärenter Ansatz kann Ihnen helfen, die Interessengruppen und ihre Rollen zu ermitteln. Zu den Instrumenten und Techniken gehören gezielte Interviews, Multimedia-Kommunikation, Umfragen, Rollenspiele und Workshops zur Nachbereitung von Maßnahmen. Auf diese Weise wird sichergestellt, dass die Stakeholder-Gruppen umfassend einbezogen und unterstützt werden. 

VERWENDUNG DER INFORMATIONEN 

Nachdem Sie die Anforderungen der Interessengruppen erfasst haben, geht es in der nächsten Phase darum, die Ergebnisse zu interpretieren und zu entscheiden, welche Maßnahmen ergriffen werden sollen.  In dieser Phase ist Ausgewogenheit wichtig: lassen Sie nicht zu, dass der Stakeholder, der am lautesten ist, die Anforderungen dominiert.  Denken Sie daran, was die Rechtsabteilung zu erreichen versucht, und wählen Sie nur diejenigen Rückmeldungen aus, die dazu beitragen. Versuchen Sie zu vermeiden, dass der Projektumfang zu groß wird. Denken Sie auch daran, dass die besten Lösungen sowohl effektiv als auch effizient sind und dass ein positiver ROI ein Maßstab für den Erfolg sein wird. 

Wenn Sie Zugang zu einem erfahrenen Projektmanager/Analysten haben, wird dieser in der Lage sein, die Ergebnisse der Stakeholder- und Benutzersitzungen aufzuzeichnen und zu interpretieren und die Schlussfolgerungen in die allgemeinen Projektanforderungen einfließen zu lassen. 

KONTINUIERLICHE KOMMUNIKATION 

Abschließend besteht die wichtige Aufgabe darin, den Beteiligten mitzuteilen, was Sie mit ihrem Feedback gemacht haben und warum.  Dies ist der Schlüssel, um sie für das Projekt zu gewinnen. 

Sie können es nicht immer allen Projektbeteiligten recht machen, also begründen Sie Ihre Entscheidungen, wenn Sie können, mit Daten.  Die Stakeholder und insbesondere die Hauptnutzer haben es in der Hand, ob der neue Prozess Erfolg hat oder nicht. Wenn es um die Implementierung geht, brauchen Sie ihre Unterstützung, um ihre Teams und Kollegen zu ermutigen, das neue System zu nutzen. Auch wenn es ihnen vielleicht nicht gefällt, was sie hören, werden sie es zu schätzen wissen, dass Sie auf sie zugehen. 

Letztendlich müssen Sie die Stakeholder auch im weiteren Verlauf des Projekts zur Validierung heranziehen, vor allem um sicherzustellen, dass das gelieferte System nicht von den vereinbarten Zielen abweicht, und um zu prüfen, ob die ursprünglichen Anforderungen noch gültig sind, da sie sich im Laufe der Zeit ändern können. Auch dies ist ein Vorteil eines Scope Dokuments. Viele Anwendungen wurden in Betrieb genommen, und die Benutzer sagten: „Toll, aber das ist nicht das, was wir jetzt brauchen!“ 

FAKTOREN, DIE FÜR EINE EFFEKTIVE BETEILIGUNG DER STAKEHOLDER ZU BEACHTEN SIND 

  • Machen Sie deutlich, was mit dem Projekt erreicht werden soll 
  • Identifizieren Sie die Projektbeteiligten – insbesondere deren Rollen und Verantwortlichkeiten 
  • Verwenden Sie relevante Erfassungsmethoden – halten Sie sie konsistent und unvoreingenommen 
  • Lassen Sie das Feedback in die Lösungsanforderungen einfließen – achten Sie auf Ausgewogenheit und behalten Sie die Projektziele im Blick 
  • Halten Sie die Beteiligten über den Fortschritt auf dem Laufenden und seien Sie bereit, das Projekt anzupassen, wenn es die vereinbarten Ziele nicht erreicht 
  • Überprüfen Sie die Projektziele immer wieder anhand der geänderten Anforderungen der Interessengruppen. 

Der dritte und letzte Beitrag in dieser Reihe befasst sich mit dem Change Management. Wenn  

Wenn Sie bereit sind, Ihr Legal Tech Projekt zu starten, fordern Sie eine Produktdemo für unsere Legal Operations-Lösungen an, die genau auf Ihre Anforderungen zugeschnitten ist.