'Just in Case' Planning Checklist
The 'Just in Case' component is the Lean Law equivalent of a backup or redundancy plan to ensure that nothing has been missed.
April 09, 2018 at 02:55 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Lean Adviser
The Just in Case component is the Lean Law equivalent of a contingency or redundancy plan. Its purpose is to ensure that nothing has been missed and to provide space for lawyers to look ahead and to plan for future scenarios. This is not a time for detailed analysis or a structured Progress Review. It's a distinct time for vision and creativity.
Checklist:
STOP
|- Make some time.
- Gather the team to look at the entire project with a fresh and unbiased view.
LOOK BACK
|- Look at the important issues from a list of key issues or an 'Efficiency Tip Sheet' list.
- Review the Project Plan and confirm that all of the important issues are on there, and that those which should have been done are complete.
LOOK FROM ABOVE
|- Consider whether the list of key issues is still correct, make deletions and additions, ensuring that the project plan is updated in the same way.
- Consider if there are dangers, opportunities or connections which you hadn't previously appreciated.
- Re-examine all the key issues which you are treating as "known" or proved, to verify this is reliable.
LOOK FORWARD
|- Try to imagine what could happen.
- Consider what you would do in these "What if" scenarios.
CAPTURE
|- Record findings and follow ups, and adjust the Project Plan accordingly.
Lean Routine:
|- Have you considered how frequently to convene Just in Case meetings and who should be included? Will it be followed by a Progress Review event?
- Has the meeting been scheduled in advance so people have some time to gather their thoughts? Have participants been encouraged to bring imagination and vision?
- Do you have a list of issues to prompt discussion? Consider using a whiteboard to capture all comments so that the team can see and reflect on the possibilities.
- As you look back at past work, consider any deviations in the project forcing the team to avoid or mitigate an unexpected event. Is the correction course selected still the right approach? Has the problem been solved?
- Have you encouraged team members to look back with a fresh and unbiased view?
- When you examine the project plan and each important issue, is there anything that has been overlooked? Imagine the consequences of your current strategy. Are there possibilities, nuances or risks that haven't been addressed?
- As you step back to gain perspective, are you prepared to test your assumptions? Can the team revisit and test all known issues? Are the "known facts" in your project truly reliable?
- As you look into the future, open your mind to consider the known risks and imagine unknown risks. What are the hidden risks? Have you ignored anything meaningful that could go wrong?
- If you've engaged in prior risk assessment, does the Just in Case discussion change any existing plans? Are there new developments that require fresh contingency planning? Have you documented the required follow-up and action items?
- Have meeting notes been summarized in a Lean Communication to the team?
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAbout the Awards: Florida Legal Awards 2025 Q&A with Regional Managing Editor Katie Hall
'Any NFT Is a Security': What an SEC Wells Notice Sent to OpenSea Could Mean for Attorneys
4 minute readLawyer, Mother and the Dark Night of the Soul: What We Are Doing to Women at Law Firms
Trending Stories
- 1Commission Confirms Three of Newsom's Appellate Court Picks
- 2Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 3GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 4'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 5Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250