Law firms, for any project, must first arrange processes in the optimum sequence, and then think about connecting them. To do this is to undertake legal lifecycle management and that immediately offers us sight of something that may not otherwise be clear, the 'big picture.'

The bigger and broader the view, the more opportunity for process improvement. This is why, in the end, Lean Law was developed to cover the whole lifecycle of the project. The lifecycle view is also important because the end is always in sight. Why are we doing this, what is it that we actually want, is it working? For a single activity, like discovery, what we want is pretty clear. But for the whole project, 'what we want' is not always clear and it's not for the lawyer to define. It is up to the client, and client priorities may shift over time. It becomes obvious then, that discovering 'what the client wants' from the project should be a process in itself, and a vital one at that.

As we know 'what the client wants' from any project can be imprecise, and might even be impossible to deliver. This is why it is important for it to be characterized as an 'Anticipated Range of Outcomes' (ARO).  This is why Lean Law starts with developing a realistic Anticipated Range of Outcomes with the client as the first component, and ends with examining whether the Anticipated Range of Outcomes was delivered (and if not, why not) as the last component.