Digital Files Replace Paper
Six suggestions for a successful conversion.
May 31, 2010 at 08:00 PM
3 minute read
Mark Warfield, associate patent counsel at Johnson & Johnson, has six recommendations for general counsel interested in converting from paper to digital media.
Such programs are most successful when they focus on the goal of increasing efficiency, rather than on how much paper can be eliminated, Warfield says. So the first of his recommendations is: “Drop the paperless office goal.”
“I think of the project in terms of how to handle information,” Warfield says. “Whether located on a printed page or as bits in computer memory, the goal of the project, for any business, should be to get the information as quickly and efficiently as possible into the hands of the people who need it in order to do their jobs.”
Warfield says that goal is sometimes met by converting information on a printed page into some electronic form so that it can be easily stored and retrieved, and other times the information is electronically stored but printed out when needed.
“It all depends on the situation and the needs and structure of the business,” he says. “A paperless goal, though, should never dictate how a person uses or interacts with the information. It should be the other way around.”
His second recommendation is to map out your process, getting as detailed as you can. “It's a very surprising exercise,” he says.
Third, establish the goals you want to meet. “In our situation, we established eight goals that we wanted to meet–all directed at the information,” he says. “For example, we set as a goal that we wanted to get incoming documents in front of an attorney within five business days–our then-current process varied anywhere from two to 90 days.”
Fourth, stick to those goals and only those goals. “One of the biggest problems as we got going was mission creep. A software vendor would have a new bell or whistle and people would start clamoring for it. Going after everything like that only adds time and cost and it won't help you meet your stated goals,” he says.
Fifth, be honest with your staff. “It's easy to overstate how lives will change for the better when new systems are put in place, but acceptance is easier if you say up front what it won't do and why you're not going for that right now,” Warfield says.
Sixth, find out how to use the system and train the staff yourself. “Software vendors know their product, but they don't know how you'll want to use it,” he adds.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
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 AllRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
FTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readHow Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readTrending Stories
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