Contract Construction Technology: Bringing Together the Legal and Technology Department
Why Can't We Be Friends?
July 27, 2010 at 08:00 PM
8 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Specialist: Marty Kelly
Brief Background: Marty Kelly, who has a background in engineering, is the solutions director of contract management for Emptoris, a contract construction company. He studies the process that contracts go through rather than the content inside them.
What is contract construction technology?
Contract construction technology is software that allows ordinary employees to create contracts using pre-approved clauses, alternative clauses, defined metadata and standardized templates. This, if desired, can remove legal from the contract request process and from standard contracts like non disclosure agreements, employment agreements and confidentiality agreements.
What are the benefits of using templates for contracts?
The benefits include greater standardization among contracts, improved contract cycle times and risk mitigation due to improved controls. Templates and contract construction technologies only require legal approval or revision if this language is modified, therefore speeding up the overall contract cycle time. There is a decreased likelihood of nonstandard, unapproved language going to the outside party, thereby reducing exposure to unnecessary risk.
Why is the contract process so often overlooked?
I would say that's because no one actually owns it. Many goups are affected by contracts but each in their own way. For example, sourcing may be responsible for requesting the contract, a contract negotiator may be responsible for negotiating the business terms, a lawyer may be responsible for negotiating the legal terms and finance may be responsible for entering the executed contract into a financial system. Few companies designate a group with overall responsibility for the contract.
Is it ideal for big or small companies?
It can really work for both. The technology is very flexible and isn't specific to any particular industry– every company has contracts. We work with everything from relatively small Midwestern banks to divisions of the British government to global telecom companies.
What sort of costs should companies expect?
Like most software, the cost range is wide. It can be anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, depending on the goals and objectives of the company, the scale of the initiative and the role the software will play with other technologies.
What is the sort of return can you expect on your investment?
It's really difficult to quantify the return on investment from contract technology because most of the value is seen over time instead of immediately. For example, one of contract technology's main advantages is simply mitigating risk, and it's nearly impossible to quantify risk unless a company has already failed at managing it. Productivity improvement, which is another value proposition, can't be properly measured until the software has been implemented. That's why, along with lack of ownership, I believe, contract management technology has taken more time to be adopted.
Say a company is looking to adopt this program. Should the technology or legal department should be in charge?
That's tough because each will look at it from a different perspective. Legal tends to examine how it will affect the legal department while the technology department views the affect on the overall business, both from a process perspective and from a technical fit perspective. The ideal situation would be both.
Why invest now, rather than waiting for the technology to improve?
Technology is always going to be improving while the problems won't be fixing themselves. Therefore, time spent waiting means that more will have to be corrected in the future. More contracts will go into the abyss of file cabinets or shared drives and deepen the hole time-strapped lawyers and contract negotiators fall into. Now is the time to bite the bullet and simply switch over, because in order to keep costs low and stay competitive, all companies will eventually need to modernize their contracting processes and databases. Storing old contracts in file cabinets is antiquated and won't work forever.
Specialist: Marty Kelly
Brief Background: Marty Kelly, who has a background in engineering, is the solutions director of contract management for Emptoris, a contract construction company. He studies the process that contracts go through rather than the content inside them.
What is contract construction technology?
Contract construction technology is software that allows ordinary employees to create contracts using pre-approved clauses, alternative clauses, defined metadata and standardized templates. This, if desired, can remove legal from the contract request process and from standard contracts like non disclosure agreements, employment agreements and confidentiality agreements.
What are the benefits of using templates for contracts?
The benefits include greater standardization among contracts, improved contract cycle times and risk mitigation due to improved controls. Templates and contract construction technologies only require legal approval or revision if this language is modified, therefore speeding up the overall contract cycle time. There is a decreased likelihood of nonstandard, unapproved language going to the outside party, thereby reducing exposure to unnecessary risk.
Why is the contract process so often overlooked?
I would say that's because no one actually owns it. Many goups are affected by contracts but each in their own way. For example, sourcing may be responsible for requesting the contract, a contract negotiator may be responsible for negotiating the business terms, a lawyer may be responsible for negotiating the legal terms and finance may be responsible for entering the executed contract into a financial system. Few companies designate a group with overall responsibility for the contract.
Is it ideal for big or small companies?
It can really work for both. The technology is very flexible and isn't specific to any particular industry– every company has contracts. We work with everything from relatively small Midwestern banks to divisions of the British government to global telecom companies.
What sort of costs should companies expect?
Like most software, the cost range is wide. It can be anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, depending on the goals and objectives of the company, the scale of the initiative and the role the software will play with other technologies.
What is the sort of return can you expect on your investment?
It's really difficult to quantify the return on investment from contract technology because most of the value is seen over time instead of immediately. For example, one of contract technology's main advantages is simply mitigating risk, and it's nearly impossible to quantify risk unless a company has already failed at managing it. Productivity improvement, which is another value proposition, can't be properly measured until the software has been implemented. That's why, along with lack of ownership, I believe, contract management technology has taken more time to be adopted.
Say a company is looking to adopt this program. Should the technology or legal department should be in charge?
That's tough because each will look at it from a different perspective. Legal tends to examine how it will affect the legal department while the technology department views the affect on the overall business, both from a process perspective and from a technical fit perspective. The ideal situation would be both.
Why invest now, rather than waiting for the technology to improve?
Technology is always going to be improving while the problems won't be fixing themselves. Therefore, time spent waiting means that more will have to be corrected in the future. More contracts will go into the abyss of file cabinets or shared drives and deepen the hole time-strapped lawyers and contract negotiators fall into. Now is the time to bite the bullet and simply switch over, because in order to keep costs low and stay competitive, all companies will eventually need to modernize their contracting processes and databases. Storing old contracts in file cabinets is antiquated and won't work forever.
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 AllGC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
'Utterly Bewildering': GCs Struggle to Grasp Scattershot Nature of Law Firm Rate Hikes
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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