Core elements of a strategic technology plan
Discussing the core elements of a strategic technology plan used to capture vision and planning
November 29, 2012 at 04:15 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In last month's article, I presented a primer on core law department technology and described its role and function in supporting the law department. Maximizing the value of that technology, however, requires vision and planning. This month, I discuss the core elements of a strategic technology plan used to capture that vision and planning:
1. Opportunities: Strategic planning begins with understanding the goals and objectives to which the strategic plan should be driving. The challenge for many law departments, however, is that lawyers often do not know how technology could be supporting them. Further, it may be difficult to articulate or even identify challenges, particularly if the department has long-lived processes or procedures to support work activities. Therefore, strategic planning should begin with a survey of the legal technology landscape, if not a broader look at the business and operation of the department in comparison to current and best practices. Outside reviews and benchmarking may be useful, as well as attending industry conferences or webinars outlining trends and developments. The goal is for the department to understand technology opportunities.
2. Relevance: Next, the department needs to look critically at each opportunity to ascertain relevance. While some initiatives may be appealing or follow the latest fads, the true measure of value is whether or not the initiative has the potential to resolve an issue or bridge the gap between where the department is and where it wants to be. Ideally, the initiatives rated highest in relevance and value should tie back to departmental and organizational goals.
3. Vision: Creating a vision requires considering which technologies will support the relevant opportunities. In some cases, several technologies must work together to support an objective. For example, for lawyers seeking to find documents related to a matter, integrating the matter management system with the document management system will facilitate matter-centric design. Ideally, the plan should include a visual depiction of the necessary technologies, their points of integration, process or data flows that bind the technologies together and critical outputs (reports, dashboards).
4. Projects: Once the vision is in place, the department must outline the projects necessary to build the vision. Projects may include additional studies, software selections and implementations, system enhancements, process design and training. The plan should contain a profile for each project, citing estimated costs, resources, dependencies and risks.
5. Prioritization: Not surprisingly, the projects within a plan typically require higher budgets or more resources than a department can reasonably provide in a single year. To identify which projects to tackle first, create a ranking of projects by relevance/value as well as a ranking by ease of implementation (the easiest getting the highest score). Factors that impact “ease” may include cost and resources requirements, company standards and controls, internal knowledge, general availability of technology and department interest in the project. Plot the projects based upon their scores:
Projects in the Quick Wins quadrant are the best bets for initial focus barring dependencies upon other projects and other externalities.
6. Roadmap: The roadmap is the final component of a plan that identifies the order in which a department will undertake the projects. Much like a typical project plan or Gantt Chart, the best roadmaps show the timing and duration of projects in relation to each other. I prefer to create plans in monthly or quarterly increments (depending upon the overall time span covered). It is fairly easy to create an Excel layout that shows each project's duration and identifies high level costs anticipated to be incurred at each time period,
While I have seen extensive plans that incorporate additional components, those I just outlined are the most common and meaningful in that they identify the goals, the business value and approach.
In next month's article I will take a deeper dive into the technology vision, namely, building analytics into the vision and plan.
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 AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC 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'
Trending Stories
- 1Data Breach Lawsuit Against Byte Federal Among 1,500 Targeting Companies in 2024
- 2Counterfeiters Ride Surge in Tabletop Games’ Popularity, Challenging IP Owners to Keep Up
- 3Health Care Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
- 4Florida Supreme Court Disbars 3, Suspends 11, Reprimands 1 in Final Disciplinary Order of 2024
- 5Chief Justice Roberts Ends Year With Defense Against 'Illegitimate' Attacks on Judiciary
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