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
© 2025 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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Lawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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