6 steps for applying analytics to a strategic technology plan
As a consultant, I often find that law departments purchase technology to improve management information, but neglect to specify what information is required.
January 04, 2013 at 06:17 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In last month's article, I discussed the core elements of a strategic technology plan. One element described was establishing a vision for the use of technology including identification of critical outputs, namely metrics, reports and dashboards. As a consultant, I often find that law departments purchase technology to improve management information, but neglect to specify what information is required. Not surprisingly, current tool sets fall short of expectations, thereby requiring additional investments. In this month's article, I describe the process for outlining the vision for department management information and analytics to ensure that the strategic technology plan incorporates the necessary tools:
1. Identify metrics to measure current department initiatives. Leadership should conduct a working session to go through the department's most current strategic planning materials. For major initiatives, consider what to measure. Find a metric (or metrics) that leaders understand, and that will indicate if the department is progressing toward its goals. The best metrics are actionable, meaning that they can help leadership identify when to take corrective action (or demonstrate that no action is needed). For example, departments focused on cutting outside costs might look at total outside spend as well as ratios such as outside spend as a percent of revenue. When metrics start to deviate from plan, management should look at factors which impact spend, such as number of new matters and matter budget-to-actuals. Since it may not be obvious what the best metrics are, it is advisable to use external sources (peers, published resources, conferences, industry groups and outside experts) to help identify meaningful and useful metrics.
2. Create mock-ups. Ideally, the department should draft examples of how to present information. Seeing information laid out in report or dashboard format is the easiest way for users to ascertain if they will be able to work with the information. Again, best practice examples of reports and dashboards are plentiful. It is not necessary to start from scratch! More importantly, presenting a visual to a vendor, developer or other expert tasked with delivering the information ensures the department will receive what it desires. Further, as part of the planning process, these individuals will be able to scope and price the effort to deliver the information more accurately, thereby avoiding future surprises.
3. Identify the data necessary to produce desired metrics. Next, the department must consider what data will be needed to generate the metrics. Does the department have this data at its disposal? If yes, how easy is it to access? Common examples include limited querying and reporting capabilities, security or restrictions (including accessing data that resides in systems of other departments), data quality problems or the ability to integrate data from multiple systems.
4. Determine the technology required. If the department does not have the data, then the next step is to consider what new data will be needed. Does the department have the systems to collect, store and access the new data? If yes, can the department configure the current technology as needed? If no, what new technology is needed?
Once the department knows where it will hold its data, it must also consider whether or not the system's native querying and reporting capabilities will meet the needs for presenting the information. Many organizations already have corporate standards and licenses for enterprise reporting software that may be a suitable alternative to applications' native reporting capabilities. However, the department may need to secure approval, licenses, training and/or support to leverage these tools. Of course, if the currently available tool set cannot deliver upon the vision, then the department must seek new tools or alter its vision for information delivery.
5. Consider process and change management. An often-neglected component of strategic technology planning is the softer process and change management perspective. Identifying how to incorporate the use of analytics into the department's practice is essential. The department should not neglect proper training and periodic review of both use and the tools themselves. Performance measurement should be a living activity—always changing to adapt to the department's goals. Leadership should understand how to use reports and dashboards to achieve department objectives.
6. Incorporate into plan. Once the department has identified its needs and the tools and processes to support them, there should be a fair wish list of activities. The analytics activities identified should become part of the longer master list of projects within the strategic technology plan, and then go through the prioritization and road mapping process I described in my last article.
Most departments use technology to achieve two ends: to support daily activities or to provide management information to support business decisions. Dedicating time and effort to understanding the department's need and desire for management information is critical to selecting the appropriate technology. In next month's article I will discuss applying risk tools to a strategic technology plan. This is where the plan also begins to look at practice support activities.
In last month's article, I discussed the core elements of a strategic technology plan. One element described was establishing a vision for the use of technology including identification of critical outputs, namely metrics, reports and dashboards. As a consultant, I often find that law departments purchase technology to improve management information, but neglect to specify what information is required. Not surprisingly, current tool sets fall short of expectations, thereby requiring additional investments. In this month's article, I describe the process for outlining the vision for department management information and analytics to ensure that the strategic technology plan incorporates the necessary tools:
1. Identify metrics to measure current department initiatives. Leadership should conduct a working session to go through the department's most current strategic planning materials. For major initiatives, consider what to measure. Find a metric (or metrics) that leaders understand, and that will indicate if the department is progressing toward its goals. The best metrics are actionable, meaning that they can help leadership identify when to take corrective action (or demonstrate that no action is needed). For example, departments focused on cutting outside costs might look at total outside spend as well as ratios such as outside spend as a percent of revenue. When metrics start to deviate from plan, management should look at factors which impact spend, such as number of new matters and matter budget-to-actuals. Since it may not be obvious what the best metrics are, it is advisable to use external sources (peers, published resources, conferences, industry groups and outside experts) to help identify meaningful and useful metrics.
2. Create mock-ups. Ideally, the department should draft examples of how to present information. Seeing information laid out in report or dashboard format is the easiest way for users to ascertain if they will be able to work with the information. Again, best practice examples of reports and dashboards are plentiful. It is not necessary to start from scratch! More importantly, presenting a visual to a vendor, developer or other expert tasked with delivering the information ensures the department will receive what it desires. Further, as part of the planning process, these individuals will be able to scope and price the effort to deliver the information more accurately, thereby avoiding future surprises.
3. Identify the data necessary to produce desired metrics. Next, the department must consider what data will be needed to generate the metrics. Does the department have this data at its disposal? If yes, how easy is it to access? Common examples include limited querying and reporting capabilities, security or restrictions (including accessing data that resides in systems of other departments), data quality problems or the ability to integrate data from multiple systems.
4. Determine the technology required. If the department does not have the data, then the next step is to consider what new data will be needed. Does the department have the systems to collect, store and access the new data? If yes, can the department configure the current technology as needed? If no, what new technology is needed?
Once the department knows where it will hold its data, it must also consider whether or not the system's native querying and reporting capabilities will meet the needs for presenting the information. Many organizations already have corporate standards and licenses for enterprise reporting software that may be a suitable alternative to applications' native reporting capabilities. However, the department may need to secure approval, licenses, training and/or support to leverage these tools. Of course, if the currently available tool set cannot deliver upon the vision, then the department must seek new tools or alter its vision for information delivery.
5. Consider process and change management. An often-neglected component of strategic technology planning is the softer process and change management perspective. Identifying how to incorporate the use of analytics into the department's practice is essential. The department should not neglect proper training and periodic review of both use and the tools themselves. Performance measurement should be a living activity—always changing to adapt to the department's goals. Leadership should understand how to use reports and dashboards to achieve department objectives.
6. Incorporate into plan. Once the department has identified its needs and the tools and processes to support them, there should be a fair wish list of activities. The analytics activities identified should become part of the longer master list of projects within the strategic technology plan, and then go through the prioritization and road mapping process I described in my last article.
Most departments use technology to achieve two ends: to support daily activities or to provide management information to support business decisions. Dedicating time and effort to understanding the department's need and desire for management information is critical to selecting the appropriate technology. In next month's article I will discuss applying risk tools to a strategic technology plan. This is where the plan also begins to look at practice support activities.
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 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
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
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