Unlike most law firms of its size, historically Taylor Joynson Garrett (now Taylor Wessing) had not felt the need to use a document management system (DMS), instead relying on a standard filing structure to allow people to find documents. Last year, we decided that with the increase in the number of people working on any one document, some form of control was required.

The firm started a tender process to choose a new system in the expectation that all systems would broadly meet its needs. The choice, we thought, would come down to cost, the relationship with the supplier and how well the system fitted with the firm's current systems and practices.

So what is a DMS supposed to do for a firm? Most people would think this obvious, but the more we looked into our requirements, the more differing opinions we found. The basic requirements we ended up with were:
-to make it easy to file documents;
-to make it easy to locate documents;
-to track the history of changes to a document;
-to prevent accidental loss of work; and
-to provide a basis for knowledge management.

The first two requirements fall into the area known as document profiling and the second pair are normally part of version control. We incorporated other important issues into these requirements:

the definition of documents had to include all file types, especially e-mail messages, and also that filing and locating documents should be the same simple process when working offline as when on the network.

As a final requirement, any system we purchased would need to support the needs of Taylor Joynson Garrett as it then was, but should also be capable of being expanded to support the larger international firm being planned at the time.

Document profiling:
Any DMS will allow you to save additional information with a document so you can find it again. The problem with most DMS systems is that while you can customise the profile for use in your firm, they operate a one-size-fits-all approach to the documents.

Documents in real life do not lend themselves to such neat classification, especially if you are looking to file all documents, both client-related and internal, as we are. If you have a large profile, people will be less likely to fill it in and find it harder and slower to use. With a small profile, you lose many of the benefits of having a DMS in the first place.

The approach we took was that there should be no standard profile, but that any document should be able to be tagged with any information that was relevant to it. This allows the user to add relevant information at the point they save the document.

Version control:
This is probably the main benefit most people perceive as being delivered by a DMS. The software makes sure that only one person at a time is working on a document and that the latest version is always known.

Unfortunately, we have several hundred lawyers who have worked for many years without these restrictions. When the corporate lawyers may be working on documents for the sale of a company, for example, the tax group, the employment team and the IP lawyers may also be involved.

The solution put forward by the DMS vendors is either to do this work in consecutive revisions, or to create several sub documents and reassemble at the end. Neither of these approaches takes account of the reality of the deal.

Law firms need a system that allows the lawyers to work in the time-honoured way for the matter in hand, while ensuring that everyone can see what is being updated. As soon as you allow people to work on documents offline, the standard DMS system cannot work properly.

Knowledge management:
We had an intranet-based knowledge management system, written by the in-house development team. The new DMS would need to provide a robust commercial platform for the next phase of this system, while allowing us to continue to develop our own approach to knowledge management on top.

The Taylor Wessing approach:
We compared our requirements with the offerings from the major DMS vendors. All systems on the market would require significant customisation and additional work – and we would still have to compromise to fit in with their model of document management.

The closest system to our requirements turned out not to be a DMS at all, but the Mentor enterprise framework from Perceptive Technology. This is an intranet system designed to help with integrating and presenting data and information across the firm.

After a lot of mutual work on specifying the changes, both sides agreed to go ahead. This is not a bespoke project for Taylor Wessing, but rather a sharing of risk between the firm and Perceptive Technology. Throughout the development process the joint working will continue.

The next steps:
The first plan is to implement the new DMS across the UK part of Taylor Wessing. Everybody will use the system for filing all documents and all
e-mails. Fee earners should be able to have valuable access to the firm's information from clients' offices, or just working from home.

Simultaneously, the existing knowledge management intranet will be migrated on to the new platform.

The future:
Having made great efforts to design a document management platform for use anywhere the firm uses documents, we are already looking at other areas where separate systems are traditionally required, but may not be now.

Early on this list are litigation support and digital dictation, where the flexible profiling and Mentor's built-in workflow will allow us to use it for these more specialist tasks.

By far the biggest advantage we expect to get from utilising the Mentor DMS platform for these other areas is the reduction in training, as fee earners and support staff alike only have to learn one system for all their general needs. This obviously has large cost savings to add to the real savings made in not having to buy other software.

Use of the DMS across the German parts of Taylor Wessing will be reviewed as part of the overall integration of systems that has to happen as a result of the formation of the new firm. Again, we hope that the flexibility of the system will mean that it can support what will be differing working practices developed in their offices.

The underlying design of Mentor will allow us to move if required to a distributed model when the system is used in multiple offices, but will also give us the option of a centrally hosted approach if that is required instead.

Taylor Wessing has a strategy of trying to find products that will help support the firm's working practices, rather than changing practices to suit the software. Sometimes this means we are working with suppliers other than the established players. This is a very exciting project for the firm and for Perceptive Technology, and we are looking forward to working together into the future.

Adam Westbrooke is the head of IT at
Taylor Wessing.