Three Lessons to Ensure Success in Technology Transformation Projects
It is one thing to identify your killer app and get the funding to procure it. The hard part is getting it to work and deliver the promised transformation.
July 15, 2019 at 07:00 AM
6 minute read
In the list of words guaranteed to leave a buzzing noise in lawyers' ears, “technology” has to take first place—closely followed by “transformation” and “innovation,” of course. Law firms and legal departments are under pressure as never before to compete on productivity, value for money and digital capabilities. If you follow the press, the books and the conference circuits, it is so-called legal tech that holds the key to competitive success in this brave new world. But it is one thing to identify your killer app and get the funding to procure it. The hard part is getting it to work and deliver the promised transformation.
Legal organizations are not alone with this challenge. A recent report from digital services firm, Econocom, for example, showed that, while nearly two-thirds of U.K. companies are currently working to implement new technology, one in five have already launched what they consider to be an unsuccessful digital transformation project. And more than half admitted that their project failed because the company had struggled to get to grips with the new technology.
Our experience backs up this research. In our work—consulting with businesses, partnering with clients to integrate legal technologies and designing and implementing legal function transformation projects—we have seen the quality and range of legal tech tools out there. But, perhaps ironically, the real challenge often tends to be the human element.
So we know that technology-driven transformation can be hard to do. But we also know why, along with the steps that can be taken to mitigate the risks and define a clear path to success. Here are three lessons that point the way.
|Lesson One: What makes sense on paper does not always work in practice
There is an unavoidable reality gap that sits between a project's design and the practical implementation of that design. Even experienced advisers, both from the legal and technology arenas, can be wrong-footed by this reality gap.
Yet we should not be so surprised by this, as there has been plenty of research on the topic. In Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink, the author gives the example of a famous taste-testing program that Coca-Cola ran against Pepsi in the 1980s. The testing was based on taking a single (blind) sip of the competing drinks, which despite the test's simplicity and intuitive good sense produced a misleading set of results. Because it turned out that sipping a cola is not the same as drinking a whole can. This did not become obvious until after rounds of testing and product iterations had shown the distinction: consumers who preferred Pepsi after a single sip preferred Coke when they had the full can to enjoy.
In the same way, some process innovations in a legal function sound perfectly rational in principle, but putting them into a live environment, rather than inside a sandbox that does not replicate all the operating features of the department, may be the only way to highlight defects that do not appear in the logic itself. Allowing a phase in the project for testing is therefore only part of the equation: the type and quality of testing are also paramount. And being able to interpret the test results, perhaps even interrogate them in the right way, also requires sufficient time to be built into the project plan.
|Lesson Two: Communication is a critical activity
The importance of getting communications right cannot be overstated. When implementing any transformational change in a legal function, whether it be driven by technology, process/tool optimization or realignment of staff, the teams who will be affected by the change must be informed, guided and indeed reassured by appropriately calibrated messages from various parts of their organization. Inspirational vision statements from top leadership are welcome, but more practical, directional guidance will be required from middle management.
These downward communications must also be coupled with a process of feedback and listening, so that the affected staff feel that their concerns are understood and that they are part of the change process. And they will have concerns. A 2017 study by the American Psychological Association concluded that 55% of staff who were experiencing organizational change at work reported feeling chronic stress, compared with only 8% reporting such levels of stress in work environments that were not undergoing significant change.
One-shot communications are not enough, either. The business must take care to ensure that the right messaging is being repeated and adjusted as the transformation project unfolds. A common mistake organizations make is to think that a new technology may be self-evidently an improvement on the status quo, and that staff only need to be given user instructions and the rest will fall into place. This is often a misplaced confidence on the part of management. So technology transformations should be treated the same way as major business restructurings, which always require clear and consistent communication both to stakeholders and participants.
|Lesson Three: Change is like a military battle
It is a trope that the best military planning needs to factor in a degree of chaos once the enemy is engaged. We have found major change programs to be much the same—less bloodshed (hopefully), but just as much noise and confusion. No matter how thorough and well-planned the change management project, following launch there will be unforeseen problems, delays and challenges. One of the keys to success is to maintain the necessary agility, flexibility and attention to people that will keep the project on track, despite the swerves and pivots that may have to be taken along the way.
This is another reason why two-way communications are so critical, just as with a military operation. Keeping both management and staff informed of progress and issues, and having the responsiveness to move quickly as new information comes in, will help to ensure that the project stays close to its design and does not stray into Game of Thrones script territory. Transformation is not necessarily easy, but it does not have to be that hard either.
Sylvain Magdinier is a Vice President with law firm Marshall Denning, operating in commercial partnership with UnitedLex to bring Enterprise Legal Services to corporations around the world.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1U.S. Eleventh Circuit Remands Helms-Burton Trafficking Case Involving Confiscated Cuban Port
- 2Can Passive Technology Change the Impaired Driving Trajectory?
- 3Bradley Arant, Moore & Van Allen Join Partner Promotions Parade
- 47th Circ. Rejects Liability Claims Against Freight Broker's Hiring Choices
- 5Sullivan & Cromwell Signals 5-Day RTO Expectation as Law Firms Remain Split on Optimal Attendance
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