The following is part one of a two-part series.

Law firms not only need to adopt the right technology—they need to deploy it in the right way, so the benefits are fully and consistently realized. To maximize deployment success, what can small and big firms learn from each other?

Technology deployments at small law firms are often characterized by elements not found in large firm deployments, and vice versa. The disparate features are instructive because both delivery models have strengths and weaknesses we can learn from. Firms should take note, because a failure to optimize deployments poses the risk that the business-critical advantages of a new technology—for which firms are paying—will never be fully realized. Whenever a firm can improve its deployment engagement model, there are important gains to be made.

Deployments in Small-to-Medium-Sized Firms

Generally, technology deployments in small-to-medium-sized firms are characterized by fewer lines of communication and shorter processes, from procurement to completion, leading to more expedient decision-making. This not only minimizes the time to value, but also gives people a sense that things are going according to plan.

One significant factor in leading to expedited decision-making is that vendors will usually have direct lines of communication to the top people in the firm, including partners. This increased access to the entire end-user community means that these firms are more likely to achieve a better adoption rate. Also, deployments in smaller firms generally end in a "big bang" launch of the technology. This avoids the "broken telephone" effect that can arise during the phased rollouts favored by larger firms, where well-meaning colleagues "train" their co-workers and pass on their own newly acquired bad habits.

IT departments in smaller firms also tend to have more power and influence, which can be another accelerating factor. Once NDAs have been signed, the vendor is typically invited in as an extension of the firm IT team and is granted testing access to install, configure, and quality-assure the product prior to handover to the client. This has the effect of reducing reliance on the already overburdened firm IT team and contributes to the overall speed of the implementation.

Despite all these advantages, small firm technology deployments can stumble. Constrained resources and competing priorities frequently cause the IT department in these firms to postpone or cancel regular update meetings, reschedule critical deployment dates and move go-live dates. Smaller firms are also less disciplined at specifying what it is that they expect to get out of the technology once it has been deployed. Sometimes a handful of partners will say, "I want this—make it happen," but the IT department may not be given the opportunity to understand the value of the deployment or how it will fit with the current firm tech stack.  This means that critical drivers that are motivating the deployment are often missed, and IT employees are left to wonder: "Why did we buy it?" "What did we want to get out of it?" "What are the key success factors for this new piece of technology?"

In general, though, the smaller the firm, the nimbler the implementation will be, with the highest relative adoption rate. Fewer users results in faster, tighter deployments.

The Larger Law Firm Picture

In tech deployments, the shortcomings of smaller firms are often the strong points of larger firms. Large firms usually have a vast pool of highly qualified in-house specialists—a big plus for technology vendors. In addition, large firms have generally set aside a budget for progress meetings and the administrative elements that ultimately improve project tracking and performance. The implementation will also be more structured and disciplined, and it is very unlikely that a weekly update meeting will ever be postponed or skipped because project resources are often specifically dedicated to the delivery of a new piece of technology.

On the other hand, the strengths of smaller firm engagements often highlight the shortcomings of these larger firms. The lines of communication are almost always longer, which generally makes decision-making slower. This can be particularly harmful if the procurement process is already complex and drawn out, which it often is. In some situations, it can take more than a full year just to get to the point where the Statement of Work is signed. This can give the impression that a project is "slow" or behind schedule even before kickoff, which puts undue pressure on the project team to deliver on a tighter timeline.

Change management is another factor inhibiting large firms. Training and communications need to be more considered and purposeful. It is also often the case that end-users are less accessible to vendors–especially the most senior-level users. Indeed, access is often impeded by a persistent "billable first" culture. At times, this can be so inflexibly applied as to be self-defeating. For leadership in large firms, it's easy to forget that new technology can radically increase fee-earner productivity. Setting aside 60 minutes for product orientation and training ought to be an investment rather than a toll on the firm.

What We Can Learn from These Differences?

Deployments are most likely to be successful when vendors adapt their delivery style to suit the culture and norms of each individual firm, irrespective of its size. But firms also have an important role to play in deployments, and both large and small firms can learn some useful lessons from each other.

Most smaller firms will benefit from adding more structure and discipline to their deployment models. They will make efficiency gains if they can somehow manage to prioritize the deployment in their busy days and find the time to attend all meetings rather than pushing them out or rescheduling them. It is also imperative that small firms allocate enough resources to the project from the beginning so that follow-up can be completed quickly. They are also more likely to get what they need from new technology if they are clear about their expectations at the outset.

For their part, large law firms should try to minimize bureaucratic internal structures so they can speed up internal decision-making. They should not be so risk-conscious that they restrict access to the system by appropriately screened tech vendors to the extent that it impedes a project's progress. Firm culture is also an important consideration: During deployments, large firms need to keep in mind the long-term financial benefits of targeted technology and allow their lawyers the take the time to provide feedback and support to optimize the deployment. Firms must remain flexible and agile during deployments. Actively engaging their user community will result in better technology deployments.

Most technology vendors are very excited about their own technology, and a successful deployment is their number one priority. Likewise, firms have an essential role to play to ensure a successful deployment, such as understanding the potential barriers to successful implementation in their own firm and addressing them proactively. Bringing both commitment and enthusiasm to each deployment project will allow firms to fully reap the benefits of their new technology.

Trevor Bell is head of client services at ZERØ, provider of the legal industry's only mobile-first AI-powered productivity software.