In this post on recent developments in legal publishing, Ron Friedmann posits that knowledge management is evolving “from content to tools to true productivity.” He offers the following analysis:
For much of the 1990s, legal professionals did not even use the “KM word”. Instead, we talked about work product retrieval and precedents. That continued into the new century until we finally realized how hard it is to find work product and to write, maintain, and organize precedents.
Moreover, we also recognized that “content is not enough”. We broadened our focus to finding experienced lawyers and finding relevant matters. Both of these have value in their own right and lead to relevant content. Of course, we were aided by the development of software that automated much of the effort to accomplish all this.
More recently, KM has shifted again and I choose “shift” carefully. Many KM professionals today focus on legal project management, alternative pricing arrangements, and process improvement. In my view this reflects more a discontinuity or abrupt shift than ‘evolution’.
Legal KM, like legal publishers, sees the light: content is only a means to an end. Even software is only a means to an end. The real end, the real goal, perhaps the Holy Grail, is improving lawyer productivity; is solving real problems.
I agree. When it comes to contract drafting, the rawest content, in the form of precedent contracts or static templates, is of very limited utility. It becomes vastly more accessible when you harness it to a technology process, namely document assembly.
So you add technology and … voilà? Well, no. That’s because contract content generated in a copy-and-paste world has been deformed by the copy-and-paste process and all that goes with it: Learning through regurgitation. Perpetuation of flawed conventional wisdom. Absence of rigorous guidelines. Lack of customization. And the notion that contract drafting is a craft—that you can do things your way and I can do them my way, and it’s all good.
So content isn’t sufficient, but it is necessary, and it should be rigorous. Because of its variable quality and limited scope, marrying copy-and-paste content with a document-assembly process leaves a lot to be desired. Content and process should be worked on in tandem.
The sad fact is that the process side of things is the easier part. That’s why when it comes to contracts, content risks getting lost in the shuffle.
Ken:
In some ways this is a follow-up to our discussion on yesterday’s post. Leaving the process side of it alone (because I agree that it is the easier part) how then can we improve the content side of it (keeping in mind that clients want it cheaper and faster)? Why not create a database of model language that is scrutinized and debate by interested parties? Why not make this database open to all for the benefit of all? Why not include in this database (as it is developed over time) a state-by-state body of knowledge with the interpretation of particular model provisions for the benefit of both drafters and the courts?
Putting aside the cost of such an endeavor would this not be a plausible solution? If so, how could such a solution–while remaining open–generate revenue to continuously improve both the content in the database and the process of generating the end agreement?
In my humble opinion this is the “Holy Grail” of knowledge management.
I’d love not only your thoughts on these rhetorical questions but my fellow readers as well.
Bradley
Bradley: Regarding “debate by interested parties,” it depends what you have in mind.
If you’re looking to volunteers to do the heavy lifting, the result will be cacophony. The only system I’d be willing to get involved with is one that relies on specialists, while being open to comment.
As for making it open to all, fine, as long as someone’s willing to pay. If no one is willing to pay, then why bother creating the system at all?
Ken