Articles Posted in Tools

A tour de force on statistics can be found in the ACC Docket, April 2007 at 58. In the context of employment discrimination cases, the authors clearly describe nine advanced statistical calculations and make four recommendations on statistical methodology. Of the calculations, they criticize five of them – chi-square (better to use logistic regression), ANOVA, multiple-measure tests such as the MANCOVA, factor analysis (aka cluster analysis), and stepwise regression – and approve four of them.

The authors favor (1) “protected t-tests like the Duncan range test or Hsu’s test rather than a cascade of independent t-tests; (2) data reliability tests such as Cronbach’s Alpha (but less so the Spearman-Brown Rho and the Kappa and (3) statistical significance criteria of .01 or less. As to the fourth technique, arguments during a lawsuit or in a trial are stronger, “where results are not [statistically] significant,” when the side uses a power test to show that sample size was adequate.”

Turning to methodologies, the authors criticize “mechanistic statistical models that neglect to include social psychological variables such as years of experience, job level, skill, etc.” They urge lawyers and their statistics experts instead to consider using hierarchical linear modeling or multiple regression. Second, they recommend against weighted formulas as well as reliance on personality tests or even discussion of personality traits. Instead, since “personality is not a particularly good predictor of behavior,” it is better to “focus on directly observable behavior.” Finally, the authors advocate that litigants “build a clear set of graphic displays … showing all three pieces of evidence that prove a causal linkage according to Quine’s (1941) classic text.”

Several vendors of e-billing systems offer ASP (application specific packages, aka hosted services) that run on servers maintained by the vendor (See my posts of March 26, 2006 and April 26, 2006 for more on this option.). A piece in Met. Corp. Counsel, Vol. 15, Feb. 2007 at 31, mentions a hybrid solution for data protection (See my post of Jan. 25, 2007 on encryption of invoice information.) which law departments may wish to evaluate.

“We use a hosted provider for our [vendor name] system and maintain the majority of our data inside our firewall for added protection. Our invoices are sent in an encrypted format which we are able to decode once they pass through our firewall.” Thus, the law department has the benefit of the ASP solution – less IT support needed while also enjoying the security of guarding its own data.

This blog’s writer cares about whatever aids those who manage corporate legal functions. “Tools” are one category of aids, but the term “tool” turns out to be hard to define (See my posts of Aug. 13, 2006 and April 14, 2005 about tools generally; Oct. 18, 2006 [“The term “tools” covers all the (a) tangible instrumentalities and (b) techniques that help those in a law department accomplish processes.”].). Contrary to what I put forth earlier (See my post of April 17, 1006 on decision tools, in which category I too-broadly included information, training and empowerment) I now think a narrower concept should delimit “tools.”

Starting very broadly, it seems useful to distinguish management tools that enhance management’s evaluations and analysis of the department or provide insights to plan. All of my categories save one consist of management tools.

Client satisfaction: July 25, 2005 – balanced scorecards; Sept. 4, 2005 – benchmarking; April 18, 2005 – client satisfaction surveys; Jan. 27, 2006 – internal budgets; and Oct. 2, 2006 – self-assessment for Boards.

Simon Lewis of Sinch Software was kind enough to e-mail me with several informative comments about document assembly (See my post of Jan. 28, 2007 on Marc Lauritsen and several packages he describes.). “GhostFill can now be added to the list of non-survivors having been withdrawn from general availability as a standalone document assembly program.”

Lewis continues: “Amazingly, I can point to four other “newish” document assembly packages from Australia alone not on Marc’s list, which are doing well both here and internationally, in their respective niches:

Informs

A survey of European law departments, reported in Law Dept. Quarterly, Sept./Nov. 2006 at 27, asked about “quality management systems.” Among the 11 systems given to choose from, one was “a set of key performance indicators” and the other “performance metrics.” Of the 57 law departments that responded, 50 percent said they had key performance indicators (KPI) while close behind — 45 percent – said they had performance metrics. The difference eludes me.

Performance metrics, I believe, are for comparisons over time of what has been done; KPI’s are for goals in the future (See my posts of April 8, 2005; and Feb. 23, 2006 on SMART goals.) Performance metrics and KPI’s should have direction – we want to have closed 30 percent of our cases within 18 months last year or we want to increase our payments made through electronic billing by 20 percent this year.

Dashboards are “visual budgeting and goal-setting tools” according to the Nat’l L.J., Vol. 29, Jan. 8, 2007 at 8, and Matthew Fawcett, the general counsel of JDS Uniphase Corp. A dashboard could present either performance metrics from the past of key performance indicators for the future. A dashboard is a way to present visually in one place several key metrics.

Most managers think that progress calls for doing something additional – more software, an extra step on a process, a shiny new initiative. But good managers also lop off out-dated or ineffectual practices.

Some that my consulting experience has run across include the axe coming down on internal time recording, elaborate evaluations of outside counsel, chargebacks to clients, mid-year evaluations, monthly written status reports, and bi-weekly conference call meetings of direct reports.

On some of these misbegotten processes I have opined (See my posts of Aug. 31, 2006 on internal time recording; April 14, 2005 on elaborate evaluations of outside counsel; June 30, 2006 and May 16, 2006 on charge-backs to clients; mid-year evaluations; and Aug.1, 2006 on monthly written status reports.). The press doesn’t often write about sunsetted management steps.

Online sites that provide a variety of information on a given topic are generally thought of as portals. A swarm of portals aim at lawyers, and each of them provides information that has value to inside lawyers. It is far beyond the scope of this blog to evaluate these sites, and patently this blog is part of one of them (Law.com) and I am an employee of the owner of another (Thomson). Here are nine of the general legal portals.

ACC (Association of Corporate Counsel);

Corporate Counsel (magazine);

An interesting article in the Fin. Times, Jan. 31, 2007 at 7, explains three key strategies that futurist thinkers employ. First is what the article called “careful examination,” which assumes that the future “is already more or less here, if only we could see it.” Careful thought and observation will help a law department team spot what is important in some issue like legal support for international operations or compensation trends.

The second strategy of futurists is story-telling, also known as scenario-building (See my posts of Dec. 9, 2005 on scenario planning for law departments; and Dec. 20, 2005 on real-options analysis; and Jan. 4, 2006 on intelligent agents.). A law department might extrapolate three possible futures, such as widely available and free internet material with sophisticated search tools, moderately available information online, and no change from the present. Then, the department watches for clues as to which scenario is likely to take place.

Visioning, the third strategy, “involves not only working out what could happen but what you want to happen.” Usually this practice builds on participation by a broad group, such as an entire law department. A possible example could be that if more flexible work hours attract the department, visioning could be the key to working out the details.

An excellent tool for managers of law departments is the online survey. Available for free with company-licensed software, or at low cost from vendors such as Snap and Survey Monkey, the software lets you collect responses quickly and easily, and most packages prepare graphical summaries of the results.

I have used software such as this to collect material for retreats and as part of consulting projects, but there are many other opportunities for its use (See my posts of March 16, 2006 regarding surveys of executives after they consult the department; Sept. 27, 2005 for assessments by lawyers in the department of their leaders’ abilities; and March 26, 2007 to collect insights after a retreat.).

In an undated OutINFront piece of ACC Docket at 16, Ron Pol suggests ten steps to a successful offsite, and suggests three interesting ones to help attendees get more value from the gathering.

The three points focus on increasing what attendees learn from the conference. The first is to conduct a post-retreat survey: “Find out what participants really learned.” Most surveys, taken at the end of the last day, spend too much time on venue, food and fun; new ideas and understandings count for much more. One way to gather the insights is through an online survey (See my post of March 26, 2007 on this tool.)

As a second idea, Pol urges organizers of the retreat to “invite participants to identify the three best ideas they’ve learnt.” Third, “the post-event workshop offers participants the opportunity to explore the best ideas and lift the rate of execution.” Pol stresses that lawyers and paralegals ought to learn from the retreat, and these ideas are useful tools to identify what was useful – in hindsight a few months later – and how to spread the value of that learning (See my post of March 25, 2005 on my rule of three parts for a successful retreat.).