Practice Innovations

Cross-Pollinate Marketing andInformation Resources to Reap Rewards – p. 1

Law Firm Information Audits in aPeriod of Transition – p. 4

The Flip Side of KM: Voices of Experience – p. 8

Practice Innovator Jeffery S. Rovner on “KM by Stealth” – p. 10

Book Review Knowledge Management and theSmarter Lawyerby Gretta Rusanow, Esq. – p. 13

JULY 2004 – VOLUME 5, NUMBER 2 IN THIS ISSUE

Managing in a ChangingLegal Environment

Three editions of Practice Innovations are published each year.

July 2004

Communicating best practices and innovations in law firminformation and knowledge management to legalprofessionals.

Editors in Chief

Austin DohertyDirector, Information Resource CenterHogan & Hartson L.L.P.Washington, DC

William ScarbroughExecutive DirectorBaker & McKenzieWashington, DC

Editorial Board Members

Janet AccardoDirector of Information ServicesSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPNew York, NY

Silvia CoulterChief Marketing and Business Development OfficerDorsey & Whitney LLPMinneapolis, MN

Cindy DiamondKnowledge Resource CoordinatorHogan & Hartson L.L.P.Washington, DC

Lisa KellarPractice Automation ManagerHunton & Williams, LLPWashington, DC

Kingsley MartinSenior Director, West kmThomson Legal & RegulatoryMinneapolis, MN

Nina PlattDirector of Library ServicesFaegre & Benson LLPMinneapolis, MN

Al PodboyDirector of LibrariesBaker & Hostetler LLPCleveland, OH

Linda WillDirector of Information ResourcesDorsey & Whitney LLPMinneapolis, MN

Please direct any comments or questions to either of theeditors in chief:

Editors in ChiefAustin DohertyHogan & Hartson L.L.P.555 13th St. N.W., Rm. 10W100Washington, DC 20004202.637.8701 (voice)e-mail: radoherty@hhlaw.com

William ScarbroughBaker & McKenzie815 Connecticut Avenue N.W.Washington, DC 20006202.835.1640 (voice)e-mail: william.p.scarbrough@bakernet.com

Managing EditorWil McClarenWest610 Opperman DriveEagan, MN 55123-1396651.687.1620 (voice)651.687.8722 (fax)

The trademarks used herein are the trademarks of their respective owners. West trademarks are owned by West Publishing Corporation.

© 2004 West, a Thomson business. Printed 7/04. Material #40301701L-107884

1

AT A GLANCE: In many instances, attorneys willapproach your firm’s marketing departmentand information resources center for differentservices but with the same information needs.Prudent management should leverage thestrengths of each area for the benefit of thefirm as a whole.

By Linda Will, Director of Information Resources, Dorsey &Whitney LLP, Minneapolis, MN

In lean times of weak revenue generation,most corporate law firms look to costreduction as a means of enhancing thebottom line. However, in these days offierce law firm competition for a shrinkingsupply of demanding client work,marketing professionals take on Augustanroles. So how do large law firms, competingwith corporate intelligence information,maximize their client service and financialsuccess? Cross-selling and prudentmanagement of proprietary researchcontent is a sure method of leveraging afirm’s information resources. Nowheredoes it make more sense than the cross-pollination of the marketing departmentand the information resources center (IRC).

Marketing and information resourcesteams within law firms have differentinformation needs as well as differentinformation skills. Marketing professionalsare well versed in the business needs of thefirm. They know the firm’s clients and arepart of the strategic planning associated

with 21st century law firm management.IRC professionals tend to fulfill client needsin a more indirect way. The IRC is oftenmore in tune with the needs that fuel the“marketers” than with the ultimate missionof the firm. But this type of piecemealmanagement is not just short-sighted–it isfinancially foolish.

Working Together Begins with BudgetingIn many instances, attorneys will approachyour firm’s marketing department andinformation resources center for differentservices but with the same informationneeds. Prudent management shouldleverage the strengths of each area for thebenefit of the firm as a whole. A businessplan should be implemented that enablesboth groups to work together. This shouldstart with the annual budgeting process,where support departments request thefunds and resources they will need for thefollowing fiscal year.

continued on page 2

Cross-PollinateMarketing and Information Resources to Reap Rewards

The director of marketing and the director of the IRC should begin the budgeting processby stating their departments’ missions, goals, and roles in the law firm’s future. In additionto specific financial resources, projects should be described in their budget submissions.For example, will marketing implement a client relationship management system (CRM)and, if so, how does it plan to populate the database? In addition to defining the data thatneed to be converted, who will be stewards of the data?

The Dorsey & Whitney ExperienceDorsey & Whitney decided that although marketing would own Interaction (the CRMsystem used by the firm), the IRC would be responsible for its content. IRC professionalswould also do some data entry and data searching. Attorneys were already accustomed toseeking out IRC staff to research proprietary databases and internal work product, so itseemed natural that IRC staff would be responsible for searching internal clientinformation as well. For one thing, librarians were skilled with database manipulation andBoolean logic. Moreover, as part of the data steward group, the librarians were familiarwith the information that was loaded and where it could be located.

Having IRC staff take the lead in using the CRM had some nice side benefits as well.Anyone who has ever launched a CRM or document management server (DMS) knowsthat cultural change (especially within the venerable, antiquated walls of a law firm) canbecome an ugly beast, rearing its head to snap at the slightest hint of getting out of theproverbial box. A change of this magnitude needs all of the champions it can find.

Librarians, who are traditionally seen as service-oriented conduits to information, are thebest candidates to usher in new systems and processes. Years of introducing new productsand databases to the attorney population have enabled them to develop significant talentsin this area. Letting IRC staff initiate searching and providing them with support toolssuch as Net Meeting will reduce calls to the technical service center (i.e., the Help Desk)and permit some internal selling of the CRM. Cross-selling of departmental servicesenables a law firm to maximize its staff resources.

Librarians have a third trick up their sleeve. In addition to knowing how to introduceonline products, they know their attorney population and information needs particularlywell. In fact, they sometimes know what information an attorney needs before the attorneydoes. Evaluating products and anticipating user requirements is part of library schooltraining. In the world of legal research, this is not a vanity—it is a necessity in order to stayone quick step ahead of the alpha attorney population.

Making the Most of What You HaveIn addition to sharing staffing resources between marketing and the information resourcecenter, the information resources themselves should be studied and reviewed forcrossovers. The IRC subscribes to a variety of proprietary corporate and biographicaldatabases that it uses for its research support purposes. Some of these databases overlapone another, but because they “own” a particular germane particle that is needed byclients, a law firm’s IRC will continue to subscribe to multiple sources supplyingoverlapping information. So why not leverage this purchased information by making itavailable for other support purposes?

2

Information resource centerprofessionals are skilled at proficient database mining… Marketing department profes-sionals are masterful wordsmithswho know the goals of the firm.Together, these teams form a formidable duo.

Cross-Pollinate Marketing and Information Resources to Reap Rewards continued from page 1

3

For example, Dorsey & Whitney has a contractual relationshipwith Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) stating that the firm will purchase acertain number of company profiles and reports each year. As longas this information is used internally and not distributed outside thefirm, D&B does not care how many times Dorsey uses the sameinformation or how many places the firm “shelves” it internally.Therefore, reports that are pulled for a request for proposal (RFP)or to woo new clients can then be added to the CRM when thoseclients come aboard. Rather than repurchasing the information,users can update the D&B information via a free Internet resourcesuch as Hoover’s. As librarians become more acquainted with theCRM, they can make decisions about when to use in-houseinformation rather than search proprietary databases, therebyrealizing significant savings.

In addition to shared departmental purchasing of commercialinformation, the marketing department and the IRC should joinforces to market such acquisitions, educate attorneys about whichresources are available to them, and maximize the use of purchasedresources. This goes hand in hand with managing purchasedcontent. Again, the special talents of both departments should beleveraged. IRC professionals are skilled at proficient databasemining. They know the resources and where to go to find thekernels of succinct information needed by attorneys. Marketingdepartment professionals are masterful wordsmiths who know thegoals of the firm. Together, these teams form a formidable duo.

At Dorsey, every time a new product line or service is added by theinformation resource center, the marketing department is notified.In fact, the established practice is that marketing will send at leastone individual to new IRC product demonstrations and training.IRC librarians do not expect marketing staff to learn how to searcha particular specialized database. It is critical, however, thatmarketing personnel are aware of such resources and understandwhat the IRC can provide.

Joining forces has been most successful in the area of contentmanagement. With an eye on the end user, marketing can requestexactly how it wishes the IRC to manipulate data for their client. Agood example of combined forces effectively managing content isthe Dorsey in-house newsletters. Initially created by librarians as ameans of updating users in certain practice areas, the in-housenewsletters have taken on a life of their own. With theimplementation of standard marketing templates and a bit ofsplash, Dorsey newsletters are now sent largely to clients.

Our daily Iraqi Newsletter—started by three librarians who weregiven the task of briefing the D.C. office on news items regardingcommercial contracts in Iraq—became so popular that it wasdistributed to clients, who in turn have distributed it to lobbyists.

More than 60 people now receive the newsletter, including areporter for The Wall Street Journal, two editors at The Economist,and an Associated Press wire service reporter stationed in Baghdad.Not only are recipients tracked, but any business acquired throughthese joint departmental efforts is tracked as well.

These newsletters are marketing publications for the firm; they alsomarket the IRC. Attorneys at the firm quickly become aware of thelevel of sophistication of the IRC staff and tap into that expertise.Databases that were once marginally used are now accessed daily,thereby getting more “click for the buck.”

ConclusionA law firm must compete with the marketing and business researchefforts of other firms while remaining sensitive to costs.Information resource centers strive to market their resourceseffectively so that patrons and the firm will gain the maximumvalue from contracted database services. Marketing departmentsand information resource centers can best leverage the firm’sinformation investment and content when they pull together. •

4

The context for information services has changed dramatically in the phase transitionof information media from physical to electronic. A recent Outsell, Inc. analysis2

points to several significant conditions resulting from this transition, including

● shifts in budgetary balance from print to digital

● uneasy efforts at regaining some sort of consensus around the core concept of copyright, and

● the need to find a technology solution for effective access to, and use of, the torrent of information overload in the course of one’s work

In these circumstances, information professionals are seeking a renewed sense ofpurpose and identity, resting assuredly on evolutionary layers of the past, including

● research expertise

● resource training responsibility

● physical accommodation of special collections in print format and

● the metadata framework of subject analysis and broad topical classification for the content of knowledge resources

AT A GLANCE: Several conditionspresent in the current context ofthe information audit shape its firstprinciple: know why you aresurveying and what you hope tofind out.

By Austin Doherty, Director, Information ResourceCenter, Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., Washington, DC

“All around corporations,we see beautifully appoint-ed library spaces createdin many cases as architec-tural centerpieces. No oneis in them.”1

in a Period of Transition

InformationAudits

Law Firm

The need now is to carry forward that unique historical role to anew approach in service of the knowledge-seeking mind.

As the Outsell study expresses it, that new role comes down to“knowing how and where the content needs to flow.”3 Engineeringthe distribution and utilization of the information environment’sknowledge resources in a way that is optimally responsive to theorganization’s business needs becomes the mission of theinformation resource center (IRC). Preparing for success in this newmission entails the execution of an information audit as a means ofidentifying critical resources and essential services.

The received wisdom about conducting information audits is wiseindeed.4 Previously documented observations by Henczel, Bates,Plosker and TFPL (to name only a few individuals andconsultancies) carefully note the following methodological detailsand pragmatic considerations:

● Know why you are auditing and what you hope to find out.

● Segment your survey population by practice group in order tobetter focus on each one’s special needs.

● Don’t ask what you already know.

● Asking important resource questions, and then following up on suggestions, is the best possible marketing posture for an information resource center.

● Test your survey instrument on a focus group before deploying it.

● Keep the survey as brief and tightly focused as possible.

● Do follow-up interviews with respondents in order to gain the most complete understanding of needs and concerns.

There are many software tools available to make the audit’s surveyinstrument as effective as possible in terms of sorting, analyzing andreporting the data. For example, viDesktop (www.videsktop.com)focuses on the law firm market and provides a software packagewith two components: performance evaluation and recruiting. Theperformance evaluation tool provides the capability to conductinternal surveys. Microsoft® Office 2003 includes its portal tool intwo modes, SharePoint™ Services and SharePoint Portal Server2003. SharePoint’s collaboration features include an online surveycapability. Any search engine query will retrieve references to manysimilar Web-based survey software applications, such asSurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com) and Zoomerang(www.zoomerang.com).

However, in light of the Outsell analysis, I want to focus on severalconditions present in the current context of the information auditthat shape its first principle: Know why you are surveying andwhat you hope to find out.

● Empirical facts of recent experience give evidence of the need for understanding changing conditions that apply to high- value resources.

● Identifying high-value resources depends critically on meaningful usage data.

● Contemporary concerns regarding business disaster recoverypreparations require good intelligence on high-value resources.

● It is conceptually important to understand the relationship between the findings of authoritative information audits and the related perspectives of information management and knowledge management.

These considerations are important because collaboration iscritical to the success of global, multicultural law firms thateffectively work 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. If one posits thatthese conditions are paramount, then it should be apparent why aproperly conceived information audit in today’s international lawfirm will address the following two issue areas:

● determination of the preferred format for the several categories of essential legal research resources and

● identification of the highest value knowledge support services which the firm information resource center does or should provide

Knowledge occurs after intellect is applied to information.Thinking and legal reasoning of the highest order are theintellectual activities that separate work-a-day and elite law firms.An information resource center’s best first move is to supply criticallegal intellect with relevant and authoritative information. In aperiod of transition such as we are experiencing, that is whyinformation audits are important.

5

1 Outsell, Inc., “TrendAlert: The Future of Libraries,” InfoAboutInfo Briefing 7(January 9, 2004): 9.2 Outsell, Inc., “TrendAlert.” 3 Outsell, Inc., “TrendAlert.” 11.4 See for example: Susan Henczel, The Information Audit: A Practical Guide (Munich: K. G. Saur,2001). Mary Ellen Bates, “Information Audits: What Do We Know and When Do We Know It,”Library Management Briefings 9, no. 3 (Fall 1997): 1-7. George R. Plosker, “Conducting UserSurveys: An Ongoing Information Imperative,” Online, September/October 2002, 64-68. Also notehttp://www.tfpl.com; TFPL, a London, U.K. consulting firm focusing on the information professionalsmarket, offers a series of highly relevant tools and training curricula for evaluating organizationalknowledge and information needs.

6

Empirical FactsReflecting upon my own 26 years of experience as director ofHogan & Hartson’s information resource center, profoundchanges have accompanied the transition from a book-centricworld of research to a multimedia world. Our staff and our firmhave grown ten-fold. On average, two attorneys per hour workedin the IRC’s physical space in 2003 compared to ten per hour in1993. The entire firm conducted 3,000 hours of online research in1991 and 30,000 hours in 2003. Seventy-five percent fewervolumes were signed out of our library collection in 2003 thanwere circulated in 1988, while digital research resources under IRCmanagement have increased 100 percent since 1988. IRC staffperformed 700 hours of client-billable work in 1984 and 55,000hours in 2003. IRC research analysts handled 75,000 servicetransactions in 2003 compared to 25,000 in 1995.

We are now several decades into the computerization of legalresearch. Vendors and consumers of legal information still faceeach other warily. Publishers are concerned about the bottom lineeffect of seeing the demise of print product lines, and consumerswonder whether they will actually be able to afford an all-digitalworld of research.

A line item in my budget tracks the cost of Internet-basedresources, a substantial portion of which overlap with concurrentprint subscriptions. That budget has increased five-fold since 1999.This is why it is so important to be able to assess the cost-effectiveness, based on actual usage, of electronic resources. Anaudit, of course, rounds out the picture by measuring value fromthe end-user’s perspective.

Usage DataUnfortunately, meaningful usage data is not forthcoming frommany vendors of electronic resources. In connection with thisarticle, we randomly selected nine vendors of Internet-basedresources to which we subscribe in order to inquire what level ofusage data they could provide. Three stated that they could provideessentially nothing. The other six affirmed that they could providesome level of usage data but it varied significantly. Only one coulddescribe data elements that seemed truly useful. None of thevendors contacted, however, had ever offered any of thisinformation previously and none of them provide usage dataroutinely; the customer must request it.

A recent American Library Association (ALA) report identifiesleading professional interest groups involved in the effort toformulate meaningful methods for measuring and assessing the useof online resources.5 Those groups include such entities as theAssociation of Research Libraries, the Digital Library Foundation,and the International Coalition of Library Consortia.

The ALA report describes the audit capabilities that are available inthe report formats of integrated library systems, Web server log

5 Marshall Breeding, “Strategies for Measuring and Interpreting E-Use,” Library Technology Reports38, no. 3 (May/June 2002): 1-70.

7

files, and techniques applicable to the difficult challenge ofmeasuring usage of resources resident on vendor-controlledservers. Some of the do-it-yourself methods for auditing usage ofsubscription resources on vendor servers (assuming access from alibrary-maintained list of links) include

● intermediate HTML pages (unpopular because this requiresan extra click)

● pass-through scripts, also applicable to digital resourcesitemized in an online catalog (the script records accessed linksin a log file) and

● gathering links to all of your digital resources, internal andexternal, in an interface environment founded upon asearchable database structure, which provides and recordsaccess to all designated URLs

Of course, none of this would be necessary if all publishersvoluntarily provided meaningful feedback about usage.

Business Continuity PlanningA special case of information auditing is often conducted as part ofthe business continuity planning necessary for any law firm intenton recovering quickly from disaster. In order to plan properly fordisaster recovery, anticipatory actions must be taken to map theinformation environment in specific details: server and dataownership responsibility; inventory of computing machinery andrelated backup procedures; and advance arrangements for thelogistical activity of reconstituting network components, data, andservices from a designated recovery site.

The tools and capabilities of a law firm’s information resourcecenter are obviously critical in any plan for disaster recoverybecause they relate so directly to the information flow necessary tolegal research and analysis. A readiness plan that addresses disasterrecovery in a serious way must assess existing and potential mixesof digital resources, including bibliographic records of critical printproducts, CD-ROMs, and Web-based subscriptions.

Related PerspectivesFinally, implementation of any content strategy decisions aimed atmore cost-effective use of resources resulting from an informationaudit plays into larger organizational concerns about informationmanagement and knowledge management. For this purpose, I takeinformation management to be the activity of pursuing clear anddistinct processes for establishing non-redundant, fully detailed,integrated internal content subsets ranging from contactmanagement, conflict clearance, and personnel records toaccounting data, client records, and regulatory compliancerequirements. Knowledge management is the human collaborativeprocess of applying business know-how, derived from personal andorganizational expertise, and refreshed by current recourse toauthoritative external resources and internal analysis indocumentary form. Information audits can help to meet the goalsand support the requirements of both of these collateral activities. •

The Flip Side

8

By Lisa Kellar, Practice Automation Manager, Hunton& Williams, LLP, Washington, DC

Commentary on knowledge management has focused primarily on its soft benefits, but executiveswant to know if KM really pays off. Recently, articles have been published specifically counselinghow to measure return on KM investments, offering almost formulaic advice to address one of themain barriers to KM adoption. Despite this information, not everyone is convinced that KM is aworthwhile endeavor.

Perfect KM Won’t WorkIn Patrick Lambe’s article, Knowledge and Tragedy: or Why We Shouldn’t Share Knowledge (available fromwww.greenchameleon.com), the author says that asymmetries of knowledge (i.e., some people knowingthings that other people don’t) are extremely important in a competitive world. It is human nature to seektriumph, whether large or small. Furthermore, he says, people want to succeed in competition with others.“If we could achieve perfect knowledge management, it would actually remove the momentum that drives ustoward success. In order to succeed, we need to know things that our competitors don’t. In other words, weneed imperfect knowledge to exist!”

In Lambe’s view, the mantra that sharing knowledge benefits everyone is naïve. “KM in the real world isabout knowing what to share and when and with whom, what to keep secret, what to reveal. We don’t wantor even need perfect KM; we simply have to be better at managing knowledge asymmetries than ourcompetitors.”

This same concept was reiterated more bluntly in KM Sharing the Wealth (available from www.kewatt.com),where author K.E. Watt states that “Information leads to knowledge. Knowledge is power. And power iswhat separates the winners from the losers.” KM proposes to improve the firm’s bottom line by gettingexperts to share their knowledge with others, but “in America, KM would get better play if the word‘gladiator’ could be worked into it. The challenge is to find the middle ground between personal triumph andthe firm’s goals.”

AT A GLANCE: Some recent commen-tary has focused on the “flip side” ofknowledge management, concludingthat KM may not be possible or advan-tageous. In that context, this articlereports the anonymous observations ofseveral frustrated legal KM executives.

Voices of Experience

The Flip Side

Two types of people suffer from the“knowledge is power” mindset, saysLambe. The first is weak or insecureperformers who use secrecy and avoidanceto keep their hold on power and keep theirineffectiveness from becoming visible.Conversely, star performers sometimes feelunder threat and see their knowledge asthe sole remaining card in the pack.“People will use knowledge asymmetriesto drive themselves toward success,regardless of what the bigger moreimpersonal plot of our superiors dictate.”

In his article Deconstructing Knowledge,(available from www.mindjack.com),Nicholas Carroll says that knowledge can’tbe managed because it is the construct ofan individual mind. In order to store andshare it, it has to be reduced toinformation, which is much less valuable.“Information has to be tailored far morecarefully than people anticipated, but theonly present tool capable of that, is thehuman brain.”

“KM” Gets a Bad RapAccording to Robert Buckman (the CEOof Tennessee-based international chemicalcompany Buckman Labs, who is creditedwith being one of the first executives totransform the concept of KM intofunctional reality) the term “knowledgemanagement” is a misnomer; a phrase thatwas coined so it could be sold tomanagement. It implies that all we must doto achieve success is manage knowledge.But knowledge changes all the time, andthis change or movement is where value iscreated. In Buckman’s view, we should

emphasize the concept of knowledgesharing over knowledge management.Following this line of thinking, one largelaw firm has stopped using the term KMaltogether, referring to “enhancing practiceefficiency” instead.

Another commentator asks, “Why is it thathuge amounts of money are spent onMarketing without having to prove the returnon investment (as is often required with KM)?Marketing is given the green light onnumerous activities when in reality they are

KM projects—they are justnot called that. Clientrelationship managementprojects are a perfectexample.” The answer?“KM has gotten a bad rap.It doesn’t have the cachéthat marketing does.People just assume thatmarketing works, but don’tassume the same of KM.”

Lack of Strategic ThinkersOne former law firm KM executive feelsthe organizational construct of a typicallaw firm inherently prevents KM fromflourishing. “KM tends to be a health-enabling function, one that visionaries seeas essential to long-term health.Unfortunately, the folks in power tend tofocus on fiscal hygiene (near-term bottom-line). KM can be used to create entirelynew forms of business. That is the heart ofthe innovation capacity of KM, but onenot seen much in law firms.”

A different executive felt that otherprofessional service firms tend to fullydevelop the business case for KM and havestrong leadership. “These twocharacteristics are less robust in law firms.Firms lack strategic thinkers who are ableto connect KM initiatives to the bottomline. As a result, many short-sighteddecisions are made.”

Another law firm professional commentedthat despite being successful, their firmwound up drastically scaling back theirKM program. A change in managementbrought about a change in mindset, onethat was too focused on the bottom line.“They didn’t look carefully at what wasbeing done with KM. They just wanted tomake more money by lowering operatingcosts. KM was one of the first areas to beaffected.”

The “We Don’t Need Help”MentalitySome firms bring in consultants to helpestablish their KM programs, but lawfirms don’t always respect KMmanagement consultants. To illustrate thispoint, here is a representative commentfrom one such consultant: “They think anoutsider won’t understand the law firmculture and question how they could knowbetter than themselves what is needed. Inmany cases, if you are not or were not anattorney first, you simply won’t ever havethe clout needed to sell KM to otherattorneys.”

In another consultant’s view, “Attorneysdon’t appreciate management as a science.They see it as an art, thus think they can fillthe management functions themselves,making business decisions as well as anyMBA. Yet imagine if we suggested thereverse to an attorney: ‘Hey I’ve been atlaw firms for a while. Why don’t I startadvising your clients on legal matters?’”

Time ConstraintsIn her recent book KnowledgeManagement and the Smarter Lawyer(reviewed in this issue of PracticeInnovations), Gretta Rusanow argues thatthe “eat what you kill” model is anotherbarrier to successful KM programs. In thismodel, the benefits of KM appear to helpthe firm, but not the attorneys directly.However, in firms that use a “lockstep”model, lawyers are not paid solely on theirrainmaker abilities and thus can be

9

continued on page 12

of KM

10

After practicing law successfully for so many years, how and why did you get involvedwith knowledge management?

I practiced law for 14 years, the last six of them as a partner at Morrison & Foerster. During muchof that time, I was the firm’s only partner specializing in municipal bond law. Associate help wasscarce, so I used technology to make my practice more efficient. Furthermore, because associatescame and went I had to find ways to encapsulate my arcane subject matter so I could bring my asso-ciate helper du jour up to speed quickly before he or she ran off to do something more interesting.I didn’t know it at the time, but I was practicing knowledge management. One day I awoke to therealization that I was having much more fun devising ways to improve my practice than I was fromthe practice itself.

At about the same time, Brobeck offered me a new position with its corporate group. The firm need-ed a senior lawyer with legal and technology skills to supervise a variety of non-billable butimportant projects, such as training, continuing education, business development, and so on. I sawthe new position as a chance to apply and sharpen my new skills, so I jumped at it without hesita-tion. After about a year at the new job, I learned there was a name for the work I was doing. Iquickly read everything I could find on the subject of knowledge management, and met with theheads of KM at places that were using it very successfully, such as McKinsey & Co. and Ernst &Young. I discovered that law firms had a lot to learn from the rest of the world about sharing knowl-edge effectively.

What are the greatest challenges that knowledge managers currently face?

It takes two or three years for a knowledge management program to establish roots and becomean integral part of a law firm’s work processes, so one of the toughest challenges of any new pro-gram is simply to survive its infancy, before the fruits of the program are obvious to all. That’s anespecially important challenge now, with so many firms tightening their administrative budgets.Another constant challenge is figuring out how to persuade busy senior lawyers to take time fromtheir billable practices to contribute knowledge for the benefit of the firm as a whole. As MichaelMills of Davis Polk has put it, “Management has to make the fishing and the repairing of nets ofequal perceived value.”

AT A GLANCE: A conversation withan attorney who successfully–andstealthily–incorporated innovativeknowledge management practicesinto his law firm’s program.

By Cindy Diamond, Knowledge Resource Coordinator,Hogan & Hartson L.L.P., Washington, DC

JEFFERY S. ROVNER Director of KnowledgeManagement for theAmericas Region at

Clifford Chance U.S. LLP

Practice InnovatorJeffery S.Rovner

11

What innovative approaches to knowledge management areyou implementing at Clifford Chance?

We’ve come up with an idea that goes a long way toward solvingthree important problems in KM, which I’ll refer to as the prob-lems of friction, metadata, and relevance. First, in many KMimplementations, each item to be added to the KM system musttraverse a gauntlet of editors, reviewers, and Web programmers.By the time the content reaches the KM system where others cansee it, much of its value may have been lost by the passage of time.Second, lawyers who contribute valuable documents to a KM sys-tem usually don’t have the time to describe the documents or toexplain what makes them so useful. Without this information, oth-erwise known as metadata, the documents aren’t of much use toothers. Third, it can be hard for KM staff, divorced from the day-

to-day legal practice, to identify knowledge that is relevant andvaluable to the firm’s lawyers, and therefore worth memorializingin a KM system.

We arrived at a solution to these problems when we recognizedtwo things. First, the medium of exchange of cutting-edge legalinformation today is e-mail. Nothing else even comes close.Second, an e-mail message, by definition, provides a lot of meta-data about the content that’s attached to it—it includes the date,the author, the subject, and often a sentence or two that describesthe attached content in sufficient detail to entice the recipient toopen the attachment and read it. So we’ve come up with a way toenable our lawyers, by themselves, to post useful e-mail messagesto our KM system, where they can be browsed. We also post mes-sages that have been distributed via e-mail to all members of apractice group. The posting process is instantaneous, and the e-mails are fully indexed by Google, our intranet search engine.Although these e-mail archives comprise only a portion of our KMsystem, they are very important, because they ensure that our sys-tem always contains content that is timely and relevant.

This technique you are using of capturing e-mails to popu-late the KM system sounds like KM by stealth?

I think Blake Bell at Simpson Thacher may have coined the phrase“stealth KM.” I’m very fond of it, and it’s a very important part ofour strategy. We use our attorneys’ time sparingly, and strive tofind other ways to populate our KM system whenever possible.

West km™ is a perfect example of KM by stealth. Instead of ask-ing lawyers to contribute legal briefs and other documents to adatabase, which is usually a futile gesture, West km finds thesedocuments in our document management system, permits them tobe searched as part of a Westlaw session, and displays the currentstatus of all cases and statutes cited in the documents. In short,West km offers us a very powerful and up-to-date brief bank with-out the enormous non-billable lawyer effort that would otherwisebe required.

Are there disadvantages to Stealth KM efforts?

Absolutely. If a KM program relies entirely on stealth, it’s unlikelyto meet the needs of the firm’s lawyers. Only through discussionsand input from lawyers can you learn critical information such as

what the firm does, what sort of work product it produces, whoits clients are, and where KM can make a positive impact.Frequent interaction with attorneys is an essential complement tostealth strategies. Through that interaction, the knowledge man-ager should seek feedback and suggestions. Otherwise, the KMprogram is likely to drift away from its audience’s needs and tobecome disconnected from its underlying purpose.

What drives innovation in KM—is it only technology?

Technologies such as West km are an important component of a modern KM program, but they are only one component. KMalso requires human beings who can assess the firm’s needs andbuild KM into the firm’s existing habits and work processes. Asuccessful KM program also requires careful consideration of thefirm’s culture. To cite just one example, studies have shown thatsmart professionals are often wary of documents that have beenproduced by others, even others within the same organization.That explains in part why lawyers tend to “reinvent the wheel” sooften when they draft new documents. To some degree this wari-ness is beneficial, but beyond that point it deprives the firm of thequality and efficiency gains that can come from sharing best prac-tices. So apart from technology, KM requires careful thinkingabout the way humans beings work together and develop trust inone another. For that reason, innovative ideas from psychology,organizational behavior, game theory and other non-technologydisciplines are often very useful to KM. •

KM by Stealth

12

The Flip Side of KM: Voices of Experience continued from page 7

compensated for contributions to thefirm’s knowledge base. She concludes thatthe best examples of KM emerge fromfirms that have moved to a value-basedbilling model, an approach that U.S. firmslag behind in adopting.

Lambe also notes that many of ourproblems stem from our singular focus on“getting the infrastructure in place todeliver the right knowledge to the rightdesktop in time for it to be used.” This isn’tenough, he says. “We need to place muchgreater emphasis on making sure theknowledge workers have the appropriatetraining and skills for understanding andusing the knowledge appropriately.” Thistoo is going to increase non-billable time.

“Firms lack appreciation of theinvestments needed. KM hours are neededfor long-term growth, but firmmanagement is often too focused on short-term goals. We need to give people the timeto create and become thought leaders.Even firms that set aside non-billable hoursfor KM should consider the negativeconnotation of ‘non-billable’. If KM timewas recorded under an ‘investment time’matter, it would foster the idea that KM isnot time wasted, but an investment in thefirm’s future,” said another.

Added another, “There are many waysfor a firm to succeed; KM is just one ofthem. But once a firm finds successthrough other means, they don’t want tospend time on KM activities. It takesaway time spent on the tried and truesuccess methods they have alreadyestablished. I just don’t think those whosebellies are already full are hungry enoughto eat from the KM buffet.”

The Wrong PeopleOne interviewee said, “Firms need to seeKM support resources the same way theysee administrative functions. Theyunderstand that in functions like HR andfinance, you need support professionals.Attorneys won’t have time to executethose functions, but KM is different.They must be part of this function sincethey are the experts. Unfortunately,attorneys don’t appreciate usingdedicated practice / professional supportlawyers (PSLs) to fill this function. Firmsare shortsighted, believing attorneysshould work on KM projects when theyare not busy. This doesn’t work; it is notenough to sustain a good KM program.Other professional services firms get this,but law firms do not.”

After spending many frustrating years inlegal KM, one executive decided to focuson other professional service firms. “Thework I am now engaged in uses a verydifferent model. Rather than trying to fitthe KM process to an organization, I amtrying to populate the organization withpeople who fit the KM process, somethingnot possible in a law firm! Rather thanattempt to transform people, I advise myclients to hire only those who honestly feelKM is important. We hold themaccountable by setting milestones so theycan demonstrate through action theircommitment to KM, otherwise we askthem to leave. Even so, after a year, abouthalf admit that they have to ‘get off the KMbus’ because they can’t follow through onthese commitments. Still, this is far betterthan what I’ve experienced at law firms.”

This executive continues: “Theopportunities are huge, immenselygratifying, but are still extremely difficult.Bringing horses to water is hard work initself. But at least the people we hire arewilling to drink. And when they take a sip,they realize that it makes them strongereconomically. And if they’re not willing todrink of the KM fountain ... well ... thereare other horses. It is essential that they seeKM as both beneficial and non-optional.”

Robert Buckman agrees. “To foster aknowledge sharing environment, theculture must create trust so that knowledgecan move freely to wherever it is needed atany point in time. Culture is determined bythe values that the people believe in and thevalues the firm supports. The alignment ofthese values will determine how well trustwill exist in an organization.”

ConclusionMy personal conclusion is not that KM isnot possible or desirable. All of the voicesrepresented herein also referred to knowninstances of success. This article points outsomething that most of us have alreadyrealized—that KM is not simple. There arenumerous areas that need consideration:organizational and human behavior issues,the need for more strategic thinking,recognizing that perfect KM will neverexist, striking a balance between billabletime and investment time, and rethinkingthe KM moniker, to name a few. Despitethe daily struggles that many of us face inthis field, however, there are manyattorneys who do see the KM light, givingus the strength and determination to keepthe KM torch lit. •

AT A GLANCE: There is a direct correlationbetween a law firm’s knowledge and itsprofitability.

By Janet Accardo, Director of Information Services, Skadden,Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY

by Gretta Rusanow, Esq.

American Lawyer Media Publishing, 2003, 484p.

Ms. Rusanow has written a practical guide that demystifiesknowledge management and serves as an aid to law firms and lawdepartments applying knowledge management to the practice andbusiness of law. Since the author is in the business of advisingAmerican, European, and Australian law firms and corporationson knowledge management and e-business, she is well versed onthe subject. A legal practitioner will find this book the most usefuland comprehensive publication available on the topic.

The 13 chapters of the book are organized in four parts:Knowledge Management and the Business of Law; CriticalElements of Knowledge Management; How to ApproachKnowledge Management; and Knowledge Management for a LawDepartment or Solo Practitioner. Each chapter begins with ahypothetical case study and ends with a checklist to use toimplement or critique a knowledge management program. Theauthor identifies problems that can stand in the way of harnessingthe collective knowledge of a firm and provides solutions formoving the process forward.

Law is a knowledge-based business, states Ms. Rusanow. Sheobserves that there is a direct correlation between a law firm’sknowledge and its profitability. When firms leverage theirintellectual capital, organize it, and make it accessible to attorneysand clients, it can contribute to increased revenues.

The author defines knowledge management as “the leveraging ofyour firm’s collective wisdom by creating systems and processes tosupport and facilitate the identification, capture, disseminationand use of your firm’s knowledge to meet your businessobjectives.” (p.7).

External forces such as competition and client demands, theinternal drive to lower costs, the explosion of information, andmulti-office, multi-practice structures of law firms all makeknowledge management more critical. Firms have to find moreefficient ways to work to maintain profitability.

For a KM program to succeed, theremust be a strong culture ofknowledge sharing, managementsupport, involvement of all staff,rewards for contribution, and asolid technology platform. Theauthor feels the greatestimpediment to developing aknowledge management system in firms is the time-based billingmodel, because it works against using non-billable time to build aKM system. It also encourages lawyers to work inefficiently. Tocreate a KM culture, a firm must recognize contributions to KM aspart of attorney compensation and staff performance reviews.

The author draws a distinction between explicit knowledge andtacit knowledge as comprising the intellectual capital of a law firm.Because explicit knowledge is written and documented, it is easierto capture and share. Examples are case law, letters of advice, legalopinions and firm precedent systems. Tacit knowledge may beintrinsic to the firm’s daily practice but not formalized or written;thus, it is more difficult to capture. An example of tacit knowledgeis the awareness of skills and expertise of the various lawyers in thefirm. Both kinds of knowledge are essential components to astrong KM system.

Ms. Rusanow insists that lawyers, partners, and management allneed to be involved in the implementation process, as well aslibrary and technology staff. There is a chapter that covers thetechnology used to achieve a KM system, one with a blueprint forthe development of processes and tools, and another on e-business, that is, building a Web site to offer an extranet toclients. The final chapter is aimed at knowledge management forlaw departments and solo practitioners. Other useful featuresinclude a glossary, index, and position descriptions for both apractice group and a partner of knowledge management.

Legal practitioners and managers of law firms and lawdepartments will all find Ms. Rusanow’s book an invaluable guideto implementing knowledge management systems, and todiagnosing and solving problems along the way. Highlyrecommended. •

BOOK REVIEW

Knowledge Management and the Smarter Lawyer

13

PRESORTEDSTANDARD

U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDWEST

610 Opperman DriveEagan, MN 55123

Communicating best practices and innovations in law firm information and knowledge management to legal professionals.