Does It Compute?

Calculating Longitude

I recently had occasion to re-read the brilliant book by Dava Sorbel, Longitude. The book recounts the efforts to find a means of determining a ship’s longitude at sea - the overwhelmingly critical issue for navigation in the 18th century.  Ships could tell where there were north-south (latitude) by sightings of the sun. However, they could not tell where they were east-west(longitude) without reliable reference to a fixed point.  This led to disastrous loss of money and life (an incident in 1710 cost 4 British ships and 2,000 lives because they didn’t know how close to the shores of England they were).

By the mid-18th century, following the end of the Seven Years’ War in 1763 and the French defeat at Pondichery in India in 1761, the European Colonial powers had pretty much carved up the world amongst themselves (England, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands) into possessions which remained constant, with only minor adjustments until the mid-20th century.

It was John Harrison’s invention of a precision clock (from the H-1 in 1735 (made primarily of wood, it still keeps accurate time today, to the H-4 in 1759), the problem of navigation at sea was solved. Due to massive opposition, Harrison was only awarded the equivalent of the “Longitude Prize” ( £20,000, the equivalent of millions today) because of the direct intervention of King George III.  By the 1780's, the “chronometers” became widespread and  the British Navy and commerce seized an enormous competitive advantage: their ships actually knew where they were at sea.  Captain Cook carried one in 1772 on his voyage around the world, and Darwin’s Beagle carried no fewer than 22 in 1831.

Think of it this way: you own a trucking company. Your trucks are equipped with GPS devices and road maps. No other trucking company in the world has so much as road maps. This is the advantage that British shipping had after the 1780s for a number of years.

Continued British commercial domination of the 19th century was due in very large part to the invention of a precision timepiece by John Harrison.

Microsoft Issues: SR1; Fined by European Union

For those hoping that Vista SR1 would set things right and make it relatively OK to upgrade to Vista, Microsoft showed once again how much trouble it has in getting things right.  It turns out that one of the patches that is listed as a “pre-requisite” for installing SR1, indicated in KB 937287, may cause PCs to enter into an interminable reboot loop (i.e., the PC gets to the final step of the install - “Configuring Step 3 of 3" -  and then reboots). The workaround, indicated by a number of people is to install each patch listed there manually and one at a time and not using Automatic Updates. 

In response, Microsoft pulled the patch from automatic distribution, thus making the problem “go away” by making it substantially more difficult to upgrade.  It seems that every time you think Microsoft can’t commit an even worse blunder than the last one, they do.  It has become a commonplace among many consultants that Windows Vista should really be called Windows ME-II.

In the meantime, Microsoft’s anti-trust violations continue to bring retribution from the European Union, which as reported by the New York Times, yesterday fined Microsoft $1.35 billion, bringing the total of fines by the EU to $2.3 billion.  Even for Microsoft, this is more than lunch money.

Do You Still Support Lexis Products?

After notifying my TimeMatters and PCLaw clients that I had been excommunicated from the consultant program last October, one of them said; “Are you going to continue to support LexisNexis products?”

The answer is YES.  I never supported the products because I was certified, I took the trouble to get certified because I wanted to support the products to the best of my ability because I thought they were the best things out there. Despite the fact that I think LexisNexis is driving them in the wrong direction, I still think that.

After being a PCLaw consultant for 9 years and a TimeMatters consultant for nearly 7, I have more than enough accumulated experience to continue to support both old and new clients to my satisfaction, despite no longer being officially affiliated.

In fact, after being dropped from the CIC program over 4 months ago, I have continued to offer “tips and tricks” and to respond to questions on both the CIC-sponsored (censored) forum and the independent forum. As a practical matter, however, my practice has shifted overwhelmingly to Worldox and I now have more work than ever before.

Court Oversight of Microsoft Extended

The court-ordered oversight of Microsoft, the convicted monopolist, has been extended for two years, from November 2007 to November 2009. Although this is less than the five years requested by six states (including California, Connecticut and Massachusetts), it is nonetheless important.

When the George W. Bush came to power in 2000, despite its conviction for anti-trust violations, Microsoft was let off with what amounted to a slap on the wrist, although the European Union has been much more aggressive in pursuing the company. In fact, in January the EU launched two new investigations concerning Internet Explorer and Microsoft’s ability (willingness?) to interoperate with other software.

However, if a Democrat is elected president in November, it is possible that the winds will change once again, and the Justice department could once again become somewhat more assertive. This would be a good thing.

Tom Rowe on the CIC Forum - and a Response

Tom Rowe has posted the following comment to my “Feedback” post. So that it doesn’t just get buried, I am reproducing it below in full (together with responses to various points). Tom probably knows more about Time Matters than any other single consultant, and he is a superb trainer (especially for consultants). He and I have sparred over Time Matters and other issues, such as document management, for at least 5-6 years.

Tom Rowe’s comment:

[John wrote:] "The 3 Monkeys view of the world, as expressed by the official Lexis/CIC listserv is actually hindering improving TM by refusing to discuss real problems. As such, it is doing a disservice to the user community as a whole, even if it does provide a useful substitute for tech support." As usual, John, you muddle the facts. As the founder of the CIC Solutions Forum (it isn't official, and it isn't owned, monitored, or moderated by LexisNexis),

Comment: OK, I’ll grant you “semi-official.” The forum may not be owned by LN, but the server space and, if I recall correctly,  resources to run it, are supplied by  LN. If the forum were to suddenly decide to accept critical posts, how long do you think LN would continue its support?  Probably about a New York Nanosecond (defined as the time between when the light turns green and the guy behind you blows his horn to hurry up). 

For a variety of reasons, legal and other, LN naturally has the official position that it does not monitor the forum. However, if senior personnel at LN in charge of TM do not monitor the forum (and especially the internal, CIC-only wing of it), it would be incredibly stupid of them. All that “does not monitor” means is that no one can blame LN for not responding to a given issue.

LN does not “moderate” the forum because it does not have to. CICs have agreed to do it for them. History has shown that the “don’t rock the boat” philosophy rarely produces any positive results. Vide: Civil Rights Movement or Vietnam Anti-War movement.

“I can state with absolute certainty (because I'm the one that made the decision) that we are a moderated forum not to protect LN from criticism, but to protect our (CICs) time and resources.

Comment: Gee, Tom, a couple of years ago we had a major exchange about my posting to the non-censored elder-law forum and you claimed that the “moderated” (censored) approach had been a collective decision by a vaguely defined “CIC community.” Glad to have that point set straight. [See the clarification by Tom in the comment below - JH]

“We are volunteer CICs who, as you well know, don't work for LexisNexis. Therefore, we don't have any direct control over what the product does or doesn't do. All we can do is provide solutions that people can apply using TM. We can't change the program, the forum isn't monitored by LexisNexis, and we have decided that we don't have the time or interest to try and solve technical support issues on a forum (it simply takes too much time and isn't the best medium to do so).

Comment: “Don’t work for LexisNexis” gets to a key issue.  Consultants are continually walking a difficult tightrope.  On the one hand, they sell a given product because they believe that, warts and all, it is the best suited to the client’s needs. But if they talk too much about the “warts,” clients will be scared off and not implement a program that will provide them with tremendous benefits.  On the other hand, to maintain credibility they have to at least mention the warts to avoid appearing as some sort of Vegas shill for the company or, god forbid, a salesman. That includes telling a prospective client when the product is not right for them. That's the very definition of "Independent." When I worked for a major New York consulting firm, there was a policy that the senior sales guys were never allowed to do a presentation to a prospective client without a technical person there. It was a smart policy.

The argument that “we don't have any direct control over what the product does or doesn't do” is disingenuous.  In fact, consultants are (or should be) a major source of input and influence when it comes to defining features for the future, in defining what the program should do, as well as fixing things that don’t work right, even if they are WAPD - Working As Poorly Designed.

“So, contrary to your assertion, we are providing an incredible service, not disservice, to the community as a whole (show me in the legal industry another forum that gets as much traffic and provides as much quality assistance), even if the more narrow focus isn't to your liking. And, once again, you err in your post - we are not a substitute for tech support - and we don't try to be.

Comment: The forum serves multiple needs.  At the low end, there are the people who have never bothered to learn how to use the program who ask questions that would have been answered by rudimentary training or even consulting the help file. Answering these questions certainly does substitute for tech support since it takes a significant load off what might otherwise be calls to tech support, thus saving LN money - which is probably one reason they support the forum financially.

In the middle are the “best practices” type question. These are not really tech support questions, and this is where the forum is the most valuable. That is, how do I put the program to best use.

On the high end, there are definitely tech support questions on SQL and other advanced issues - some of which are referred to tech support, others, where tech support has been unable or unwilling to help, are answered.

It is quite true that the forum provides an extremely valuable service both to users and Lexis in the short run. In the long run, to the extent it abdicates what could be a role in defining future directions for the product, it does, I believe, a disservice to the product and to its users.

“As to many of your other points, you obviously raise some important issues that we all have had since the acquisition. You were probably expecting me to make some substantive defense of what LexisNexis has done, and surprised that I am not. I, and many CICs and end users share your concerns ... it isn't as if any of us didn't anticipate them ... the concept of a larger company taking over smaller companies and not performing as well has been around for a long, long time. My business is almost 100% Time Matters based, so if you think that we aren't in direct contact with LexisNexis about our concerns, you'd be sadly mistaken.

Comment: Yes, I have a number of people tell me approximately the same thing, in a slightly more direct way.  “I agree with your analysis, but can’t afford to state it openly because my business depends too much on LN.”

“The difference is that I (I will only speak for myself, but I know this is shared by many CICs) believe that constructive, diplomatic dialog with a company like LexisNexis is more likely to accomplish change than the "bull in a china shop" approach that you have taken ever since I first met you many years ago. In my opinion, that along with your loose interpretation of the "facts" so that they fit your beliefs mutes any valid, substantive message you want to send.

Comment: The “diplomatic dialog” does not seem to have worked very well in terms of the companies that LN has acquired over the past few years, since the founders/principals of virtually all these companies have been dumped. (Marshall Maurisse of HotDocs seems to be the only exception.)  Consider:

    Time Matters: Bob Butler, gone. Kevin Stillwell, kicked upstairs
    PCLaw: Ron Plashkes, Steve McMurray, Bryan Gardner - all gone
    Concordance: Jeff Lipsman - gone
    Juris: Tom Collins, Steve Collins - gone
    CaseMap: Greg Krehel - gone.

And that doesn’t count the significant brain drain of senior personnel.

As for “accomplishing change,” although I have absolutely no doubt that the argument: “things would be much worse if not for our back room efforts” is absolutely true, I can’t see that as  representing a positive achievement. However,  as I noted, I did hold back on publishing “Acquire, Merge, Destroy” for a full year in the hopes that there might be some changes for the better. I haven’t seen any.

Planning for Scanning

About a month ago, I blogged on “Moving Toward Paperless.” (January 14). This is an expanded and updated version of what I began to lay out there.

This assumes you want to move toward large-scale scanning: if you are only scanning a few documents a day, the solution you adopt is not terribly relevant. But significant economies of scale can be achieved in larger batches.

The first issue is: where are you going to put the documents and how are you going to organize them. At this point, the need for a full-fledged document management system such as Worldox, Interwoven’s Worksite or Hummingbird (Docs Open) becomes overwhelming.  Otherwise the volume becomes overwhelming and as someone said, you can’t automate chaos.

There are three logical steps when you scan a document:
(1) scanning the document, i.e., running it through the scanner;
(2) OCR’ing the document (this is the most time-consuming part of the equation); and
(3) saving the document to the DMS or elsewhere.
(4) Finally, depending on the implementation, deleting the original scan to avoid duplicates.

For some documents you can omit step two (receipts, handwritten notes, etc.), but if you want the resulting document to be searchable, you need to OCR it, and this is the most processor-intensive and time-consuming piece of the equation.  Since the whole point of fully automating your document store (documents, scans, emails) is to have everything searchable, this should be done an overwhelming majority of the time.

When you consider the entire operation, to the extent that you can off-load parts of this process to a background or automated function, you can save significant amounts of time.

Step 1.  Actual scanning. If you use a large-volume multi-function machine as scanning, there is a workflow issue. people have to get up from their desk, go to the scanner, scan, go back to the desk and save or manipulate the scanned document.  Therefore the multi-function machines are good for big documents, but quite inefficient for, say, incoming letters.  Therefore you will want to have some smaller scanners on the desktops of people who do things like processing the mail.

Step 2.  OCR. This is the most time-consuming part of the process and the part that it is easiest to off-load to an automated background operation. The major OCR programs, Abbyy and OmniPage, let you set up a “watch” directory and you can then schedule the OCR, even for off hours. Larger-scale programs such as eCopy or pdfDocs will also let you do this. One of the issues that comes up when using any of these programs in conjunction with desktop scanners is that they pop up the result in Acrobat, and you have to deal with it there - obviating the benefits of a background process. One solution is to configure the Microsoft Office Document Scanning process to simply dump the scans into a central location. This avoids having to deal with the intervening step.  Unfortunately, this operation sometimes reverses text (i.e., produces a black background) but this can usually be corrected through the OCR software.

3.  Saving to Document Management.  If you use eCopy, there is are plug-ins available that let you scan directly to DMS’s such as Worldox, Interwoven or DocsOpen. This is an optimal solution since it compresses the entire operation into just one step: Fill out the profile information, hit Scan and you are done.

pdfDocs will perform the OCR in the background and then give you an option to save to the DMS, eliminating cleanup.

Worldox integrates directly with Acrobat, so you save directly to Worldox. Omtool has a free utility that puts a “Save to Worldox” item on the File menu, but otherwise does not do anything that is not already done by the native Worldox/Acrobat integration.

4.  Cleanup. Unless you adopt a large-scale solution, you will be left with the task of cleaning up the intervening scans after they have been saved. If you use HotDocs, more recent versions have a pdf driver that will let you save successive scans to the same document name. You can then “Save As” and put the document into the document store without worrying about it. 

Obviously, not all of these options apply to everyone, but adopting even some of them can make your process a lot more efficient.

Cats and Dogs

There are cat people and dog people. What is the difference between cats and dogs?

If you take in a dog and give it food, affection and shelter, it thinks you are a god.
If you take in a cat and give it food, affection and shelter, it thinks it is a god.

Also, if the size difference between humans and cats were reversed, humans wouldn’t last 30 seconds (a lot less than mice, because humans are so slow).

See the excellent books by Elizabeth Marshall Thomas, The Hidden Life of Dogs and The Tribe of Tiger (on cats).

Feedback re: "Acquire, Merge, Destroy"

The feedback to my post on Lexis Nexis has been tremendous. So far I haven’t gotten a single negative response (although I’m sure the vitriol will be organized soon enough). More interestingly, the post seems to have sparked a number of discussions, in particular on the non-censored listserv. Now of course, this is the vocal minority, but they generally are merely expressing widely-held sentiments.

Some of the main points include:

- a discussion of the pros and cons of software as a service in general
- a call to organize end users to vote AGAINST Lexis in the various “best product” polls next year, or as one person put it, “for those of us who have used TM for a long time to make some noise.”
- a number of people has variants on the theme “if I could find something to switch to, I would.”  As in “I’m on a diving board hoping a pool (filled with water) will appear below that I can jump into.” or “I really wish I could find something else to use.”

The best defense of Lexis came from someone who in a recent post said, in essence (this is not a quote), you may be quite right, but TM is absolutely central to my practice and despite the frustrations makes it possible to manage work flow.

The 3 Monkeys view of the world, as expressed by the official Lexis/CIC listserv is actually hindering improving TM by refusing to discuss real problems. As such, it is doing a disservice to the user community as a whole, even if it does provide a useful substitute for tech support. As a long-time user of TM (since version 3) noted: “The folks at Time Matters have NEVER been good about public criticism.  They are from the "it's not a problem, it's a feature" school of public relations.  The LN takeover has intensified that lack of openness, but it's always been there since I've been using TM (since TM 3).”

So if my post can help bring some of the real issues out in the open, that is all to the good.

A Competitive DISadvantage

The two main reasons for adopting a particular piece of software - be it practice management, time & billing, document management, document assembly, or whatever, are:

1.  It makes your office more productive and better organized, and
2.  It gives you a competitive advantage vis-a-vis firms that don’t have that software. 

I recall installing Time Matters for a client who at a certain point in the training said “Now, I get it.” It turns out that every time she called a certain attorney, they always asked after her kids, birthdays, etc. She could never figure out how the attorney remembered, since the two of them were not close. “She puts all that information in a program like Time Matters and has it right at her fingertips.”  Exactly.

But there is an obverse side: NOT adopting software will prolong a less productive office and put you at a DISadvantage. The fact is that firms that don’t adopt some form of case management, document management, etc. are losing very substantial sums of money every year through inefficiencies and failure to capture billable hours accurately. Adopting these programs does not actually cost the firm money: it produces substantially more revenue for the firm.

I always remember one firm that I worked for where I was the unofficial IS person. I had suggested a particular piece of software to the name partner. He thought about it, then said: “I’ll pass on this one, but keep the suggestions coming because every piece of software I DON’T have potentially puts me at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis firms that DO have it.” 

I’ve always thought that was a very enlightened view of the benefits of productivity-enhancing software.

Big Fish and Little Fish

A colleague noted, upon reading the “LexisNexis: Acquire, Merge, Destroy” post, that this example  was but a sub-set of the general way in which large corporations gobble up smaller companies. This is of course true.  But it also raises the question: what is it about smaller companies that make them grow to the point of being attractive as fodder for larger companies?  And what distinguishes the smaller companies that stay independent?

These are extremely interesting questions. 

The first question is, what makes these companies grow to the point of being gobble-able? If we take the legal market, consider the following companies: Time Matters, PCLaw, Amicus Attorney, Juris, Tabs (STI), ProLaw, Worldox. Of these only Amicus, Tabs and Worldox have not (yet) been gobbled up. 

I think the beginning of an answer to this question involves four factors: (1) the structure of the companies; (2) “growing like Topsy;” (3) the individuals involved; and (4) the economics of small, privately-held companies.

The Structure of Small Companies

(1) They are run by individuals who have a focus and vision (horrible words that qualify for bingo buzzwords, but reflect a certain reality nevertheless). This enables them to drive forward and, since they have the decision making power, if they make good decisions, they prosper.

(2) The core staff and programmers remain stable over time.  As a horrible counter-example consider the prospect of writing code for Microsoft, as I indicated in a blog last year. A small company with a few programmers does not have these issues. As a result, the code can be tighter and more efficient. It is also easier to fix problems since they have a better knowledge of the code. The developers at both PCLaw and Time Matters had been stable over a long period of time (10 years or so). Now, that stability is eroding, with about half the developers having left TM and the main developer being kicked upstairs to a supervisory position.

(3) They know the market they are aiming at. This has little to do with market studies or focus groups, but rather an accurate sense of what the market needs/wants.

Growing like Topsy

The second issue has to do with growth.  The well-known “Peter Principle” states that individuals get promoted to their level of incompetence, that is, they do their jobs well and so get promoted. This continues until they get promoted to a position where they don’t do their jobs as well, and thus no longer get promoted. Therefore most people at higher levels in large corporations is ipso facto incompetent at their job.  There is more than a grain of truth to this.

There is an analogy to small companies: they do very well at their core business and thus grow. Then the temptation/pressure to do MORE than what they do well sets in, and they start adding new features which are mediocre at best.  Think of PCLaw’s “practice management” features or Time Matters “document management” features. Perhaps most strikingly, think of Gavel & Gown’s catastrophic attempt to graduate to the larger firm market with Amicus X. They had to fall back to the small firm edition to survive.  And Amicus 7 has a myriad of problems. Amicus 2008 looks promising but if it bombs, Amicus is essentially a dead product.

In terms of growth, there are two issues.  The first is, where do you get the money to develop new functionality so that you can fight the “battle of the desktop” – “we can do everything, you don’t need any other programs.” This is difficult to do in house, which is where the temptation for acquisition comes.

The second is that managing a company that grows 10-fold (or whatever), from 20 employees to 200 employees is an extremely difficult transition. It takes an entirely different mind-set and skills to do this. Even the Michael Dells and Steve Jobs of the world have to import outside talent to manage this problem.

The combination of these factors make acquisition an extremely attractive, if perilous, option.

The Individuals Involved

A final factor has to do with the individuals.  It takes a certain amount of clear-headedness (some would say pigheadedness) to resist the temptation to realize a dream by taking the infusion of cash and resources that an acquisition could provide.  But in Andy Groves’ immortal words, “Only the Paranoid Survive.”

Successful small companies tend to foster a good working environment - a sense of teamwork and collaboration (again, buzzwords, I know, but there is a reality to it). This disappears rather rapidly  when the corporate beancounters descend to make the environment more profitable (read: cutbacks).

The Economics of Privately Held Corporations

Publicly held companies such as LexisNexis are slaves to meeting analysts’ expectations every quarter. And since 20-80% of the overall income of top executives of these companies is based on stock options and various other stock-related items; clearly their interest is in driving the stock price as high as possible (think: Enron). Good software?  What’s that?  Again, think of “Freakonomics:” It is not in the economic interest of large companies to produce good software.

Privately held companies, however, are accountable only to themselves. So if a release encounters problems, has to be delayed, etc. that is not a problem.  Hence the mantra “we’ll release the product when it is ready.”  Obviously they are also committed to making a profit, just that the means of accomplishing it is rather different.

Thus privately held companies have the luxury of being able to focus on product quality in ways that large companies cannot.

Conclusion

What distinguishes the companies that remain independent?  I believe this involves (1) the ability to resist the blandishments of “take the money and run” (sometimes known as “everybody has their price”)  and (2) the managerial ability to take a company through qualitatively different size levels.

It may well be that the future belongs to the “all things to all people” - lowest common denominator - programs.  But retrograde though it may be, I firmly believe that the successful companies are those who pursue the “best of breed” path.