Time Matters / PCLaw - Status after Acquisition
Last February (on Valentine’s Day as it happened and after sitting on it for nearly a year) I published an analysis of the situation of LexisNexis products after its acquisition of Time Matters, PCLaw, Juris and other companies, with a more generalized followup a few days later. How has this analysis held up and what is the current status of TM, PCLaw and the Certified Independent Consultant program?
While I am no longer “in the loop” as a Certified Independent Consultant, the consultant world is a small one and word gets around, so I have continued to monitor the situation as best I can.
First, virtually all senior management with any in-depth knowledge of either product have been dismissed. New managers have been brought in. Since LexisNexis is essentially in the business of selling books and on-line research materials, it is fair to say that you now have software divisions within LexisNexis that are being run by book salesmen. This is not a recipe for success.
One of the fundamental differences between the books and software is that LexisNexis views its research services (books) as fungible. So if a user switches from Lexis to West, they can always drop the price or offer other perks next year to get the user to switch back. Software, however, does not work like this because firms have a huge investment in their historical data (which in many cases is convertible to another program only with great difficulty). Switching from one program to another is a major undertaking, and firms are not likely just to “switch back.”
In addition, while the PCLaw programming staff is intact, LN disbanded the entire second-level support team and forced only a few of them to reapply for employment individually. Not a recipe for good employee morale! At Time Matters, which had had a stable programming core for 8-10 years, half the programmers have quit, which may explain why the service releases for Version 9 have been introducing new bugs and TM 9 still has some major bugs – in particular related records not updating correctly under certain circumstances. The loss of programmers at TM represents a tremendous loss of accumulated program knowledge and may indicate that Time Matters may actually not be capable of fixing the various bugs (even if it was motivated to), not to mention bringing out a new version.
After numerous consultants complained about the negative effects of yearly releases, LexisNexis apparently held some focus groups and got an earful about yearly releases as well as the cost of annual upgrades. So bingo, there will be no version 10 release of Time Matters or PCLaw this year. Marketing rules! Instead, they will focus (hopefully) on fixing bugs and improving the link between TM and PCLaw.
As far as consultants are concerned, Charlie Rogers, who was in charge of the consultant program, has been kicked upstairs into the position of product “champion” with in the Lexis Nexis Total Practice Advantage program. Many large companies have “champions” or “evangelists” for smaller divisions – Microsoft for one had a “legal evangelist” for many years. While I obviously can’t speak for LN, these are typically dead-end position with no real influence or decision-making powers. Such a position is probably alternatively preaching to the choir or preaching in the wilderness: either way it doesn’t amount to much.
Consultants meanwhile, have been assimilated to the LN sales process. They no longer get any real commissions on sales of products. Sales reps are “supposed” to use consultants to help them present the products. However, since sales reps get compensated ONLY for new sales and not for repeat sales or ongoing relationships, they have no incentive to do this and with perhaps a few exceptions this program has been a total bust. The very structure of the sales program ensures this – it is not a matter of good will. When I worked for a major consulting company there was a rule that the sales guys could not visit potential client without taking a techie (read: CIC) with him. Otherwise the sales guys would inevitably make promises that could not be kept/delivered. There are many reports of this happening with the LN reps.
My guess is that within 3 years the current CIC consultants program will no longer exist, at least not in a currently recognizable form. Already the CIC listserv has been forced to relax its censorship concerning problems with the program somewhat and Bob Fleming’s Elderlaw TM listserv has rebounded – Tom Rowe has even felt compelled to put in an appearance!
This is all very interesting, you may say, but what does it mean concretely? Should I upgrade? Switch? More on that to come.
>>> Already the CIC listserv has been forced to relax its censorship concerning problems with the program somewhat and Bob Fleming’s Elderlaw TM listserv has rebounded – Tom Rowe has even felt compelled to put in an appearance! <<<
John ... as usual you jump to conclusions without any factual basis. We haven't been forced to do anything on the CIC Solutions Forum. Our moderation standards are the same as they have always been. We've never denied that TM has bugs, and where the questions are asked in a way that we can answer them we have always done so. We do that today in a constructive way that most of our members like.
Nor do I feel compelled to put in an appearance on my good friend, Robert Fleming's listserv ... I, like any good consultant, review many blogs and listservs to keep my finger on the pulse of the industry I am in. I even check yours from time to time to get the cynical and conspiritorial view that you favor, as well as to see if you continue to blog-stalk me. Why you insist on dragging my name into all this is beyond me.
It is instructive that I made one post on Robert's forum, clarifying the waters you insist on muddying. Your posts as to subscription pricing, all of which are pure conjecture, caused a TM user to pause in upgrading to TM9. As I posted there, clearly LN provides a subscription model, and no doubt will continue to move in that direction in the future (as will many products in mature markets). But, in my opinion it makes no sense for a TM user today to be concerned about subscription pricing when trying to decide if they should upgrade to TM9. They continue to offer perpetual licensing, and their current subscritpion model (which is very economical for many LN service users) ends with a perpetual license. At this point in time, what is there for a user to fear? That some time in the future, LN might move away from this? That's no way to make a business decision.
Posted by: Tom Rowe | June 19, 2008 at 11:12 AM
>>> Already the CIC listserv has been forced to relax its censorship concerning problems with the program somewhat and Bob Fleming’s Elderlaw TM listserv has rebounded – Tom Rowe has even felt compelled to put in an appearance! <<<
John ... as usual you jump to conclusions without any factual basis. We haven't been forced to do anything on the CIC Solutions Forum. Our moderation standards are the same as they have always been. We've never denied that TM has bugs, and where the questions are asked in a way that we can answer them we have always done so. We do that today in a constructive way that most of our members like.
Nor do I feel compelled to put in an appearance on my good friend, Robert Fleming's listserv ... I, like any good consultant, review many blogs and listservs to keep my finger on the pulse of the industry I am in. I even check yours from time to time to get the cynical and conspiritorial view that you favor, as well as to see if you continue to blog-stalk me. Why you insist on dragging my name into all this is beyond me.
It is instructive that I made one post on Robert's forum, clarifying the waters you insist on muddying. Your posts as to subscription pricing, all of which are pure conjecture, caused a TM user to pause in upgrading to TM9. As I posted there, clearly LN provides a subscription model, and no doubt will continue to move in that direction in the future (as will many products in mature markets). But, in my opinion it makes no sense for a TM user today to be concerned about subscription pricing when trying to decide if they should upgrade to TM9. They continue to offer perpetual licensing, and their current subscritpion model (which is very economical for many LN service users) ends with a perpetual license. At this point in time, what is there for a user to fear? That some time in the future, LN might move away from this? That's no way to make a business decision.
Posted by: Tom Rowe | June 19, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Actually, as I pointed out in the subsequent post, I DO recommend upgrading to TM / PCLaw 9, although certainly not for the same reasons Tom would list.
Posted by: John Heckman | June 19, 2008 at 01:47 PM
In that you see all with a crystal ball, exactly what reasons would I list? Yeah, I didn't think you would know anything about my business and what I recommened because we never have talked about it. But again, that won't keep you from posting as if you know.
Posted by: Tom Rowe | June 23, 2008 at 10:38 AM
I purchased LNTPA 9 in mid-March from a book salesman who dragged along a CIC. If I knew then what I know now I would have sent both of them packing. Nearly four months into the implementation and the geniuses and LN and my CIC are yet to be able to send out an accurate bill that correclty computes simple interest. It's to the point that I either want to laugh while I talk to the "conversion" department in Toronto with a sales rep in North Carolina while my dumbass CIC in Phoenix ignores me.
LNTPA could be a great program. But, it is not stable or reliable. It freezes, stops responding, crashes, fails to relate events to matters/clients and requires the user to be more than minimally technologically competent because of the need to repair the database or run other utilities. The synch between front office (LNTPA) and back office (PC LAW) sucks and the two programs do not reliably communicate or sync data.
I think LN really sees technical support as a money making endeavour. They constantly try and sell the service contract. They also regularly give out contradictory information about your account, etc. PC LAW also has a number of accounting quirks that do not make any sense to me. For example, the program does not "accept" a payment less than the outstanding interest. It does not apply payments first to principal without eliminating all interest. There are other weird anomalies.
In short, installing LNTPA has taken nearly four months and it is still not operating optimally and not able to mail a reliable bill that computes simple interest. Implementation of this program has cost me thousands of dollars in lost productivity and billable hours with time spent not working, online with tech support, talking to incompetent and unnecessary CIC, waiting for Level II support to call, not receiving accurate technical support, dealing with tech support that don't understand the product or have any familiarity with how a law office is run, losing functionality and data because of program instability or problems caused to network by program, software incompatibility (i.e., Trend Micro and Sonic Wall firewalls), etc., etc.
Posted by: Michael Shew | June 26, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Michael Shew’s comments obviously represent the horrendous end of the spectrum of experience. However, even though some of his examples are too generic to pin down, some of them require correction.
First, a general comment on the need for a consultant. Obviously I can’t comment on the specifics (the CICs in Phoenix that I know all have very good reputations), but aside from the old joke that “a consultant is the person you hire to fix the mess created by the first person who called themselves that,” TimeMatters and PCLaw are big, mature, complex products. A good consultant will get them running smoothly in much less time (and therefore with less expense and stress) than you can possibly do yourself. In addition, the improved workflow will more than pay for itself. Trying to set up the program yourself is a recipe for disaster. In the words of Red Adair, “If you think hiring a professional is expensive, try hiring an amateur.”
Historically, the support contracts for PCLaw and TimeMatters have been fundamentally different. The PCLaw support included all upgrades and TimeMatters support did not. Furthermore, “back in the day” PCLaw support was excellent and hold time averaged under 30 seconds. It was also a profit center. TimeMatters support may have been a bit hard to get ahold of, but the techs were excellent. LexisNexis has essentially dismantled this support. The new support does not have the years of accumulated product experience that the old support did.
When set up properly, TimeMatters should be very stable (I can’t comment on the LNTPA setup if you are going over the Internet): you don’t say whether you are using Professional or Enterprise, but Enterprise is certainly much more stable (as well as much more expensive). Version 9 does have some bugs with relating and updating links between matters and contacts, and you may be experiencing this.
The synch between TimeMatters and PCLaw has some significant limitations, but what it does, it does reliably: Namely, transfer billing slips from TimeMatters to PCLaw and update client information. There are a number of things it does not do, however (for example, transfer second billing addresses).
As far as your two specific examples, it is standard industry practice to apply any payment first to interest and then to principal (think of your payment on your credit card - you are not going to get Visa or MasterCard to first apply payment to principal). You can set what order payments are applied (Tax, Disbursement, Fees). In my experience, PCLaw will accept any payment, so I’m not certain what is going on there. What you perceive as “anomalies” could well be good accounting practices. One client of mine who had switched from QuickBooks to PCLaw complained that PCLaw was “hard to use” on the grounds that “QuickBooks would let you do things that an accountant would kill you for, but PCLaw won’t let you do them.” This is a positive, not a negative.
Lastly, I still believe that when set up and configured properly, both TimeMatters and PCLaw are the leading programs in their respective fields.
Posted by: John Heckman | June 27, 2008 at 06:32 AM
John: Michael Shew’s comments obviously represent the horrendous end of the spectrum of experience.
Michael: I would like to believe this is true but I am really not that confident it is true.
John: First, a general comment on the need for a consultant. Obviously I can’t comment on the specifics (the CICs in Phoenix that I know all have very good reputations), but aside from the old joke that “a consultant is the person you hire to fix the mess created by the first person who called themselves that,” TimeMatters and PCLaw are big, mature, complex products. A good consultant will get them running smoothly in much less time (and therefore with less expense and stress) than you can possibly do yourself. In addition, the improved workflow will more than pay for itself. Trying to set up the program yourself is a recipe for disaster. In the words of Red Adair, “If you think hiring a professional is expensive, try hiring an amateur.”
Michael: I agree and this is why I hired the CIC. I have a state of the art Dell Windows XP network that has always been reliable. I paid the CIC to install LNTPA and PC Law because I knew I couldn't and shouldn't do it myself. Unfortunately, the CIC has yet to get the programs to work such that it actually improves workflow. In fact, the CIC's errors and omissions have cost me thousands of dollars in lost billable hours and in wages paid to my staff to deal with mistakes caused by the CIC's lack of training and knowledge or because of mistakes caused by the conversion department.
John: Historically, the support contracts for PCLaw and TimeMatters have been fundamentally different. The PCLaw support included all upgrades and TimeMatters support did not. Furthermore, “back in the day” PCLaw support was excellent and hold time averaged under 30 seconds. It was also a profit center. TimeMatters support may have been a bit hard to get ahold of, but the techs were excellent. LexisNexis has essentially dismantled this support. The new support does not have the years of accumulated product experience that the old support did.
Michael: I agree. LN's lack of technical support integration and their collective inexperience is troubling. Many of the techs simply do not understand the product and how it is used in practice.
John: When set up properly, TimeMatters should be very stable (I can’t comment on the LNTPA setup if you are going over the Internet): you don’t say whether you are using Professional or Enterprise, but Enterprise is certainly much more stable (as well as much more expensive). Version 9 does have some bugs with relating and updating links between matters and contacts, and you may be experiencing this.
Michael: I am using Enterprise edition with most current updates. We continue to experience problems with relating matters and other issues that are symptomatic of a lack of quality control and debugging. And, don't even get me started on the programs inability to sync to my blackberry pearl.
John:The synch between TimeMatters and PCLaw has some significant limitations, but what it does, it does reliably: Namely, transfer billing slips from TimeMatters to PCLaw and update client information. There are a number of things it does not do, however (for example, transfer second billing addresses).
Michael: I disagree. TM and PCLaw do not transfer billing slips reliably. I am so untrusting of this function that I require my staff to input all time directly into PC Law instead of through Time Matters.
John: As far as your two specific examples, it is standard industry practice to apply any payment first to interest and then to principal (think of your payment on your credit card - you are not going to get Visa or MasterCard to first apply payment to principal). You can set what order payments are applied (Tax, Disbursement, Fees). In my experience, PCLaw will accept any payment, so I’m not certain what is going on there. What you perceive as “anomalies” could well be good accounting practices. One client of mine who had switched from QuickBooks to PCLaw complained that PCLaw was “hard to use” on the grounds that “QuickBooks would let you do things that an accountant would kill you for, but PCLaw won’t let you do them.” This is a positive, not a negative.
Michael: The anomalies are not good accounting practices. PCLaw willnot "accept any payment". Believe me, I wish it did. The program should sync to QuickBooks or at least be more compliant with QB's standards.
John: Lastly, I still believe that when set up and configured properly, both TimeMatters and PCLaw are the leading programs in their respective fields.
Michael: I really want this to be true but my staff is so worn out on the implementation of this program that it is hard to convince my staff of this. We are nearly four months into the conversion and install! How can this be tolerated by the CIC or LN? But, it is and no one cares....
Thanks for your prompt response John and for giving me a place to vent. If only you were a CIC in Phoenix....
Mike Shew
p.s. I should say, if you happen to know my CIC, that the hard part of all of this is that I truly like my CIC. I think he is a good person who is just trying to support his family and earn an honest living. Unfortunately, I don't really think he knows what he is doing.
Posted by: Michael Shew | June 27, 2008 at 11:25 PM
"hile my dumbass CIC in Phoenix ignores me" - michael shew
great comment from a lawyer
Posted by: software user | August 11, 2008 at 01:47 AM
"hile my dumbass CIC in Phoenix ignores me" - michael shew
great comment from a lawyer
Posted by: software user | August 11, 2008 at 01:48 AM