Does It Compute?

Document Management Punch Lines

Most small to medium size law firms that begin to look at document management programs do so because the chaos caused by lack of a system has become overwhelming, especially when you factor in scanned documents and email. What attracts them is not specific features so much as the basic characteristics of systems such as Worldox.

Here are some of the punch lines I use to drive this point home.

A DMS is a centralizing and standardizing force. That is, documents will be stored in a centrally determined location and in a standard way. No more documents under “My Documents,” stored by attorney name, type of document, etc.  There is a system and the DMS is the traffic cop that enforces it.

If you think of your document store as a giant book and you want to find something, there are three ways to do it: (1) read the book – obviously slow and inefficient; (2) look at the table of contents (akin to a directory structure – better, but still inefficient; or (3) use an index – very fast and accurate.  An index is what Worldox gives you – combined with other functions. So that you can pose queries such as “find all the pleadings done in the last 6 months of last year that contain the word ‘thumb’ within 10 words of the word ‘amputat*’ [which includes all the word forms – amputate, amputated, amputation, etc.].”

Think of Worldox as a more structured Google for your document store.

Lastly, a DMS obliges users to make use of it. Using a program such as Worldox is like being pregnant: you are either pregnant or not pregnant. You cannot decide to be pregnant on Monday Wednesday and Friday but not pregnant on Tuesday and Thursday. You use it or you do not use it. You cannot “dabble” in Worldox. What this means is that when using Worldox you can find virtually any document in less than 30 seconds and you will never lose another document again.

The Peter Principle and Rolling Out Software

The well-known Peter Principle for the corporate world holds that the reason so many corporations are so inefficient is that people get promoted to their level of incompetence. That is, someone does a job well, they get promoted, they do that job well, they get promoted. This cycle recurs until they do not do the job well, so they no longer get promoted. They have reached their level of incompetence.

I sometimes see clients who want to “dumb down” software on the grounds that users won’t be able to adapt to the new system, won’t like it and thus won’t use it. The underlying assumption behind this argument (even if it is almost never articulated)  is that users are too stupid to see the benefits of a new system or just plain too ornery and obstreperous to use it. Aside from the fact that this argument is insulting to users, based on close to 30 years in working with law firms and consulting, I do not believe it is true.  Some people take more hand holding than others, but when a new system has manifest and demonstrable benefits, people generally are smart enough to realize it. The classic case of the 55 year old secretary who fought tooth and nail against giving up her WordPerfect for Dos and moving to Windows, and then couldn’t understand how she could have lived without it proves the point.

A second problem with this approach is that, even assuming an adversarial relation between management and staff,  it violates the basic business principle that you never start a negotiation from your fall-back position. That is a recipe for disaster.

A third problem is that when people learn the minimum then need to use a system, there is a real danger that the minimum they need turns into the maximum they know.

The solution is to implement and roll out a system configured the way it should be. If you have to backtrack, so be it. Two keys to success are (1) good preparation and setting appropriate expectations and (2) adequate training. A system will never be fully 100 percent when it is rolled out. But if it is 90%, users generally accept that it needs some tweaks (and may even appreciate being involved in final adjustments). If it is only 50%, everyone is annoyed because every time they try to do something, it has to be fixed – the perception becomes that the system “does not work.”

Using Major Clients in PCLaw

I have never had much of a need to use the “Major Clients” feature in PCLaw. Most firms find a client/matter (2-tier) structure adequate for their needs.  However, I recently came across a firm that needed a 3-tier structure. This is where the Major Client comes in. It is important to understand that “Major Client” does not mean “very important client” (although it could be that too), but rather represents a third level of organization.

In this case, the firm represented a number of Real Estate Management companies. Each management company managed a number of buildings (“clients”) and in each building there were dealings with tenants (“matters”). So by making the Management Company a “Major Client” it was possible to generate bills and reports for the management company that encompassed all the buildings it managed without having to do it manually.

It takes a little doing to set up and manipulate, but to this sort of firm it can be very useful.

Office 2010 - The Real Startup Guide

As I have said on occasion, I rely heavily on Woody Leonhard’s Office Watch for all things Microsoft. 

I recently downloaded (for the piddling sum of $9.95; $16.95 if you are not a subscriber) their 400 page book “Office 2010 - The Real Startup Guide.” This is one of a series of books they publish in PDF format. When you buy one, there is a footer in big red letters “This copy for John Heckman only.” As usual, some of the most useful items deal with the Office “gotchas” and warts. (The predecessor of these books was a series about 10 years ago entitled Office / Outlook / etc. annoyances. Thus:

“Microsoft tends to design for the ‘lowest common denominator’ in other words the users with the least computer skills... Microsoft has always positioned toolbar buttons with an eye to impressing people during software demonstrations [as opposed to maximizing productivity - JH]”

A large part of the book is devoted to individual users – how to get Office cheaper, various configuration options, etc.  Two of the sections that I find most useful are the ones on configuring the Quick Access Toolbar and the Ribbon bar. I have blogged about the QAT a year or so ago in relation to Word 2007. The functionality in 2010 is the same.

What is new is the ability to partially customize the Ribbon Bar. While you can’t actually edit the default Ribbon Bars, you can (a) hide certain items you don’t want, and (b) rearrange the items to make them more productive.

To do this, click on File | Options and then Customize Ribbon. Select the Ribbon you want to customize, then the tab you want to change or move. You cannot remove entire boxes in the Ribbon, but if you click on the check box to the left of the item, it will not appear. You can remove individual items in the box by selecting them and clicking “Remove” in the middle on the screen. To move an item left or right on the Ribbon bar, click on the item you want to move and use the up and down arrow to move it left (up) or right(down).

If you want to get fancy, the book also explains how to create entirely new ribbon bars and groups.

If you are frustrated with Office 2010, this is a must read.

Time Matters Link to Amicus Attorney (??)

Some people think I am too hard on LexisNexis. Others think I am essentially correct in my assessment but there is nothing to be gained from stating it openly.

I had the opportunity last week to listen in on LexisNexis Quarterly “Virtual User Meeting.”  Pretty routine and uneventful except when Steve Fedders, the TimeMatters Product Manager announced that LexisNexis would work hard to provide quarterly updates in order to keep links with other programs current – programs such as .... Amicus Attorney.

It boggles the mind.

The Future of MicroSkype

So Microsoft has paid the huge sum of $8.5 billion for Skype.  Historically, companies by other firms for one of two main reasons: (1) to acquire a technology or (2) to broaden customer base. In this case Microsoft gets both.

At the same time, the history of software acquisitions is not kind to the acquired company which typically is, at best, left to wither and die after the core is sucked out. 

I tend to rely heavily on Woody’s Office Watch for all things Microsoft. They are about the only people who tell it like it is.  In this case I agree with their post about the acquisition.

It will be good for Microsoft, but people who use Skype on non-Microsoft platforms may be in for disappointment a year or two down the road.