Much has been written about the communication and cultural barriers separating legal and IT departments and the risks this creates for corporations struggling with the growing burden of electronic discovery. This isn't particularly surprising, given that most attorneys come from a liberal arts background with only minimal exposure to science and technology and most computer science majors have minimal exposure to the law. Ignorance often breeds contempt. This, I believe, is further exacerbated by the overall low opinion that engineers, IT professionals, and other "techies" have of lawyers.
I remember telling an old high-school buddy, who was and is an engineer, that I was going to law school. His response: "you know this means we can't be friends anymore." Of course it was said in jest, and we remain friends, but I doubt any other area of study would prompt such a joke.
An article published on WIRED today, reminds us that this is both nothing new and a symptom of a much wider fissure in our culture. On this day in 1959, C.P. Snow delivered his (in)famous "Two Cultures" lecture at Cambridge University. In it, he expressed his concern that the two pillars of Western civilization, the "sciences" and "humanities", were becoming increasingly separate from one another. This trend towards polarization between intellectuals in these two great cultural streams, he warned, would undermine Western society. He placed the blame on primary and secondary education.
It is debatable about how wide this divide really is and whether such a divide is really all that bad (ever-increasing specialization is a long-term trend that seems inevitable and necessary in the modern world). What is not debatable among those who practice in the area of e-discovery is that the ignorance and chauvinism frequently encountered among lawyers and IT professionals impede the team building, communication, and collaboration required for cost-effective and risk-avoidant e-discovery.
I like to think that project management is one discipline that both sides can buy into. While the modern discipline of Project Management and its current standards was developed by engineers working on exceptionally large military projects, it has over time evolved and adopted to many industries, including service industries. Project management institutions have endeavored to design flexible standards that are generally applicable to most projects, regardless of the industry. Many engineers and technologists learn project management as part of their standard curriculum. While attorneys are generally not familiar with project management and may be put off by the term, planning and management concepts are less alien to attorneys than, say, computer networking and data storage.
Adopting project management standards gives a common tongue that can help bridge the gap between IT and legal worlds. It is the binding force needed to hold an e-discovery team together. In my experience, when e-discovery teams are assembled without a project management system, they tend to be rudderless. Bringing IT and legal to the same table and working to keep open lines of communication are important, but not enough. To integrate both sides into a functional team requires a formalized project management plan that clearly documents how each party fits into the project, what tasks each is responsible for, and how performance will be monitored by an overall project manager.
When it comes to e-discovery projects, the Project Manager may find herself also wearing the hat of Peace Maker.
My Engineer friend responded to this post by e-mail. He's given me permission to post his response here.
Thanks for your comments and for allowing me to post them here.
I'm not sure why engineers find lawyers arrogant. I guess they find it hard to accept our superior intellect. (That's a joke folks, put your flamethrowers down.) Perhaps lawyers are over compensating to cover their fear of science (if you're bad at something, pretend it isn't important, ignore those who are good at it). Actually, I really don't think it has much to do with arrogance as much as frustration with (1) not understanding the technology and (2) feeling that those that do understand it, seem to ignore or actively obstruct their efforts to represent their clients. I have to side with the lawyers on this one.
The attitude of engineers that you describe is understandable. I suspect that layering this attitude over the already low opinion most Americans have of lawyers creates class of people who have an especially strong aversion to attorneys. The problem is that not all lawyers are the enemy. Your company's in-house and outside counsel are trying to protect your company from very real risks. This includes trying to convince the techies from not being cute with data or trying to outsmart or obstruct opposing counsel. The only way, however, that your company's attorneys can mitigate e-discovery risk is if they have the techies' support.
There has been a lot of discussion in the e-discovery community about this. This is leading to recognition of the need for a team approach in managing e-discovery projects. The EDRM Project Management Framework (EPMF) specifically addresses this by proposing an e-discovery project management team model. It leaves up to the parties what form the integrated project management team should take and which party (law firm, corporate client, or third-party vendor)should take the lead. I like the EPMF approach, but I would add that the integrated PM team needs a project manager who bears primary responsibility for the success of the project.
Of COURSE you have to have get the primary stakeholders involved. The EPMF is a helpful tool to remind us of that and suggest those primary stakeholders who should have representatives on the project management team. In my experience, however, you need one person to oversee the entire project and all its moving parts. That person need not be a technologist or a lawyer, but should be well grounded in both the technical and legal worlds so that they can act as an effective bridge between the two sides.
Ah! Interesting picture of the EPMF. My first question is why do we need a PM framework for ediscovery? What is/are missing from existing PM models/frameworks/methodologies?
I like Paul's comment 'the Project Manager may find herself also wearing the hat of Peace Maker'. Perhaps instead of PM for ediscovery, we introduce a new term PM for Peace Maker :-)
Personally, I will opt for a light-weight methodology (based on my own experiences) for managing ediscovery activities. Since I am a non believer in any PM stuff for understanding and/or managing the dynamic interactions between the various stakeholders, I will just be ME and learn how I engage with others and take it from there.So understanding ME is the first step.
It would be great if we can prescribe a model to model the various 'formed' opinions/behaviours/perspectives of the people involved in the activities. These are the stuff which makes or breaks projects, right? I am not looking for such a model as human will trump model/process simply because we have model for this/that and for people to act on. Hence we have risk management to manage risks which we can identify and anything else not identifiable we say 'Acts of God' or human folly or ingenuity.
Thanks for sharing!
Cher