I just discovered a new blog, The Rosetta Brief, which is authored by Regina Mullen, CEO of a company called Dialexia, which is a founding partner of the Agile Lawyers Association and plans to debut the first Agile Document Review Team in 2010.
Although it looks like the blog was launched this month, and Dialexia's Web site is still under development, it already has a number of provocative posts. The most recent post is rather dismissive of PMI's project management standards, arguing that the "PMI crowd" places too much focus on removing all risk from a project, whereas Agile embraces and manages FOR uncertainty, rather than managing OUT uncertainty.[1]
I disagree with her assessment of PMI's Project Management Body of Knowlege (PMBOK) and believe that the PMBOK is also focused on managing FOR risk and that no experienced project manager would claim that he or she can remove all risk. Mullen offers her company's proprietary, Agile-based Litigation Ecosystem Framework as an alternative not only to the PMBOK, but also the Electronic Discovery Reference Model (EDRM). In another post on her blog Mullen argues that the EDRM "should be scrapped in favor of Agile processes which focus on getting work 'Done done,' and working in a collaborative fashion from client to court." [2]
As a relatively new entrant to a crowded field, she has her work cut out for her if she wants clients to turn their backs on such well-accepted standards as the PMBOK and the EDRM. It will also be hard to sell a document-review methodology that seems so accepting of risk and so dismissive of attempting to find "smoking guns." [3] Still, I'm intrigued by her plans to set up an agile-based document review service and admire her willingness to question existing standards.
I look forward to more of her posts and hope I can convince here to participate in an interview on this blog, so I can more fully flesh out some of her claims and methods.
[1] Regina Mullen, Agile Teams, Litigation Ecosystems and Litigation Risk, The Rosetta Brief, Sept. 28, 2009, at http://www.dialexica.com/blog/2009/09/agile-teams-litigation-ecosystems-litigation-risk/
[2] Regina Mullen, http://www.dialexica.com/blog/2009/09/edrm-critique-from-hand-off-to-collaborative-culture/, The Rosetta Brief, Sept. 12, 2009, athttp://www.dialexica.com/blog/2009/09/edrm-critique-from-hand-off-to-collaborative-culture/
[3] Mullen, supra note 1.
Practicing lawyers are in a quandary when it comes to e-discovery and they only have the two models at present to work with: the EDRM and PMBOK-based project management, mostly mediated through the Sedona Conference, PMI and a few federal judges and magistrates.
Recent court-driven pilots and changes to the FRCP notwithstanding, things are starting to fall apart. So, while these industry leaders provide high-level insight and guidance,--I believe a more Agile approach can alleviate major short-comings clearly visible from the ground.
In my view, the Sedona Conference and EDRM folks have completely embraced the PMI/PMBOK (waterfall) approach. They set the standard, which means that vendors and consultants have been loathe to look for alternatives. A "healthy skepticism" of what I've seen in practice inspired me to take a closer look at the assumptions, dependencies and constraints these models require. When I did so, it became absolutely clear that lawyers struggling with the landslide of technological change needed alternative frameworks and tools,--and that lessons learned from software development could inform resolution of those difficulties.
Lawyers are not trained as project managers, they know very little about managing data, less about technology and few are trained to inspire productive teamwork. Agile is a broad umbrella for a host of principles, practices and processes that can help make sense of a rapidly evolving legal landscape which requires exactly those skills. Of course, there will always be a need for specialist vendors, but multiple hand-off systems are inefficient, costly and dangerous.
In litigation, lawyers spend a great deal of other people's money, so I think it only makes sense to have alternatives. Dialexica is therefore not just a service provider, but a thought laboratory and we think it's going to provide pretty darned good methods of increasing ROI for practicing lawyers and their clients.
The expectation is that there will be several flavors of Agile adoption within the practice of law,--this is just the start. The Litigation Ecosystem Framework (LEF) is built upon a doctrinal Agile approach, and takes as its only major constraint the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and court rules. Working within it (for example by using Scrum teams) will require a higher level level of discipline, transparency and accountability than most lawyers are probably prepared to adopt. But for the ones who are willing, the benefit is that stakeholders (particularly : clients) will get better value for money.
Provocation is needed to inspire people to think differently about their assumptions, but it is through testing that these ideas will get confirmation,--or be disproved. Agile as a concept is well-tested. Agile for Lawyers, thus, starts with one leg up and my job is to make the connection. Taking the Agile principles of "inspect and adapt" seriously means that once the sites and materials have officially launched, content will be revised on a published iteration schedule. In this way, comments and questions can be addressed in a timely fashion. So, I encourage you to do so!
Any claim that all risk can be dealt with is utter nonsense, so please identify the specific statements to which you refer and I will gladly re-write them. The Agile approach to risk is well-documented and I invent nothing here,--only the application to legal processes.
You might be interested to know that at AgileOpen North California this past week, nearly 1/2 the participants were new and possessed a PMI foundation. Further, there are several highly senior Agilists who work very closely with PMI folk on the PMI-Agile SIG. I certainly look forward to joining them in bridging gaps between PMBOK-style and Agile.
The task I have taken on is, as you have recognized, a tremendous one! Please note that I do NOT expect the world to turn it's back on the PMI/PMBOK, nor do I anticipate the demise of the EDRM. However, I am dedicated to providing the support and thought leadership to a community of practice that is emerging from the current chaos of the litigation ecosystem. Sedona folks have started using terms like "agile" and "lean" recently,--my company is focused on making these words have deeper meaning.
Regina,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I'm intrigued by your efforts and am looking forward to learning more about your service offerings and reading more of your ideas on legal project management.
Regarding the comment about risk, I think you misread it. I did not mean to say that you claimed that you are able to deal with all risk. Actually, the opposite. My reading of your post was that you accept VersionOne's claim that "[t]he PMI crowd generally believes that a Project Manager is supposed to manage uncertainty out of the project."
My intended point is that, yes, risk management is an extremely important knowledge area of the PMBOK, but I don't believe that the PMBOK states, or that PMI members believe, that you can remove uncertainty.
I don't understand the either/or evangelizing I see from some Agile enthusiasts. That said, I'm the first to admit my ignorance. While I've read the "Manifesto" and a number of articles on Agile Project Management, I've not yet invested a significant amount of time in studying its methodology. I look forward to learning more.
I'm especially interested in seeing your alternative to the EDRM. I think that the EDRM enjoys the popularity it does primarily because it provide the e-discovery industry a common point of reference when discussing services and tools. I'm not sure how Agile Project Management applies here. Again, I'm saying this in the spirit of someone eager to learn more and improve the number and quality of the legal project management tools in my belt.