Seth Godin recently posted on a topic that any legal project manager shouting like a madman in the wilderness can take to heart: even when good data exists, it may be ignored by decision makers.[1] It takes more than data to overcome habit, prejudice, and hunches.
Data is much easier to come by in the Internet age. It may not feel that way when we consider legal work, but as Steve Barret points out in a recent post to the Legal Business Development blog, there is a lot of data that firms capture about legal work (especially time data) that they can use to improve their estimates and use as a starting point for process improvement. The data is there, if only there were the will to mine--and mind--it.
There has been a lot of discussion recently about firms needing to adopt better project management practices, including a paper from the influential Sedona Conference. These all highlight the need for better measurement of legal work. Reading these, one might conclude that simply having the data will drive better decisions. Mr. Godin points out that this often isn't the case, even with highly educated professionals.
It took Ignaz Semmelweis more than twenty years (he died before it happened, actually) to persuade doctors that washing their hands could save the lives of mothers giving birth. He had the data, he had the proof, but that wasn't enough to change minds.
...
The data shows that the vast majority of wine drinkers can't tell the difference between a $20 bottle and a $100 bottle. Will that keep you from buying the fancy wine? How much is the placebo effect worth?
...
It took Galileo decades to persuade people the light objects fell as fast as heavy ones... even though he was busy dropping them off buildings for all to see.[2]
I find the second example particularly appropriate when discussing legal work. Are many corporations paying for a placebo effect when hiring large, elite firms located in expensive cities? I'm sure the higher fees often equate to higher value, but I'm also sure that similar or higher quality can be found for less by going with less well-known firms in cheaper locations. But how can general counsel know if they don't measure firm results? And even if they have the data and that data challenges their firm-selection prejudices, will they act on it?
Mr. Godin asks, "What are you going to do when your hunches don't match the data that's now pouring in?" His target audience is marketers and he cautions that "marketers that jump too quickly to data are going to be disappointed." This insight, I think should also be taken to heart by all of us pushing for project management and process improvements in the legal environment. Lawyers pride themselves on their professional judgment. Should the data not support their judgment, many lawyers will find it difficult to accept and adjust to it.
Mr. Godin predicts that it will take "longer than most of us think" to "get our arms around this avalanche of insight." His comments may be even more apt for lawyering than marketing. In a parenthetical, he notes that "lifehackers that use the data are going to continue to have a huge advantage." The quickly changing landscape of legal practice, caused by quakes and tremors brought on by the current economic recession, is forcing many in the legal profession to rethink how law should be practiced. Practice hackers, such as Lisa Solomon, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, and Leah Cooper, will build opportunities and create strategic advantages for themselves and their clients. Those who can not only measure and analyze their work, but can also swallow their pride and adjust, will push past the foot draggers and the pompous.
Leave a comment