Winter 2004 Survey of Law Office Knowledge Management Programs
Executive Summary
I. Survey Respondents
Twenty-five law offices responded to our January 2004 KM survey: 24 private firms and 1 state government agency. The respondents can be further characterized as follows:
Location: Eighteen respondents are based in the United States, five in Canada, and two in the United Kingdom. Their geographic scope ranges from a single office to dozens of offices in close to 20 countries.
Status of KM programs: Nineteen respondents (the "Haves") have KM programs in place or under development; six of those programs have been in place over 5 years. Six respondents (the "Have Nots") do not presently have a KM program, but five of these are actively exploring the possibility.
Organization size ranges from a little over 100 lawyers to well over 2,000. Together the survey respondents employ approximately 15,000 lawyers. The survey pool is further broken down for reporting purposes into three size categories: >900 lawyers (5 firms, average size 1572), 400-900 lawyers (7 firms, average size 591), and <400 lawyers (7 Haves, average size 219, and 6 Have Nots, average size 214).
II. Survey Findings
The survey results indicate both significant variation in approaches to KM and some broad patterns. The highlights from the major sections of the report:
Program Scope:
Organizational Units Participating: All practice groups or departments participate in the KM program at 74% of the Haves, and all offices are included at 68%. Differences by size were insignificant. Geographic differences were more marked: Both UK firms include all offices and all practice groups/departments in the program.
Personnel Categories Participating: All 19 of the Haves include partners/senior lawyers and associates/junior lawyers as program participants, but the inclusion of other internal staffs and of client personnel varies:
The UK firms are the most inclusive of client participation and of legal staffs other than the lawyers in their KM programs, and the Canadian firms the least.
The US respondents are the most inclusive of their nonlegal staffs (managers/administrators and other nonlegal staffs).
The frequency of client inclusion increases with size.
Knowledge Content Addressed by the Program: Of 7 subject areas typically addressed by KM programs, "Substantive legal knowledge" is the one most frequently covered by the Haves' programs, followed by "Internal firm knowledge". Least often covered are "Client/industry knowledge" and "Other nonlegal knowledge and skills." Both UK firms' programs, however, cover "Client/industry knowledge." Both the UK firms and the largest (>900 lawyers) firms consistently cover more of the 7 subject areas than the respondents in other geographic and size categories.
Components Included in the Program: Of 13 typical program components, the average Have includes 9.7. The most frequently included components are:
Organized collection of prior work product
Document templates for drafting new work product
Regular in-house education and training
The least frequently included components are:
Formal mentor program
Case/project post-mortems or debriefings
Formal coaching program
However, both UK firms include "Case/project post-mortems" in their programs.
Program Ratings:
Level of User Participation: The majority of the Haves report user participation levels of 50% or lower. There was no marked difference in participation levels by organization size, but there was by geography: UK firms had the highest participation and Canadian firms the lowest, with US firms in the middle.
Program Components That Best Support Critical Competencies: "Work product collections" received the highest overall rating in this category. But both the US firms and the respondents with <400 lawyers gave the top rating to "In-house education and training."
Components That Attract Highest User Participation: Again "Work product collections" received the highest overall rating. They are not, however, highly utilized at the largest firms.
Components With Strongest Top Management Support: Document drafting templates overall and in all size and geographic categories.
Components That Most Need Improvement: " Work product collections" and "Knowledge map/expertise locators."
Most Wanted New Component: "Knowledge map/expertise locators" and "Case post-mortems."
Technology Resources and Their Performance:
Technology Tools Supporting KM Program Components: A huge variety of internally developed and vendor-supplied technology tools is utilized by the respondents. A two-page chart lists them in association with the 13 program components they support and indicates how many respondents mentioned each tool.
Overall Technology Performance: The Haves rated their technology performance on 9 dimensions. The top-rated dimension was 24X7 user access. In general, the dimensions related to user access and technical support were rated the highest, and those related to effectiveness and efficiency of the search process the lowest.
Human and Policy Resources:
Human Assets Dedicated to KM: A chart lists common titles for the KM leadership and staff personnel employed by the Haves, indicates percentages for firm-wide vs. practice-group-based and full-time vs. part-time positions, and identifies the higher-level position each reports to. The Haves supplied 18 additional position titles, all but one used by only one respondent. The most common staffing profile:
A firm-wide, full-time Director of Knowledge Management or Chief Knowledge Officer
A firm-wide, part-time Knowledge Management Committee
An Information Technology Director, Professional Development Director, and Library/Information Services Director, all firm wide and full time
A full-time, firm-wide Knowledge Management Systems Developer
Professional or Practice Support Lawyers are common at the UK and Canadian firms but employed at only one US firm. Asked what strengths they most valued on their current staffs, the Haves predominantly cited attitudinal and "soft skills" qualities over technology skills.
Policy Support: The Haves have made few policy changes in support of their programs. The most frequent change was to their performance appraisal criteria. The only Have which considered its policy changes "Highly effective" was the only respondent to have made changes in three policy areas.
Adequacy of Program Support: Fourteen of the 19 respondents rated the adequacy of their human and other resources as "Less than needed."
Benefits, Challenges, and Most-Wanted Changes
The Haves and Have Nots saw similar benefits to be gained and challenges to be overcome by a KM program. Efficiency, productivity, quality, retention, and lawyer and client satisfaction were all cited as benefits. The most frequently cited challenge was related problems with individual participation and organization culture. The most-wanted change was higher user participation and the implementation of incentives to promote it.