Know your strategy

How knowledge management and information technology interact, and the questions to ask in order to devise an effective strategy

The Journal, October 2004, page 28

Knowledge management (KM) is a popular buzzword. Books, journals, conferences and training courses all try to persuade us that KM is the new way forward, driven by information technology (IT).

We hope to deflate some of the hype surrounding the concept, but also consider the merit of, and benefits to be gained from, the strategic deployment of a knowledge sharing strategy.

KM is merely a new name for an old concept. We work in a service industry where your knowledge and experience is your best advertisement and the key to continued success. KM aims to harness that to the best advantage of your clients and firm. In the past, this might simply have been called best practice.

Further hype that should be dispelled is that KM can be “solved” by IT. IT is a KM facilitator, not a solution. We believe that IT can play a vital role in the development of KM practices within a firm; but when applying IT to KM there is a need to differentiate between data, information and knowledge.

Knowledge beyond the system

Data are raw facts, words and figures, for example “Jones”. By itself, “Jones” does not really mean anything – or could mean too many things. Given a context and a meaning, these facts become information: Mr Jones is a client of the firm. With the application of thought and experience, this can in turn, become value added information (what we call knowledge): Mr Jones, our client, is a fanatical football follower and would not appreciate a telephone call during a vital World Cup tie.

IT systems have long been used to manage data and information in law firms. However, they will never truly be able to capture knowledge. While attempts can certainly be made to capture the results of applied knowledge (e.g. judgments, work practice, information on interactions with clients etc), knowledge itself has always been the domain of the solicitor. IT systems cannot replace solicitor knowledge or decision making but can act as facilitator between scattered, hidden and uncommon information and the individuals who need to use, understand and apply it.

Before considering the role or the limitations of IT in KM, however, firms must first be convinced of the benefits of implementing a strategy to capture this value added information. The topic could easily merit its own article but a few such benefits might be:

• In an increasingly competitive market, time is money and inefficient working practices are unsustainable.
• Capturing specialist knowledge in documents or a “knowledge base” can only improve the quality of service provided to clients, by bringing the experience and skills of all staff to each transaction.
• An effective knowledge-sharing strategy can boost staff morale and job satisfaction within a firm, as time spent on routine matters or unnecessary duplication can be reduced, leaving more time for value added work or building client relationships.
• Not all is lost if a solicitor leaves the firm. Even though the decision-making processes cannot be captured, the outcomes can. Remaining staff members can learn from what an individual has shared through the KM practices operating within a firm.

Starting with sharing

This last point raises an issue at the very heart of the implementation of any KM strategy. As it will often be up to the individual how much they are willing to share of their expertise, the successful implementation of a KM strategy may depend on the culture of the firm with respect to knowledge sharing.

A combination of cultural and technological initiatives is needed to foster an ethos of communication: sharing experiences (even failures), training and delegation and, most importantly, an environment of trust where staff feel able to share their hard earned experience and skills.

Having decided to implement a KM strategy, a firm must then consider the role of IT in the process. While IT systems are but a facilitator of the strategy, they could develop into one of the more costly elements if the objectives and possible pitfalls are not considered thoroughly from the outset. These are some of the questions that should be raised at the earliest planning stage:

• What do your current systems keep by means of information? Are these being used to their full potential? What is the quality of the data they contain? Dare you include it as a part of your KM strategy as is? What gaps can you identify? What would you like your information systems to keep?
• How much time and support can you, as fee-earning solicitors, realistically be expected to give to the initiative? Remember that KM aims to make your working practices easier and more productive. Will you need to spend a lot of time trying to get your knowledge into a format that can be shared and reused? Will you have a dedicated person to whom you can pass relevant information for checking and processing (e.g. a professional support lawyer)?
• What “mouthpiece” can you use to share the information you intend to collate and keep? Do you have an intranet or do you need a specialist application? Collating knowledge is one thing, sharing it is quite another.
• How big is the firm? Would improved business practices, communications and better use of current systems be sufficient to reap KM rewards? Is your firm so large or dispersed (departmentally or geographically) that you need a way to draw all this qualified information into a central, accessible area? This will also determine the solution you can afford.

Answering the need

This last issue raises the greatest challenge for firms considering implementing KM strategies using IT: tailoring the technology to the need. Perhaps you are with an average-sized firm with all the information you need, only scattered across various bespoke software systems. In such a case, a potential solution might be a data warehouse with a user-friendly, web-based search facility linked to your intranet.

If, however, you are with a very large firm, with information scattered across various platforms and a need to capture additional quality information which will fit in with your future plans, you might opt for a bespoke KM system with its own customisable web-based interface which has an advanced logic search facility.

Alternatively, if you have the in-house IT expertise, your own web solution based on a data warehouse could better serve your needs. It is possible for such an option to incorporate a bought search facility and integrate fully with the rest of your intranet functionality.

If you are a small firm, your KM needs could be met by an average sized database such as Access to act as an additional information store. This could be customised at minimal cost (even integrated with your existing practice management software) and searchable by means of a small application on your desktop.

The decision will be influenced by many factors including IT budget, size, focus of the firm and the desired level of value added knowledge required to retain clients and to win new business.

There are many pitfalls on this KM journey. Identified early, however, these should be avoidable.

• A KM drive should ideally not be initiated by IT. The firm needs to recognise that it has a real and practical need for knowledge sharing, as this way the initiative is far more likely to succeed in the minds of the users.
• Buying a “knowledge management” system off the shelf is not necessarily the solution to your problem and might be a costly exercise. Make sure you understand what is needed – do not buy a JCB to move a molehill.
• It is extremely difficult to calculate a monetary return on investment for a KM strategy. You will be trying to compare the intangible values of information, solicitor time saved (efficiency; effectiveness) and quality of work to the all too tangible costs of systems, software and man hours. However, you must have a clear idea in which areas the project will add value to the firm. KM and IT are not ends in themselves; they are means to facilitate business efficiency and effectiveness.
• Beware of information overload. There needs to be a quality control process for the knowledge that is shared. High quality rather than high quantity is always preferable.
• There is no magic wand to implement KM. This is likely to be a long process, phased in gradually. Any type of information, wherever it might be, will need to be cleaned up, nicely dressed and transported to its new home… and we haven’t even mentioned building that home!

Finally, it must be stressed that there is no “right” way to apply KM. For KM to be successful it must be developed from the culture and working practices within a particular organisation, so even the most tried and tested methods in one firm may not be right for the next.

However, we do believe that, if KM is implemented by utilising the appropriate IT strategy for your firm, whilst focusing on the culture of knowledge sharing, it can introduce best practice and offer a better service to clients with the additional benefit of providing a higher quality and more satisfying working environment for lawyers.