This process is slow. This process is labor intensive. And I love it! Yes, it marks me as a full-fledged coffee
snob. And most other people don’t even like
my coffee, which makes it all the better.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that this ritual is a waste
of time, that I would be much more productive if I threw a couple of scoops of
store ground coffee into an automatic drip maker and set the timer to wake me
up on Saturday morning. And while
intellectually I understand the words you are saying, I can’t imagine ever
giving up my mill and drip filter.
Because it’s not really about the coffee, it’s about the process. The addiction is to the anticipation of the
reward as much as it is to the reward itself.
I bring this up because in IT we often make excuses for
why attorneys are so averse to changing their process. “They’re
stodgy and set in their ways.” “They’re
luddites who would rather do it the long way, than use the more productive
technology.” “They just don’t want to
learn anything new.” There are
undoubtedly attorneys who fit those descriptions, but I wonder if we’ve been
thinking about it the wrong way around. It’s
not that they’re stuck in their habits, it’s that they really like the way they
do things. And I don’t just mean, they’re
comfortable doing it the way they always have, but maybe they actually derive
pleasure from the process of practicing law.
When I waltz in with a great new product that I think will make their life so
much easier, they hear “I’m going to destroy your process” and they react just
as I would if you said, “I’m giving you a brand new single cup coffee machine
for home!” I don’t want a push button
solution for my Saturday morning coffee, but a more efficient hand mill, a
better quality filter, or a high performance kettle might be a welcome addition
to my current process, making me more efficient without destroying the ritual that
I have evolved over years of practice.
Maybe what I’m
suggesting is just a semantically different way of looking at the issue. And maybe all attorneys got their JDs to
please their overbearing mothers, actually loathe the practice of law, and
secretly long to be baristas. But as I’ve
seen one attorney after another reject terrific new products that I feel would
greatly enhance their practice with minimal disruption to their process, I
reflect on my Saturday morning coffee ritual.
What seems a “minimal disruption” to someone who doesn’t fully understand
my process, might be an unconscionable alteration of the ritual to me.
On the other hand, if I
go into a coffee shop and it takes them 25 minutes to get me a cup of coffee, and
they charge me $50 because their process was labor intensive. I don’t care how good the coffee is, I will probably
not return to that store anytime soon.
Just thinking out loud.
6 comments:
We all have issues with change. I don't think you should conclude that lawyers are any more adverse to change than the general population. I’ve heard this complaint for years from legal IT. But it’s their job to embrace technology and see the value in changes. Big and small.
What gets lost is the value proposition to lawyers. Most people, lawyers included, don’t want to go through the hassle of changing unless it’s something they are passionate about. Otherwise the change has to be a significantly better way of doing things.
I’m not just talking 50% better. I’m talking nine times better.
(some academic research for you: http://andrewmcafee.org/2006/09/the_9x_email_problem/ )
Change means having to spend time learning the new technology’s interface, how to use it, and rewiring their physical and mental processes to use the technology. That’s a commitment of time and energy.
The new technology needs to reward that commitment many times over in productivity gain and value to the attorney.
The next time you are rolling out that shiny new tool, make sure you’re presenting that value proposition. A little better is not enough.
I think a reason lawyers are resistant to change - whether introduced by IT or marketing - is because we haven't done a compelling job of communicating at their level. Our passion for the new process or technology falls on deaf ears, not because they are universally change-averse, but because our sales pitch is OUR sales pitch. We've had months to embrace the new idea, we understand its efficiencies, we understand how it streamlines getting from point A to point Z. By the time we introduce the idea to the lawyers, we are so far down the trail that it's hard for us to look in the rear-view mirror at where we started - to remember our own initial questions and resistance.
We are also often selling from our point-of-view, rather than theirs. Using the coffee example, Ryan said a new filter would be welcome, but not a plug-in machine that someone buys from Target.
If we can address the underlying needs the lawyers have in practicing law and managing their client relationships, I'm confident we can introduce efficiencies that they'll embrace. Start from their point-of-view.
I completely agree with both of these comments. Doug is right that Lawyers are not alone in disliking change. Most people rail against change. Many people in IT are struggling with the Consumerization and Cloud Computing, among other current pressing issues. And Deborah is right that the best solution is to put ourselves in their shoes and see our "solutions" from their point of view. Not always easy to do, but necessary. It means that IT needs to have a better understanding of the legal process. (Maybe a future post?)
I highly recommend the Andrew McAfee link that Doug pointed to as well. Very good points.
Thanks for the comments.
Ryan
For most people, change is a really scary concept to grasp. In law, however, it does not necessarily mean that if a lawyer does not embrace change then he or she becomes inefficient in what he or she does. Thanks for providing some perspective in this blog post.
Brilliant. It's a subtle concept but very powerful. We all have rituals, some of which are not perfectly efficient, but have a certain inherent value worth preserving.
This complicates things for those of us designing new processes and systems facing lawyers - but it's a point worth keeping in mind.
Thank you.
I believe you’ve mentioned some quite intriguing points , regards for the post.
Post a Comment