Some good friends of mine sent me a link to an interesting blog post about Competitive Intelligence (CI). The post, written by Eric Garland, is a fascinating interpretation of not only the process of CI but the way CI is received by the decision makers. The author seems frustrated that the intelligence and analysis are not always received openly and without prejudice. In fact, this overlooks the basic truth that every organization and decision maker has its own set of cultural biases that will form their basis of interpretation.
It may be a common occurance for organizations and decision makers to prefer to hear intelligence that only reinforces their beliefs. This is the equivalent of (and just as useful as) a three year-old covering their ears and shouting lalalalalala. But making a decision and then only listening to intelligence that supports it does not translate into success. I must say that I haven’t experienced that in almost 20 years performing CI in both the corporate and law firm environments. Whether the intelligence was bad or good, it was something they knew they needed to hear. I like to think that their heightened instinct to survive outweighed their need to be right.
I feel that good CI just is. It is neither good or bad. Good CI’s purpose is not to stroke egos or present a fantasy world where all is sweetness and light. Its purpose is to obtain and analyze data and then present it in an easily understood format so that decisions are made with context, not in a vacuum. A CI Analyst inteprets that data using only the firm’s goals and culture as well as the unique qualifications of the recipient to paint a picture that says “Here’s where we are, there is where we want to be and these are the challenges we need to account for in our planning.” Doing less by omitting important data or telling them (both organizations and decision makers) what they want to hear reduces the value of CI significantly and will only set up the organization for failure. Organizations thrive or wither based on their willingness to deal with the world as it is rather than how they would prefer it to be. Presenting the real world so that organizations will be prepared to succeed is what CI is all about. How or if it’s used should not affect the Analyst’s work in the least.
Image [cc] Bobby Cromick

[Note: I received this guest post last week, but the writer asked to remain anonymous. Quite frankly, this wasn’t the first time I heard someone voice this opinion, so let us know if you think they are on-point with this post, or if you think Bloomberg Law isn’t just a different flavor of Kool-Aid.]

It seems there is a lot of wonder, awe and excitement over the activities of Bloomberg Law as of late. Their pricing structure, the acquisition of BNA and the quest to ‘replace one of the big two’; all sending the library community into a frenzy. But, I ask why?

First, pricing. So an information vendor comes to you and offers “steep discounting” in exchange for a long term commitment. OK, I can get behind that. However, what is happening is not a fair exchange nor is it anything new or revolutionary. Take a look at the pricing practices of the major online vendors. Is Bloomberg really doing anything different? No.

Next, a number of fellow Library Professionals seemed downright giddy when the BNA purchase was announce. Why? Haven’t most of us cancelled a majority of our BNA publications? What does the purchase of BNA by another publishing behemoth do to improve a product already fading from the interest of our attorneys.

Finally, who really thinks that a year, two years from now any law firm will have to have TWO major online vendors? And, conceivably, that Bloomberg Law will edge out one of the “Heavies” for the long-sought-after 2nd place. Really? Firms can’t afford to dish out triple-digits a month per attorney just to make sure there are two major online vendors available with redundant content.

The associates I work with tell me they just want to be made aware of the resources available and what a client will pay for OR the firm will write off. They don’t care if there are two, three, four sources for primary law. They just want to make sure they can find their print outs from Google Scholar on the network printer.

It’s hard to believe that my first-generation iPad (64 gig, w/3G) is having its second birthday this month. In ways it still feels new, but in many ways I feel like it is a grandpa (as the 3rd Gen family member has already come out.) So after two solid years of using it, I thought about if I still liked it, and if I found it still useful. My immediate answer was “Yes… but….”

Yes, I still use it everyday. Yes, I love it. Yes, I use it for work. Yes, I still find it useful.

But… When I traded in my Android phone for an iPhone last Christmas, I noticed that there were many things that I did from the iPad (email, songs, basic web browsing) that I could just as easily do from my iPhone. All with the convenience of placing the device in my pocket when I was done, rather than lugging it around in my left hand all the time. However, the iPad is still my go-to device for conference and meeting material reading, as well as a few other apps that benefit from the bigger display.

But… the iPad first-gen has suffered somewhat from the iOS upgrades over the (two) years. The latest upgrade has significantly impacted the keyboard response (I’ve checked with a few other iPad first-gen owners and they also seem to suffer from this “feature.” Now, if I were to think that Apple were made up of evil geniuses, I’d think they did this little feature on purpose to try to get first-gen owners to upgrade to the new iPad 3 (codename: Just iPad). However, Apple tends to be really good about fixing features like this, so I’ll wait until the next iOS upgrade to see if they’ve worked it out.

But… no camera? meh… I can grab the iPhone out of my pocket for things like that.

But… slower processor. In today’s world, it’s not about being too rich or too thin… it’s about processing power and storage. Although Apple is stupid when it comes to storage (stupid from the consumer’s point of view at least), the processing power of the third-gen iPad is a significant change and one that might make me want to upgrade.

But… no retina display? Not sure about that. I hear that retina display is great for HD movie watching (which, honestly I don’t do a lot of on my iPad), but that, just like in the porn industry, sometime HD doesn’t do web pages any favors.

But… everyone has a new iPad than me?? This does play on my mind. However, I kind of gave up on the idea just by having an iPad, I was cool and cutting edge the first time I rode up the elevator and saw one of the Partners had one.

But… I only have 3G capability!! The 4G does tempt me. One of the things that keeps me from upgrading is that I was grandfathered in to the “unlimited 3G” term with AT&T. I still haven’t seen a clear answer on whether I could keep that unlimited status if I upgraded to 4G. My guess is that I probably could not keep it.

But… won’t the iPad 4 (AKA “The New New” just iPad) come out next January? Probably. Maybe I should just wait until my first-gen iPad becomes a great-grandpa before I plunk down $900 for the younger, sexier model. I’m leaning toward waiting another year.

What’s your opinion? Should I jettison my old iPad first-gen (or at least give it to my high schooler), and purchase the new iPad??

The developers that were behind the popular online photo editor called Picnik (which was bought by Google and will go under Google+ Creative Kit later this month) have created an alternative (and free) site called PicMonkey. I played around with it and found it to have a lot of features for an online editor. It has many of the basic features you’d find in other sites (cropping, rotating, coloring, resizing, etc.) However, one of the most entertaining features of PicMonkey is the “Touch Up” features that allow you to edit profile photos. A handy feature for those of us that would like to fix a few things on our profile pictures, but don’t want to necessarily have any plastic surgery done to really fix what’s wrong with our profile pictures.

Just to have some fun, I thought I’d test it out on a picture of me from a couple years ago. I went through the options and used the following “Touch Up” features:

  • Blemish Fix (removed a couple of moles)
  • Airbrush (apparently, not just for Playboy models)
  • Wrinkle Reducer (I like to refer to them as “smile lines”)
  • Shine Reducer (I guess my shiny personality leaks)
  • Teeth Whiten (It’s all the rage)
  • Eye Brighten (gotta make those baby blues pop!)
  • Highlights (my wife tells me that “gray” is not a highlight color)
  • Weight Loss (ran this one a couple of times, just to make sure
Other options that I didn’t use are:
  • Spray Tan (Snookie, I am not)
  • Blush Boost (I’m embarrassed enough as it is)
  • Lip Tint (Never much into the whole Glam Rock stage, despite being a @GLAMbert)
  • Mascara (see Lip Tint)
  • Eye Tent (didn’t that go out in the late ’90s??)
  • Clone (tried it, only made me double the bad things)
So, with all these alterations, I have to look different. I’ll let you be the judge (but, please don’t judge me… I’m very sensitive!!) In case you need to ask, the original picture is on the right.

Go try out  PicMonkey for yourself and send me the before and after pictures!! Now, to go change my LinkedIn profile picture… 
Image [cc] matthileo

After a few days of discussing the future of law libraries and law librarianship with members of the AALL Board last week, I came away with an idea of what the future holds for the law library. Many of us, including myself, have preached the ideas of stop thinking of the library as a place and think of it as the services provided, regardless of where that service takes place. While this has had an impact on librarians themselves, the idea of thinking of the library as a service and not as a physical location has been a tough idea for many outside of law librarianship to understand. Then I started thinking of ways we can help those understand that the law library is more than the books, tables and computers found inside the library. It isn’t about the square footage of the law library, but rather it is about the bubbles of services found inside and outside that physical space. The three-foot radius that is the reach of the human arm is a better representation of how we should think about a law library, rather than the linear footage of books found on shelves.

We’ve spent too long trying to hold onto the ideas that people will seek us out, and far too little time pushing out to where are services are best used. Yes, we’ve gathered statistics on how often our catalogs are used, how many reference phone calls we’ve taken, and how many emails we’ve answered, but we have been slow to adopt the idea that many of these services don’t require a specific space for the service to occur. When someone from the library (whether they are librarian, researcher, assistant, techie, etc.) walks around and provides services, the “library” surrounds them. That three-foot radius that encircles them in a six-foot perimeter and 28 square foot area, is now the library. The same holds true for the electronic communications. Email, web pages, newsletters and other forms of information and analysis that comes from those working under the library department, extend the perimeter of the library in temporary, but accessible places such as computers on the desktops, laptops on the beaches, smart phones on the bus, and tablets on airplanes.

Those who use the services of the library have figured this out long ago. No longer do they need to physically go to the library in order to get the information they need. Many of us have found the results of this lack of going to the library has resulted in that “brick-and-mortar” facility shrinking in overall size, and have viewed this as a negative for the profession. I think that it should be viewed more from a positive perspective and that creative librarians, as well as anyone that works in the law library profession, should take this change in structure and start promoting the flexibility and range of services that have resulted in this change from physical library to service library. Perhaps the idea of the Law Library as groups of three-foot radiuses of services should be what we are telling our patrons is the new structure of the law library. (By the way, I looked up the plural of radius, and radii and radiuses are both acceptable.)

Not only are librarians still thinking of the law library as a place, but some are becoming defensive that unless you work in a physical space called a law library, you cannot consider yourself a law librarian. What a silly notion, in my opinion. In a time where we have a wider reach to customers and potential customers through the three-foot radius of library service, why would we want to narrowly define the profession and those that consider themselves a part of the profession? Defining your profession by the physical space you are located, is going to result in failure. Instead, define the profession by the services provided.

We need to be inclusive, not exclusive. We need to expand our ranks by showing those that provide law library services such as competitive intelligence, business development research and analysis, as well as legal research and analysis, that they are a part of the law library community, regardless if they work in a space labeled the “Law Library” or they work in a series of cubicles called a research center, or they are embedded in a practice group. It is not about the space, it is about the service. It is time to expand your thinking about what is a law library – about who can consider themselves a part of the law library – about what the law library includes, and start expanding and marketing the law library in those three-foot radius bubbles of services that we provide.

To steal an idea from our friend Jason Wilson… this is Toby Brown, Greg Lambert* and Scott Preston. We will be at TECHSHOW this week. We may, or may not be in our matching Terminator costumes, however.

*Actually, Greg will be at the AALL Board Meetings during the day, and will find any available Happy Hour gathering at TECHSHOW at night!!

Image [cc] Iain Farrell

The theme of “self-help” has popped up in a number of my conversations lately. I’m talking about work that lawyers used to rely upon others to handle, that they are now handling themselves. Whether it is pulling PACER dockets, case law, Shepardizing, filing court documents, or typing up their own documents, it is apparent that lawyers are taking on more of the workload than they did 10 or 15 years ago. Now, you may think that this is a good thing… and maybe it is. However, as I started thinking about workflow processes and project management, I wondered if just because a lawyer can do certain parts of the work, does that mean that the lawyer should be doing that part of the work?

Some of the basic concepts behind Legal Project Management, and the value of alternative fee arrangements between clients and law firms rely upon work being handled by the appropriate level of expertise. A lawyer can quite easily handle processes like pulling a PACER docket or editing the format of a court brief. In fact, in the billable hour universe, it could be pretty profitable to allow the attorneys to do as much self-help as they can. But, we don’t live in a pre-2008 world any longer. If clients begin requiring firms to use project management concepts in how they handle their work… or, partners start capping the total number of hours that associates can spend on specific client work, then the work needs to be pushed down to the lowest appropriate level. If it is pulling documents, then it should go to paralegals, researchers in the library, or others in the firm. If it is basic editing and formatting of documents, then legal secretaries or administrative assistants should be taking on that work. Again, it’s not because the lawyers can’t do that type of work, it is because they shouldn’t be doing that type of work. 
As big firms pushed secretary to attorney ratios to 4:1 or 6:1, the question has to be asked on what this does to the attorney? Are the adjustments in ratios a reaction to the lack of work available to the admin staff, or does it create a situation where basic work processes are being pushed up? Is work that should be taken on by non-billable admin staff, suddenly being pushed to billable workers such as paralegals or associates? Is this fair for the billable staff? Is it fair for the client? 
I have no illusions that firms will suddenly stop looking at admin to lawyer ratios at their firms. As long as administrative functions are viewed through the lens of “revenue – expenses = profits” then there will always be someone at the firm looking to cut expenses. However, law firms (and I’m coming from a big law firm perspective) have admin staff for a reason. For most of us, the reason is that we do certain pieces of the overall work for the client and firm so that the attorneys can focus on practicing law and bringing the best value to their clients. When the concept of “self-help” means that traditional administrative work suddenly becomes attorney work, then you have to wonder what type of value this really brings to the firm or the clients they serve.

Image [cc] libraryman

I know that others in the library world have talked about Seth Godin’s “Stop Stealing Dreams” book, but I just read over his section on The Future of the Library, and although it reads a bit like Seth is bipolar on some of the issues, there was one paragraph that stood out for me:

Want to watch a movie? Netflix is a better librarian, with a better library, than any library in the country. The Netflix librarian knows about every movie, knows what you’ve seen and what you’re likely to want to see. If the goal is to connect viewers with movies, Netflix wins.

Putting aside the “librarian” part, this made me think of some of the resources we use that could actually benefit from this type of knowing what you’ve done, and what you’re likely to want to do next…

Let’s take something like Westlaw, Lexis and even Bloomberg as an example. Could they adopt a more “Netflix” style of interaction with the user? They keep statistics on what the customer has already looked at; could they start offering additional user services like:

  • You Might Want To Read X article, case, law review, blog, etc., or 
  • Others who have read this, also read these… 
  • Here are the popular new items that others in your firm/office/city/practice are reading

Perhaps WestlawNext or Lexis Advance does this already (anyone that’s using either of them know if they do??)

Of course, this would come up against the old way we use these resources and how it affects recovery. If the Netflix-like services improve the lawyer’s ability to locate relevant resources for his or her research, and they were able to bill back for those resource, then we’d be happy to see them. However, if the Netflix-like services merely improve the lawyers ability to keep up with his or her area of law (practice development) and it caused a drop in recovery, then we’d be screaming to have them take it down.

When I talked with Bob Hopen from Bloomberg this week, he mentioned that the Bloomberg Law platform was supposed to be, not quite a Netflix style site, but more of a Google or Yahoo! News type of site for the user. Although I applauded him for that type of thinking, perhaps that should be the type of model that these types of resources become. I did mention that most of our users that access these services still use them in the old way of “get in, get what you need, get out” style of managing cost by limiting usage. Perhaps a new player, and a new pricing scheme like Bloomberg Law is attempting to do, may break that cycle of usage? I’m not sure. As long as we librarians have to focus on recovering costs from the clients, I don’t think so.

Sorry… I got a little off topic there. Anyway, my initial thoughts on this were that it seems very likely that online services and research tools will go the way of the Netflix like services.

In addition to that, what about our internal services? Could InterAction be tooled in a way to offer Netflix style services? Imagine the ability for a lawyer to look up a person in InterAction and see a picture and some type of bio, and then be given suggestions on “people who connect with Bob also tend to connect with Jane of ABC Corp.”

Or, how about services like a Library Resources Portal where it can pop up a “cover flow” set of “New Resources Available” or give the user suggested resources based on their previous usages (or the usages of others in their Practice Groups.)

Many of these services are what Librarians used to do, but may not do (and may not need to do) anymore because our clients are much more into self-help when it comes to striking out on their own and finding things. Some librarians will see this as eating away at the profession, while the creative librarians will see this as a way to restructure what they do and adapt to this inevitable change and take on the role that Godin suggests by becoming a “producer, concierge, connector, teacher, and impresario.”

Have you ever worked for a manager who never seemed to have a consistent story, need, question, or approach to a situation, fix, problem or goal?  One day you are told to approach a problem in one fashion and the next day you are told to approach the problem in an opposite way. This type of manager can be extremely frustrating to work for and this approach will waste a lot of time and energy as the organization tries to align with a strategy that is neither well thought out or well communicated.  This is what I mean by Etch a Sketch Management!

I remember one such manager.  I used to joke that this manager didn’t just change the rules during the game, but changed games in the middle of the game.  And, to top it off, the manager’s way of dealing with employees who felt as though they didn’t understand what was being asked, was to stop communicating with them, as if that would make the problem go away.  What went away was the employee’s desire to help.  You see, Etch a Sketch management sends a clear message, the leader has no clue what they are doing.  How else can you explain such a reversal in direction?

A great leader needs:

Vision – A leader must have a clear compass on direction and goals (vision), and she needs to share that vision with those individuals charged with accomplishing the vision.  She needs to take the time to make sure all charged with accomplishing a vision understand the vision.  Not just what the vision is, but why it is important to the company.  Visions change from time to time as do priorities and those changes in vision and priority need to be clearly communicated or the message received will be one of lack of vision.

Passion – Without passion, how will a leader make it through the challenging portions of her position?  It is passion that fuels the leader through those challenging times. Passion becomes infectious and employees want it;  they will do amazing work for a passionate leader.

Decisiveness – Leaders need to be able move quickly and be committed to their decisions.  A great leader will seek and value input from those around him, be able to understand and analyze the information and then act upon it with confidence.  If the leader needs to keep going back to his team to further discuss or analyze the decision point, he is communicating a lack of knowledge and understanding.

Team Builder – Without a solid team, even the best laid plans will most likely fail.  It takes a great deal of time to build a cohesive team of people who enjoy working together, help one another, leave their egos at the door and work for the common good.  It takes little time for an Etch a Sketch manager to tear all that down.

Character – This is perhaps the most important of all these traits.  A great leader is selfless to the organization.  She understands the greater good of the organization and operates to better the organization rather than putting herself first.  A great leader also thinks about the well-being of her employees and shows respect to her employees.  If you do not show respect, how do you expect to gain respect?  

Etch a Sketch’s have their place and time.  They are fun tools for creating pictures, but they are not good at saving or sharing designs.  Like an Etch a Sketch, Etch a Sketch managers are not good at preserving or sharing ideas and goals.  They are not good at communicating and they are ineffective at inspiring others to perform at their best.  Don’t be an Etch a Sketch manager.  Engage with your people and enjoy the experience.

Image [cc] SonyaSonya

I had a great conversation with Bob Hopen from Bloomberg Law and Cameron Austin of BNA yesterday, and we talked about a number of things that are going on at Bloomberg/BNA. However, they failed to mention to me that Bloomberg Law was named by AALL the 2012 New Product of the Year. Congratulations!

We poke a lot of fun at legal publishers (although, we pale in comparison to some of the other blogs out there) and, quite frankly, sometimes the vendors make it too easy for us to point out some of the crazy things they are doing either through new products, organizational reorgs, or pricing schemes. However, most of the time we are glad that the vendors are there to help us access information in a consistent and authoritative way that makes it easier for us to research and practice law. Anytime there is more competition, whether from smaller players like Jones McClure or Fastcase, or from big players like Bloomberg Law, the law librarian community usually shows its support… and if the products are good, competitively priced, and easy to use, they usually will succeed in the legal market.

I, for one, am glad to see the competition and I wish Bob and everyone at Bloomberg the best of luck in being competitive, and congrats again on the award from AALL.

Here’s the press release from Bloomberg:

BLOOMBERG LAW NAMED 2012 NEW PRODUCT OF THE YEAR BY THE AALL
The American Association of Law Libraries Award Recognizes Bloomberg Law’s Innovation in Providing Access to Legal Information
New York – The American Association of Law Libraries, the nation’s oldest organization for law librarians, has selected Bloomberg Law to be the recipient of the 2012 New Product Award.  Bloomberg Law is the innovative new legal research system from the world leader in data and information services.
Bloomberg Law has revolutionized the legal research industry by providing a system that integrates comprehensive legal content, company and market information and proprietary news all in one place. Bloomberg Law’s all-inclusive, transparent and predictable pricing means that every user has the same unrestricted, unlimited access to all the content in its databases.  In July 2011, Bloomberg Law launched the latest evolution of its web platform, making the system even faster and easier to use.
“It is an honor for Bloomberg Law to be recognized by the AALL as the best new product of the year,” said Larry Thompson, Bloomberg Law CEO. “The law librarian community is at the heart and soul of what we do. We are committed to continually improving and expanding our product to support their efforts to deliver the best research services and manage costs.”  
Bloomberg Law’s enhanced platform, introduced in July, provides a redesigned interface for even more intuitive navigation, enriched search capabilities for faster information retrieval, new practice centers offering practice specific resources and enhanced collaboration and workflow features that build on Bloomberg Law’s innovative workspace tools.
The AALL New Product Award recognizes new commercial information products that enhance or improve existing law library services or procedures or innovative products which improve access to legal information, the legal research process, or procedures for technical processing of library materials.  The 2012 New Product Award will be formally presented at the Association’s annual meeting in Boston. 
About Bloomberg Law
Bloomberg Law is the real-time legal research system that integrates innovative search technology, comprehensive legal content, company and market information, and proprietary news all in one place. This collaborative workspace also includes a suite of new tools for more effective legal analysis and more productive client development. For more information, visit BloombergLaw.com.
About AALL
The American Association of Law Libraries was founded in 1906 to promote and enhance the value of law libraries to the legal and public communities, to foster the profession of law librarianship, and to provide leadership in the field of legal information. Today, with over 5,000 members, the Association represents law librarians and related professionals who are affiliated with a wide range of institutions: law firms; law schools; corporate legal departments; courts; and local, state and federal government agencies.
About Bloomberg
Bloomberg, the global business and financial information and news leader, gives influential decision makers a critical edge by connecting them to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas. The company’s strength – delivering data, news and analytics through innovative technology, quickly and accurately – is at the core of the Bloomberg Professional service, which provides real time financial information to more than 310,000 subscribers globally. Bloomberg’s enterprise solutions build on the company’s core strength, leveraging technology to allow customers to access, integrate, distribute and manage data and information across organizations more efficiently and effectively. Through Bloomberg Law, Bloomberg Government, Bloomberg New Energy Finance and Bloomberg BNA, the company provides data, news and analytics to decision makers in industries beyond finance. And Bloomberg News, delivered through the Bloomberg Professional service, television, radio, mobile, the Internet and two magazines, Bloomberg Businessweek and Bloomberg Markets,  covers the world with more than 2,300 news and multimedia professionals at 146 bureaus in 72 countries. Headquartered in New York, Bloomberg employs more than 15,000 people in 192 locations around the world.