Nick Milton is one of my favorite bloggers on the issue of Knowledge Management because he is able to succinctly lay out KM  procedures and processes in a way that even those who have been in KM for years can learn. I’ve complained about KM becoming a group that merely supports “products” and “software” more than preserving the firm’s memory, expertise and knowledge. Luckily, Nick lays out some of the specifics that those who guard the memory of the organization must remember is their responsibility:

Nick states that in KM terms, some of the specific responsibilities of the process owner are as follows:

• Coordinating, and agreeing with management, corporate standards for their specific process
• Liaising with the leader or coordinator of any community of practice which covers the process
• Announcing and rolling out new lessons, and updated process documentation
• Monitoring the development of knowledge within their specific area of expertise
• Monitoring the organizational performance in the application of the process
• Ensuring that new lessons are collected and shared from significant pieces of work
• Developing and publicising process guidance documents relating to their specific process

• Monitoring use of any relevant documentation, and acting on feedback to improve this
• Ensuring that guidance documentation is made available to all users

• Updating guidance documents, Best Practices and standards for the process as required
• Promoting peer assists and personal connections between the projects to share tacit knowledge of the process

(NOTE: I rearranged the list a little… and modified a couple of the ‘verbs’ to make for an anagram of “clammed me up!’)

The key take away that I find with this list is that KM is not only about making sure that the software involved in the process works… but that there is a triangle relationship in the process between the process owner (KM), the process service (software), and the user of the process (end-user). Nick nails it when he stresses that the owner of the process plays a key role in triangle relationship. “With no process owner, the processes fall out of date, and no longer become a reliable memory store. You end up with a sort of Corporate Alzheimers, where big holes develop in [the] long term memory of the company. We can’t afford that to happen.”

Jason Wilson over at rethinc.k is discussing the evolving world of computer interactions and the reduction of the need for a mouse-driven device and the inevitable use of touch technology. Even the old codger Joe Hodnicki buckled to the touch screen fad when he traded in his Blackberry for a Palm Pre (apparently because he became addicted to the “bubbles” game that came with the Pre.) Whenever I take my children to Fry’s electronics store, the first thing they run to is the HP Touchsmart PC so they can play a game of chess by using their fingers. Even I’ve been using touch screen interfaces more and more (iPad and Android phone). But let’s face it… how comfortable are you to use someone else’s touch screen device after seeing the oily fingerprints that blur the screen??

Now, imagine that the public terminals in your library are all touch screens…. (I’ll give you a minute to stop shuddering at that thought.)

I’ve bought a matte screen protector for my iPad and that has cut down on the ‘disgusting factor’ of the touch screen fingerprints. I have to tell you though, it was extremely difficult to get it to go on straight, and to have it not pick up every little piece of dust or lint that happened to be floating in the air. I actually gave up and took it off for a week because I couldn’t get it to go on without dust getting on the underside and causing nice little bubbles on the screen… no, Joe, not the game-type bubbles… that I had to take the drastic measures of washing the screen with soap in order to get the dust off, then apply it to the screen again. This time I only have a few bubbles on the screen… and I can live with that. Now, imagine having to put one of these protectors on a 23 inch widescreen monitor… (hint, if you do have to put one of these on, make sure that there are no patrons or children under the age of 18 around because you’re language will be R-rated.)

The touch screen era of computers is upon us… make sure you leave room beside the computer for a bottle of Purell hand sanitizer and some pop-up Windex computer screen cleaner!!

I’m probably not going to be popular with my LAW.GOV friends with this post because I’m going to play the role of Devil’s Advocate and make the argument that they leave PACER alone… at least for now. My primary reason for leaving it alone is the fact that it may be one of the best government run resources available… from any branch of government. Secondly, like it or not, it is a revenue generating resource for the federal court system. I know… I know… you’re saying that it is a “public resource” and US citizens shouldn’t have to pay for access to information that is built upon the data submitted to the courts, by those citizens. However, there are a lot of things related to the courts that we pay for — court fees, jury fees, court copy fees, etc — this is just one more, and one that most people I’ve talked to say is the most reasonable fee that the court charges.

Perhaps in a perfect world the taxes we pay would fully support the court systems, and the need for filing fees and an .08¢ per page charge for PACER wouldn’t be necessary. But the last time I checked, the courts were still underfunded and there’s been no push from Congress to increase budgets or salaries. According to Steve Schultze’s working paper, PACER fees are covering court expenses that are not related to direct costs of maintaining PACER.

By 2009, the list of programs supported by PACER fees was further expanded, and expenditures on the non‐PACER items increased. “In fiscal year 2009, the Judiciary plans to use $106.8 million in EPA collections and prior‐year carryforward to fund public access initiatives including the following:

  • Public Access Services and Applications $17.7 million;
  • Telecommunications $8.7 million;
  • EPA Equipment $1.3 million;
  • CM/ECF Development, Operations and Maintenance $33.4 million;
  • Courtroom Technology Allotments for Maintenance/Technology Refreshment $25.8 million;
  • Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing $9.7 million;
  • CM/ECF Allotments to Courts $7.5 million;
  • CM/ECF state feasibility study $1.4 million;
  • Violent Crime Control Act Notification $1.0 million; and
  • Jury Management System Public Web Page $0.2 million.
    (hat-tip to Joe Hodnicki at LLB)

Schultze has a good idea for providing bulk access to court data for free, but argues that there is no statutory reason for the fees that are generated from PACER be used in non-PACER projects, such as upgrading technology in the courthouses and courtrooms of federal courts. Perhaps these charges should have never have been tied to PACER fees… but that ship has sailed. If the PACER fees go away, do you think that anyone in Congress has the backbone to bring a bill up to fund these services? My guess is “no”. So, what do you do with these expenses? Cut them? Drop them? Up the other fees associated with filing cases in federal courts? Create a new fee that charges attorneys that practice in federal courts to make up the difference? It is an issue that is tied to the free PACER argument, and it needs to be explained right along side of the benefits of open access to Federal Dockets.

Now if you’re thinking that I’m anti-free PACER, you’d be wrong. I was part of the Oklahoma Court project that created the Oklahoma Court Information System (OCIS) that created free access to a number of Court Docket systems throughout Oklahoma (although, my piece was maintaining the OSCN database). But even the idea of creating a free access system ran into some of the same issues that have to be addressed with PACER. Legacy systems, related fee structures, and other issues created a number of stumbling blocks (logistical and political).

We all like “Free”, but we also like a stable, adequately funded court system as well. I don’t mind if PACER becomes a free resource as long as there is a stable means of replacing the revenue that will be lost to the courts. Perhaps the courts should have never become addicted to the revenue generated by PACER… and  perhaps they should have never have started funding non-PACER activities with that revenue… but that’s where we are with PACER, and those issues have to be addressed and answered before we can make PACER a free resource.


While I was at the movies waiting for Toy Story 3 to start (yes, it was awesome), I saw an ad for a children’s eReader, the iXL, which will be released by Fisher Price this July.

It was so cool I just have to tell you about it.

It was in full color, read out loud to you, let you highlight words so that they can be defined and generally just acted like an augmented reality book that I had dreamed up a few months ago on this very blog.

I love it when that happens.

The sweetest part of all? Its only $80. Too bad its just for kids books.

Just found this neat little Twitter tool: http://www.blastfollow.com/

If you have hosted or attended an event that you enjoyed and want to instantly follow the participants, just enter the hash tag (#) created for the event and hit Get Users.

Once that list has appeared, you will be able to automatically add these people to your Twitter “Following” account by entering your user ID and password.

This a great way to keep in touch with folks after an event and continue to market to them.

There seems to be universal acceptance that the business model of law firms is broken or needs to be broken (depending on your point of view). But not much has been said about the service model. True – Legal Project Management (LPM) is touted as an effective tool for bringing efficiency and effectiveness to law firms, but from what I have seen LPM is focused on the current model for providing services.
Two conversations following my post on Re-thinking Expenses lead to me a new line of thinking. My comment about “re-tooling and modifying the production process” for automakers was the genesis for this. Many conversations about law firms in the past have included the observation that a lawyer from 1980 could be dropped into today’s firm and function fairly well. They would need to learn email and on-line legal research, but the other basic functions are the same.
Imagine an auto worker in the same scenario. Now you see my point.
Law firms also need to re-think the service model. LPM will help law firms be more efficient, doing things the same basic way. LPM can squeeze out a better margin from the existing service model, but it will not be disruptive and change the approach.
As I see it LPM is critical and necessary in the short-run. But the long-run will need to see some disruptive technologies and new service models. Doing things the same way, only better, will work for a while. But the real game-changers will come when new service models emerge.

It seems that Thomson Reuters isn’t just sending legal jobs overseas, there’s a new website called “Reuters EXPOSED” that is discussing TR’s move of journalist jobs overseas, and the folks at the New York Newspaper guild aren’t happy about it. In addition, they point that TR’s CEO, Tom Glocer, is trying to cut existing pay by 10% while he made a cool $36 million in 2008.

Here’s a couple of the Union members dressed up as Glocer and divisional CEO Devin Wenig, wearing rat suits and explaining how TR took tax breaks from New York to “spruce up several of its office locations.”

I’ve seen a couple of articles on VaporStream’s “Electronic Conversation Software”. The idea is that you can send communications that look a lot like e-mail, but the communication is temporary, exists in the cloud, and resides in your computers RAM (temporary memory). Once the communication is over, it disappears and cannot be recovered, even through e-discovery methods. The product is pitched as a great resource for reducing e-mail server storage, reduce the cost of potential e-discovery litigation, and satisfy the two tenants of HIPPA requirements. I took a quick look at it this morning and found that it is more of an Instant Messaging (IM) replacement than an e-mail replacement, but that it looks to have some good uses.

When I first read about this in itWorldCanda, and then again in ECM Connection, the articles were structured in a way that made me think that this was something that could potentially replace e-mail. I started dreaming of a situation where all those crappy vendor emails that I get ALL DAY LONG, could vanish automatically after I read/skimmed/ignore them. However, I quickly learned that you could only send or receive communicate with others that are also on the VaporStream software. So, my visions of a magic vendor communications fell to the wayside.

So here’s the reader’s digest version of how the product works:

  1. Sign-up for VaporStream’s service (free 60-day trial… $7.50/mth after that).
  2. Get everyone that you want to have confidential, temporary communications with to also sign up.
  3. Use VaporStream’s web or app interface to send and receive communications from other VaporStream users.
  4. The messages are sent and read via SSL (secure) through VaporStream’s interface, and reside in your computers temporary memory (RAM).
  5. When done, the message disappears and cannot be recovered.
VaporStream attempts to electronically recreate a “verbal conversation” using IM or e-mail structure. The only way to “save” the communication would be to take a screenshot of the message, but even that doesn’t get all of the communication because the header and messages are sent separately (thus, you’d have to take two snapshots, and tie them together.) There could be a great advantage to having something like this set up between members of your department or firm, but again, it is more of a compliment to current tools like e-mail or IM, and not necessarily a replacement for either. 
I could see a product like VaporStream being used on internal communications where you want to let others know certain things, but don’t necessarily want to clutter up everyone’s e-mail in-box, or have the issues that surround communicating via IM (if you’re even allowed to do such a thing.) Perhaps there are certain clients that would like a product like this to communicate on sensitive matters that you don’t want to leave any type of communication trail… I’ll let you think about the ethical “slippery slope” that something like that might bring.
VaporStream is definitely worth a look, and should be brought up as a potential secure communications resource that could be used in the right situation.

In response to Mark Medice’s post – Yes, it is past time for law firms to re-think expenses. There have been a lot of discussions about firm’s cutting expenses. And an equal or greater number of discussions on being more efficient (even here on 3 Geeks). What is needed is a re-thinking that merges these two concepts in a thoughtful way.
Using my traditional car analogy – cutting the costs of the landscaping service around the car assembly plant and reducing travel by admin staff will certainly improve the bottom line for Ford. However, that approach does not address the real question of lowering the cost of producing the cars. This challenge requires re-tooling and modifying the production process. It also requires conversations with suppliers about the costs for their component parts of the car (think Westlaw).
Law firms (for the most part) have not dove in on these types of discussions. The way I challenge lawyers on this topic is by asking how they can lower the cost of providing a specific legal service (e.g. a patent prosecution). What would they do differently in order to delver the same or better product at 60% of the current price?
This question changes the nature of the “re-think expenses” question. It’s not about the attorney-to-secretary ratio or the leverage between non-partners and partners. Instead the conversation should focus on doing things differently. This method brings a sharp focus on choice of technologies, number and type of personnel and on how the service is actually performed (think legal project management, ala Hassett, Levy and others).
At the core, law firms are experiencing a shift from a ‘cost plus‘ business model to the ‘profit margin’ model referenced in Mark’s post. The law firm business structure still reflects a ‘cost plus’ world. So I give a resounding YES to the idea of re-thinking expenses.
‘Cost plus’ behavior in a ‘profit margin’ world equals failure.

I bet a lot of you either have Comcast, DirectTV or U-Verse. Me? None of the above. All I’ve got is a laptop, an HDMI cable and flat-screen plasma TV. I can stream my Netflix or my Hulu account from my laptop onto my TV. Or watch a DVD. Or I can surf the web on my big screen. Or I can slideshow my favorite art while I play my iTunes during a party. Just one example how I use technology to save money.