View source for Reg tech

{{a|tech|}} Any sufficiently advanced [[technology]] is indistinguishable from magic. 
:::''—{{author|Arthur C. Clarke}}’s Third Law''
===Why is reg tech so disappointing?===
[[Document assembly]] has been around for a good 15 years — they thought it was “Lawyer-killing disruptive technology” in 2006<ref>See Darrel R Mountain’s OUP monograph on the subject from 2006 [https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/15/2/170/683915  “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly”]</ref> and, well, the cockroaches — ''we'' cockroaches — are still here, ladies and gentlemen, and [[document assembly]] technology ''still'' doesn't work very well.

Why? 

[[File:Tipp-Ex.jpg|thumb|left|For your monitor, sir.]]
If advanced technology is magic, then “magic” is in the eye of, and measured from the perspective of, the beholder. When the beholder in question inhabits the [[legal]] or [[compliance]] department the technology doesn’t have to be awfully advanced to seem magical. Especially in a [[proof of concept]]<ref>One could define the [[terms of reference]] of a successful [[POC]] as being extensive enough to show off the clever bits, but limited enough to conceal the rubbish.</ref>.  Your [[sales]]guy airily drops “[[blockchain]]”, “[[chatbot]]”, “[[natural language processing]]”, “[[algorithm]]” and “[[AI]]” into his patter and he will sail through. 

And so he does. 

Aside: If you want to see real AI and really powerful algorithms at work have a look at modern music production software.<ref>The [[AI]] drummer Apple’s [[Logic Pro X]] is ''unbelievable''.</ref>. The tech is genuinely ground-breaking, the user interface is designed to be run without interference by the user; the expectation is ''no [[software as a service|software-as-a-service]]'' ''because the software is so intuitive you don’t need any service''.

*'''Doesn’t disintermediate''': still requires [[external IT]] ([[SAAS]], right?), internal [[IT]], [[Chief Operating Officer|management]], procurement, a process through which whatever value the concept offered will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using the tool is a ''chore''. An imposition.
*'''Doesn’t provide user flexibility''': [[policy]] will see to that. The product will calcify, it is too hard, requiring too many approvals and too many business cases to develop. 
*'''Doesn’t provide out of the box usable content''': to be usable the will require lawyers, and there are generally precious few of those, and they generally are refuseniks and low-cost-location rent-a-seat types who can follow instructions but aren't any good at ''writing'' them. 

What ''none'' of this does is put useful tools in the hands of the user.

*'''Pricing model - AKA don't be a [[rentier]]''': How do I make money off something which is basically a simple idea that doesn’t require a lot of maintenance? The whole point of this tech is it is meant to be labour saving, right? I can’t do it per unit - the whole point is to eliminate the cost of having meatware do manual, repetitive tasks, and — once you have set it up — there is no actual cost to having a machine do it. So trying to act like a [[rentier]] is (a) a dick move and (b) is going to get you killed, because your big idea isn’t that flash, and someone will do it, and undercut you. See {{author|Roger Martin}}’s the {{br|The Design of Business: Why Design is the Next Competitive Advantage}}
{{ref}}