|
|
| (37 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{a|tech|}}
| | #redirect[[legaltech]] |
| ===Why is reg tech so disappointing?===
| |
| *[[Document assembly]] has been around for 20 years and it still doesn't work very well.
| |
| :*It's capabilities are limited, it costs a lot (no one has figured out a sensible model) and it is difficult to implement.
| |
| :*Few applications use clause libraries, there is no self - validating logic, few templates or pre-mades units.
| |
| It is specified by [[IT folk]] who don't understand the business (legal) application, sold to (legal) [[user]]s who don't understand the technological benefits — is there any more dispositionally Luddite a professional than a [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]]? — and configured by people (inhouse COOs) who (a) don’t understand (that is, {{risk|fear}} the business application, (b) don’t trust (that is, {{risk|fear}} the legal [[user]]s; and (c) are motivated themselves to retain control of the process.
| |
| | |
| The tech really isn't that clever in the first place. It is sold by big-talking<ref>[[blockchain]], [[chatbots]], [[AI]] - you know go you are. </ref> small-thinking, big-blagging startups who are faking it till they make it. '' If your [[reg tech]] was started by a guy who was an associate at Shearman it isn't going to be much chop''. I mean, is it?
| |
| | |
| Doesn't disintermeditate - still requires external it (SAAS right), internal it, management, procurement, a orocess through which what value the product had will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised to the point where the tool isa chore. An imposition.
| |
| | |
| Doesn't provide user flexibility - policy will see to fast. The product will calcify, it being too hard, requiring to many approvals and too many business cases to develop.
| |
| | |
| Doesn't provide out of the box usable content - fast would require lawyers, and there are generally precious few of those, and they generally are refusniks and low-cost-location rent-a-seat types no 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.
| |
| | |
| Compare with the model of music apps. The tech is genuinely ground breaking, the user interface is designed to be manned by the user, the expectation is no service '' because the software is so intuitive you don't need it ''
| |
| | |
| {{ref}}
| |