|
|
| (31 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 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?
| |
| | |
| Any sufficiently advanced [[technology]] is indistinguishable from magic.
| |
| :::''—{{author|Arthur C. Clarke}}’s Third Law''
| |
| Where “magic” is in the eye of the beholder, and one measures “sufficiently advanced” relative to the person bewitched. When your beholders inhabit the [[legal]] or [[compliance]] departments - 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>. Just airily drop in expressions like “[[blockchain]]”, “[[chatbot]]”, “[[natural language processing]]”, “[[algorithm]]” and “[[AI]]” and you will sail through.
| |
| | |
| And so you do. Thus it should come as no surprise that [[reg 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?
| |
| | |
| If you want to see real AI and real powerful algorithms at work have a look at a modern [[digital audio workstation]] like Apple’s [[Logic Pro X]]. The tech is genuinely ground-breaking, the user interface is designed to be manned by the user, the expectation is no software-as-a-service ''because the software is so intuitive you don't need it''.
| |
| | |
| *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 req
| |
| | |
| {{ref}}
| |