IT strategy: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Ground up IT strategy
Ground up IT strategy
 
==What do you want to achieve?==
In the language of management consultants, what is your key objective. The guy in the hardware store doesn't want a black and decker power drill (or a chat-bot, or AI) - he wants ''a hole in the wall''. (Theodore Levitt)
==What is technology?==
==What is technology?==
It's not just about computers
It's not just about computers

Revision as of 13:52, 1 February 2017

Ground up IT strategy

What do you want to achieve?

In the language of management consultants, what is your key objective. The guy in the hardware store doesn't want a black and decker power drill (or a chat-bot, or AI) - he wants a hole in the wall. (Theodore Levitt)

What is technology?

It's not just about computers

  • The primarily technology we deal with is legal technology. We need to simplify that before we can simplify the computer tech.
  • The first step to simplifying legal technology is to simplify the source code on which legal technology is compiled: Language
    • Plain English isn't a fad or an optional extra. It's a fundamental design principle. It's easier and cheaper to code for plain English.

Constraints

Resources

There is a marked lack of financial and HR resources to implement new systems:

  • To buy new IT (Bottom line expense)
  • To package/maintain/install IT (Technology resource)
  • To configure new IT for UBS (Technology resource)
  • To configure for use by legal (Legal/Technology resource)
  • To train users (internal Legal/Technology resource) - do not underestimate the importance and difficult of this

NB: users who are legally and technically literate are rare.

Institutional Problems

The Meatware

  • User intransigence
    • technological: don’t understand/like new technology; significant change fatigue
    • Technical: Our skill is creating and articulating bespoke solutions, not commoditising standard ones.
    • Lawyers don’t write well. Legal drafting is convoluted, over-particularised and prone to negotiation and error
  • User knowledge is imperfect
    • Individuals who don’t understand policies are incentivised to apply them literally (being institutionally short an option - see below)
    • Institutional Knowledge: Generally is good (UBS turnover is comparatively low) but we leak institutional knowledge and it is not tracked and captured.
  • Institutional knowledge is poor
    • We don’t track our decisions - no MI kept on litigation close shaves; which issues come up and which don’t.
  • Legal department’s institutional position: Being a control function, Legal is “short an option”
    • We are not rewarded for approving successful business;
    • We are criticised for approving business which encounters any legal issues.
      • Important to differentiate legal and commercial issues and allocate ownership correctly. (e.g.: indemnities are, ultimately, commercial and not legal issues)

The firmware

  • Bad static data (inaccurate; unreliable)
  • Bad legal standards (overcomplicated; commercially unrealistic; out of date)
  • Bad templates (too many; overcomplicated; inconsistent; out of date)
  • Bad taxonomies

Opportunities

  • Data we don’t use: All historical departmental email: - a rich source of indexable institutional knowledge - this resource should not be restricted to use in conducting.
  • Underused/misunderstood existing tools -
    • Sharepoint
    • Microsoft Word/Excel
    • Workshare
  • Opportunities to enhance/improve existing tools
    • TADH
  • Easy implementation to enhance interaction and connectivity
    • “Business Data Catalogs” to interrogate external databases from within Sharepoint
    • Application Interfaces (“API”s)
  • Open source solutions - There is a lot of good, free software available (e.g. MEdiawiki)
  • You have to spend to save: Some technology is worth investing in.

There are benefits to doing things differently

We are in a new world, and we should upgrade our practices to take account of it: e.g. Electronic execution,

  • collects audited information about the time and date of execution
  • documente assembly naturally stores documentation and collects key metadata about the variable content of the agreements

Challenge

  • First: clean up: it is much easier to automate a simple structure than a complicated one. Simple structures are more scalable, less prone to error.
  • Small projects: See above. Be unambitious. Small, unglamorous projects save resources incrementally and buy time for projects.
    • e.g., Confidentiality Agreements
  • Co-ordinate: each project should be managed separately, but users should be encouraged to share technology, and build on each other’s work - centr