Reg tech: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|tech|}} | {{a|tech|}} | ||
===Why is reg tech so disappointing?=== | ===Why is reg tech so disappointing?=== | ||
*[[Document assembly]] has been around for a good 15 years — they thought it was | *[[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 they cockroaches are still here, ladies and gentlement, and [[document assembly]] technology still doesn't work very well. | ||
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? | 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? | ||
Revision as of 13:36, 22 May 2019
|
JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.
|
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[1] and — well they cockroaches are still here, ladies and gentlement, and document assembly technology still doesn't work very well.
The tech really isn't that clever in the first place. It is sold by big-talking[2] 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
References
- ↑ See Darrel R Mountain’s OUP monograph on the subject from 2006 “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly”
- ↑ blockchain, chatbots, AI - you know go you are.