82,882
edits
Contract analysis: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
*'''The [[playbook]]''': There is not a negotiation manual nor a [[playbook]] on the planet which stipulates [[walk-away point]]s at an ''actual'', real-life, point at which the organisation will actually walk away. Not a one. It is wrought in the abstract, without the benefit of individual mitiganbts that might accompany any project. It is modelled not on the golden mean, but the lowest common denominator. It will have too many rules, and all will be informed by the [[credit officer’s refrain]]: ''it can’t hurt to ask''. They may even employ that fatuous supposition that some justify by reference to [[behavioural economics]], that ''it leaves us something to concede so that the client can think it has won something''. | *'''The [[playbook]]''': There is not a negotiation manual nor a [[playbook]] on the planet which stipulates [[walk-away point]]s at an ''actual'', real-life, point at which the organisation will actually walk away. Not a one. It is wrought in the abstract, without the benefit of individual mitiganbts that might accompany any project. It is modelled not on the golden mean, but the lowest common denominator. It will have too many rules, and all will be informed by the [[credit officer’s refrain]]: ''it can’t hurt to ask''. They may even employ that fatuous supposition that some justify by reference to [[behavioural economics]], that ''it leaves us something to concede so that the client can think it has won something''. | ||
*'''The negotiation''': it is a great comfort and solace to an inhouse lawyer to be able to make commercial decisions, to concede technical or finicky points, and let ''de minimis'' points go, on the fly. This is what gives the [[legal eagle]] ''wings''. This vouches safe [[Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us - Book Review|her ''autonomy'', her ''mastery'' and her ''purpose'']]. This is why she shows up for work. This is why she slogged through all those interminable lectures about [[promissory estoppel]] all those years ago. There is something ineffable about that knowledge: it is impervious to measurement; it lies in a rich forensic magisterium beyond the censorial gaze of [[internal audit]]. In this sunlit realm, we [[legal eagle]]s can truly fly. | *'''The negotiation''': it is a great comfort and solace to an [[inhouse lawyer]] to be able to make commercial decisions, to concede technical or finicky points, and let ''de minimis'' points go, on the fly. ''This'' is what gives the [[legal eagle]] her ''wings''. This vouches safe [[Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us - Book Review|her ''autonomy'', her ''mastery'' and her ''purpose'']]. ''This'' is why she shows up for work. ''This'' is why she slogged through all those interminable lectures about [[promissory estoppel]] all those years ago. There is something ineffable, even ''infinite'' about that knowledge: it is impervious to measurement; it lies in a rich forensic magisterium beyond the censorial gaze of [[internal audit]]. You cannot ''quantify'' it. In this sunlit realm, we [[legal eagle]]s can truly fly. | ||
But we can see immediately that the playbook interferes with the lawyer’s free run of her magisterium. Before she gets a look in, the [[contract review tool]] will will mark-up ''to rule'', faithfully cleaving to each enacted stricture of the [[playbook]], however prudish, [[tiresome]] or nonsensical it may be. The CRT is like Horton the goddamn Elephant, sitting doggedly on that nest. This is the work product with which our legal eagle will be presented. Now bearing in mind that ''saving her precious [[time is of the essence]]'', it would be ''most'' counterproductive for our trusty counsellor to go through the draft and undo all the fussy, maiden-aunt clarifications the machine had put into it — behold: a cyber version of the [[anal paradox]]. And in any case why is that any better a use of her time than just reading it cold in the first place? Did ''that'' cost get baked into the business case? | |||
But we can see that she is in any case nixed: her ineffable, measurable judgment is. courtesy of this machines pedestrian work, now quite measurable by the bureaucrats. At last, there is a standard by which to measure here. ''Why did you depart from the recommended standard agreement term on seven occasions in June 2019? The [[rule of self preservation]], which overrides any sense of autonomy however much {{author|Daniel Pink}} might wish it were otherwise, will militate here. But, dilemma! If she ''doesn’t'' intervene, her client is liable to explode into a ball of incandescent rage at the insistence on a two year term when he expected three. In any case expect to be knee deep in negotiation, hastily-convened conference calls and hard-tack reverse-ferret [[client relationship management]]. Look — it is only a confi, and you will sort it out, but remember the the original point of the contract review tool was to make this process ''easier'' not harder, right? | |||
===There is a role for CRM=== | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]] | *[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]] | ||
*{{br|A World Without Work}} | *{{br|A World Without Work}} | ||