Contract analysis: Difference between revisions

Contract analysis (view source)

Revision as of 17:09, 7 October 2020

345 bytes added , 7 October 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,883

edits

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 *'''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?
+Immediately, the [[playbook]] interferes with the free run of our young eagle’s magisterium. Before she can even unfold her wings, the [[contract review tool]] has marked-up the document ''to rule'', faithfully cleaving to each enacted stricture of the [[playbook]], however prudish, [[tiresome]] or nonsensical. It is like Horton the goddamn Elephant, doggedly sitting on a nest up a tree. Now bearing in mind that ''saving her precious [[time is of the essence|time'' is of the essence]], it would be ''most'' counterproductive for our young eaglenow to ''undo'' all those fussy, machine-generated corrections — behold: a cyber version of the [[anal paradox]]. And, in any case, why is de-stupiding the machine’s output an any better use of time than just de-stupiding the original draft 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?
+But it is worse than that: our legal eagle is snookered: her ineffable judgment is, courtesy of this fusspot machine, now quite ''measurable''. The bureaucrats can run MIS reports. They can see what she is doing. They have a yardstick, and it will tell them things like, “''Lauren Eagle departed from the recommended standard agreement term seven times in June 2019''” The [[rule of self preservation]], which overrides an abstract yen of autonomy whatever {{author|Daniel Pink}} might say, discourage deviation from guidelines, ''even though the guidelines are stupid''. But, dilemma! If she ''doesn’t'' intervene, her client is liable to explode into an incandescent rage at her insistence on a two year term when he expected three. In any case, she can expect to be knee deep in negotiation, hastily-convened conference calls and, after a time, some hard-tack reverse-ferret [[client relationship management]] on a point which, had she not bothered with the contract review tool, ''she would never have raised at all''. Look — it ''is'' only a confi, and it will get sorted out, but remember the the original point of the [[contract review tool]] was to ''cut down on work and save costs, not generate more if it''.
 ===There is a role for CRM===
+If you step back and re-contextualise the point of reg-tech, there is a role for automated contract review. If you take out the human backstop
 {{sa}}
 *[[Why is reg tech so disappointing?]]
 *{{br|A World Without Work}}