Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions

{{a|tech|

[[File:Guevara.jpg|450px|thumb|center|A guerrilla in a room, yesterday.]]

<br><br>}}The Jolly Contrarian's contrarian advice : {{maxim|to increase efficiency, seek to remove technology from the workplace}}.  

You didn’t expect ''that'' now, did you?

Why do [[reg tech]] solutions promise so much but deliver so little? This is the [[Innovation paradox]]. ''Is'' it a {{tag|paradox}}, though?

Classic example: computers and the law. In 1975, when you wanted to edit a legal {{t|contract}} during the negotiation that would mean retyping the entire page. Hence, legal comments in a [[negotiation]] were necessarily bounded by the effort and time of recreating the document. There was an art to saying something once, clearly and precisely. Since editing was [[waste]]ful exercise, superficial amendment was not, [[for the avoidance of doubt]], the apparently<ref>But not actually. See: ''[[Waste]]''.</ref> costless frippery it is today.

Things weren’t so bad in 1975. There was a natural limit on legal wrangling. The physical cost partly negated the [[anal paradox]].

By 1995 lawyers had computers on their desks, and the traditional refrain<ref>I actually had an office manager say this to me, as a young attorney. True story</ref> "we don't pay lawyers to type, son" was beginning to lose its force.  

Suddenly, it was easy to re-spawn documents, to tweak clauses, shove in [[rider|riders]] — to futz around with words. Generating and sending documents was free and instantaneous. Negotiations quickly became convoluted and elongated. You argued about trifles because you ''could''. It also lowered the bar: certain types of contract, which previously could not justify their own existence, let alone legal negotiation, could now be thrashed out and argued about.  

Far from accelerating negotiations or enhancing productivity, [[technology]] gave us free rein to indulge our yen for pedantry. Are there any fewer lawyers today? No.<ref>There are more than ever: [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-as-number-of-solicitors-tops-140000/5063349.article The number of practising solicitors in England and Wales has reached another all-time high] — ''Law Gazette''.</ref> Are there more deals being done? No.<ref>The number of M&A deals peaked in — you guessed it - [[Global financial crisis|2007]]: [https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/ Number & value of M&A deals worldwide since 2000]  — ''The Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances''.</ref>. Is there more paper? You bet. Now, to be sure, I have no data for this last assertion — where would you get them? — but there is no doubt the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contracts}} ''exploded'' after 1990. The more technology we have thrown at it, the longer and crappier our contracts have become.

Yet, yet yet: many painful artefacts of the analogue era — the gremlins and hair-balls you would expect [[technology]] to remove — persist to this day. We still have [[side letter]]s and [[amendment agreement]]s. We still, solemnly, write: “[[this page is intentionally left blank]]”. We still say “[[this clause is reserved]]”, as if we haven’t noticed [[Microsoft Word]] now has an automatic numbering system<ref>It is a truth universally acknowledged that no [[lawyer]] on God’s earth can competently format a document in Microsoft Word]].</ref>. Not only has [[reg tech|regtech]] ''failed'' to remove legacy complexities, ''it has created entirely new ones.''

[[File:Fractal.jpg|300px|thumb|right|A [[fractal]] yesterday. Can you see the [[lawyer]] descending towards it in his extra-vehicular lander?]]

Why is this? Is it not obvious? It is a function of the [[incentive|incentives]] at play. [[Lawyer]]s and [[negotiator]]s are remunerated by time taken. They are rewarded for the complexity and sophistication of their analysis.  ''Lawyers don’t want to simplify.'' Lawyers don’t ''want'' to truncate. That isn’t in their nature. It is contrary to their nature. ''This is not what lawyers will use technology for.'' Lawyers will use technology to find new complexities. To eliminate further risks. To descend closer to the [[fractal]] shore of [[risk]] that it is their sacred quest to police. But that shore ''is'' [[fractal]]. However close you get, the risks remain.  

Technology has ''brilliantly'' enabled lawyers to showcase the sophistication and complexity of their syntax. In a nutshell: We lawyers use technology to ''indulge'' ourselves.<ref>There is a serious point here for people (like me) who argue that technology implementations should be driven as far as possible by users at the coalface. And that is to bear in mind that the interests of users at the coalface are not necessarily aligned with those of the organisation for which they are working.</ref>

*[[Reg tech]]