Key non-performance indicator: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|design|{{image|Escher|jpg|}}}}{{d|Key non-performance indicator|/kiː nɒn-pəˈfɔːməns ˈɪndɪkeɪtə/|n}} | {{a|design|{{image|Escher|jpg|}}}}{{d|Key non-performance indicator|(Also “[[KNPI]]”) /kiː nɒn-pəˈfɔːməns ˈɪndɪkeɪtə/|n}} | ||
To be clear: ''not'' a [[key performance indicator]], but key ''non''-performance indicator. | |||
A virtuous inversion of that measure of articulated fatuity, the [[key performance indicator]]. The “[[KNPI]]” measures the number of [[formal]], pointless, bureaucratic procedures in your firm that serve only to nourish the rotten fiefdoms and layers of administrative sediment that undermine its aspiration of meeting the aspiration of its (equally fatuous) mission statement. | A virtuous inversion of that measure of articulated fatuity, the [[key performance indicator]]. The “[[KNPI]]” measures the number of [[formal]], pointless, bureaucratic procedures in your firm that serve only to nourish the rotten fiefdoms and layers of administrative sediment that undermine its aspiration of meeting the aspiration of its (equally fatuous) mission statement. | ||
There is one '''key | There is one '''key performance indicator''' that no firm in the western, eastern or for that matter southern hemisphere monitors: how many key ''non''-performance indicators do you have. | ||
=== [[Legal value]] === | === [[Legal value]] === | ||
For [[Legal eagle|legal eagles]] — especially [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse ones]], who struggle to show their worth at the best of times, there is a serious point here: how ''do'' you demonstrate your value to the organisation, in a way that the boxwallahs of the executive suite will understand? | For [[Legal eagle|legal eagles]] — especially [[Inhouse counsel|inhouse ones]], who struggle to show their worth at the best of times, there is a serious point here: how ''do'' you demonstrate your value to the organisation, in a way that the boxwallahs of the executive suite will understand? | ||
Orthodoxy recommends [[key performance indicator]] | Orthodoxy recommends [[key performance indicator]]s, but these are for counting processes, not outcomes: materials, actions and widgets. They monitor the size but not the value of incoming and outgoing revenues: simple, formal, [[Legibility|legible]] things that translate directly into the financial statements, but that give little information as to the organisation’s ongoing health. | ||
It is a truth seldom acknowledged: the legal craft does not show up in that picture. At all. | |||
[[Legal value]] | [[Legal value]] resides as much in what you do ''not'' do as what you do. | ||
Clearly the latter: but then: how to you | The classic case: which is more valuable — resolving a client dispute by flawlessly managing six months of industrial-grade litigation, going to court and winning hands down, with costs, on all fronts — or the ten-minute call you put into the client when the incident happens to talk it off the ledge, apologise for the misunderstanding, make salutary amends and preserve the ongoing relationship, therefore avoiding any litigation at all? | ||
Clearly the latter: but then: how to you demonstrate that? With what [[metric]] could you show all the trouble your legal department has ''avoided''? How much value did it destroy (client relationship damage, cost, resources, organisational distraction) by failing to head off the claim, and instead engaging in flawless litigation? | |||
It may sound lofty, but it is true: legal eagles don’t make widgets. ''[[Operations]]'' makes widgets. Any legal process you can fully [[Operationalisation|operationalise]] — [[Document assembly|contract automation]], for example — ''is no longer a legal process''. [[Legal is not part of the operational stack]]. | It may sound lofty, but it is true: legal eagles don’t make widgets. ''[[Operations]]'' makes widgets. Any legal process you can fully [[Operationalisation|operationalise]] — [[Document assembly|contract automation]], for example — ''is no longer a legal process''. [[Legal is not part of the operational stack]]. | ||
Legal handles ''exceptions''. | Legal handles ''exceptions''. To do this it requires judgment, experience and wisdom. How to you quantify wisdom? ''You can’t''. Legal is — okay, okay, ''should be'' — distilled magic. That is why lawyers are expensive. | ||
So here is where the “key non-performance indicator” comes into its own. Since you cannot measure the ineffable wonder a [[legal eagle]] brings to her task, you must instead measure its ''inverse''. Where does her moondust fall | So here is where the “key non-performance indicator” comes into its own. Since you cannot measure the ineffable wonder a [[legal eagle]] brings to her task, you must instead measure its ''inverse''. Where does her moondust fall upon stony ground? When are you flaring off that impish wizardry, rather than harnessing it towards the profitable good order of the firm? What can you do to keep a lawyer’s slate clean: to give her the time and space so she ''can'' work her wristy magic? | ||
Not, it is submitted, by obliging her to complete [[dashboard]]s, [[Gantt chart]]s and monthly [[KPI]] reports. | |||
[[KNPI|KNPIs]] can help here: they can point your [[Legal operations|legal ops]] team to low-value things they should be minimising or getting rid of. All of these will be [[tedious]];<ref>This is an immutable law of the universe, enshrined in the JC’s [[third law of worker entropy]].</ref> many will be processes mandated in the first place by the legal ops team, so do not expect a vigorous programme of KNPI removals to commence any time soon. | [[KNPI|KNPIs]] can help here: they can point your [[Legal operations|legal ops]] team to low-value things they should be minimising or getting rid of. All of these will be [[tedious]];<ref>This is an immutable law of the universe, enshrined in the JC’s [[third law of worker entropy]].</ref> many will be processes mandated in the first place by the legal ops team, so do not expect a vigorous programme of KNPI removals to commence any time soon. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 32: | ||
== The JC’s suggestions for KNPIs == | == The JC’s suggestions for KNPIs == | ||
*Time spent on [[performance appraisal|performance appraisals]] | *Time spent on [[performance appraisal|performance appraisals]] | ||
*Time spent | *Time spent in internal standing meetings. | ||
*Average length and number of participants on conference calls | *Average length and number of participants on conference calls | ||
*Time spent compiling [[management information and statistics]] (including [[KPI]]s) | *Time spent compiling [[management information and statistics]] (including [[KPI]]s) | ||
| Line 34: | Line 38: | ||
*Time spent doing mandatory [[continuing professional development]] (personally directed self-education quite different) | *Time spent doing mandatory [[continuing professional development]] (personally directed self-education quite different) | ||
*Time spent on counsel management, law firm panel management | *Time spent on counsel management, law firm panel management | ||
* | *Time spent seeking approval for and payment of legal bills | ||
*Time spent on [[Netting opinion|netting opinions]] and compliance | *Time spent on [[Netting opinion|netting opinions]] and compliance | ||
* Number of [[KPI]]s by which a given individual is monitored — a sort of ''meta''-KNPI. | * Number of [[KPI]]s by which a given individual is monitored — a sort of ''meta''-KNPI. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 09:23, 4 February 2023
|
The design of organisations and products
|
Key non-performance indicator
(Also “KNPI”) /kiː nɒn-pəˈfɔːməns ˈɪndɪkeɪtə/ (n.)
To be clear: not a key performance indicator, but key non-performance indicator.
A virtuous inversion of that measure of articulated fatuity, the key performance indicator. The “KNPI” measures the number of formal, pointless, bureaucratic procedures in your firm that serve only to nourish the rotten fiefdoms and layers of administrative sediment that undermine its aspiration of meeting the aspiration of its (equally fatuous) mission statement.
There is one key performance indicator that no firm in the western, eastern or for that matter southern hemisphere monitors: how many key non-performance indicators do you have.
Legal value
For legal eagles — especially inhouse ones, who struggle to show their worth at the best of times, there is a serious point here: how do you demonstrate your value to the organisation, in a way that the boxwallahs of the executive suite will understand?
Orthodoxy recommends key performance indicators, but these are for counting processes, not outcomes: materials, actions and widgets. They monitor the size but not the value of incoming and outgoing revenues: simple, formal, legible things that translate directly into the financial statements, but that give little information as to the organisation’s ongoing health.
It is a truth seldom acknowledged: the legal craft does not show up in that picture. At all.
Legal value resides as much in what you do not do as what you do.
The classic case: which is more valuable — resolving a client dispute by flawlessly managing six months of industrial-grade litigation, going to court and winning hands down, with costs, on all fronts — or the ten-minute call you put into the client when the incident happens to talk it off the ledge, apologise for the misunderstanding, make salutary amends and preserve the ongoing relationship, therefore avoiding any litigation at all?
Clearly the latter: but then: how to you demonstrate that? With what metric could you show all the trouble your legal department has avoided? How much value did it destroy (client relationship damage, cost, resources, organisational distraction) by failing to head off the claim, and instead engaging in flawless litigation?
It may sound lofty, but it is true: legal eagles don’t make widgets. Operations makes widgets. Any legal process you can fully operationalise — contract automation, for example — is no longer a legal process. Legal is not part of the operational stack.
Legal handles exceptions. To do this it requires judgment, experience and wisdom. How to you quantify wisdom? You can’t. Legal is — okay, okay, should be — distilled magic. That is why lawyers are expensive.
So here is where the “key non-performance indicator” comes into its own. Since you cannot measure the ineffable wonder a legal eagle brings to her task, you must instead measure its inverse. Where does her moondust fall upon stony ground? When are you flaring off that impish wizardry, rather than harnessing it towards the profitable good order of the firm? What can you do to keep a lawyer’s slate clean: to give her the time and space so she can work her wristy magic?
Not, it is submitted, by obliging her to complete dashboards, Gantt charts and monthly KPI reports.
KNPIs can help here: they can point your legal ops team to low-value things they should be minimising or getting rid of. All of these will be tedious;[1] many will be processes mandated in the first place by the legal ops team, so do not expect a vigorous programme of KNPI removals to commence any time soon.
The JC’s suggestions for KNPIs
- Time spent on performance appraisals
- Time spent in internal standing meetings.
- Average length and number of participants on conference calls
- Time spent compiling management information and statistics (including KPIs)
- Time spent per week on committee meetings
- Time spent doing mandatory continuing professional development (personally directed self-education quite different)
- Time spent on counsel management, law firm panel management
- Time spent seeking approval for and payment of legal bills
- Time spent on netting opinions and compliance
- Number of KPIs by which a given individual is monitored — a sort of meta-KNPI.
See also
References
- ↑ This is an immutable law of the universe, enshrined in the JC’s third law of worker entropy.