Key non-performance indicator: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Key non-performance indicator (view source)

Revision as of 14:17, 22 March 2024

139 bytes added , 22 March

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,762

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{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.
+====On the measure of legal value====
+{{drop|F|or [[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?
-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.
+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.
-=== [[Legal value]] ===
+It is a truth seldom acknowledged: the legal craft does not show up in that picture. At all.
-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]]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.
+Yet there is one [[key performance indicator]] that no business in the western, eastern or for that matter southern hemisphere monitors:
-It is a truth seldom acknowledged: the legal craft does not show up in that picture. At all.
+{{quote|
+How many key ''non''-performance indicators do you have?}}
-[[Legal value]] resides as much in what you do ''not'' do as what you do.
+For [[legal value]] resides as much in what you do ''not'' do as what you do. The classic case:
+{{quote|
+Which is the more “value-added” legal intervention:
+{{L3}}Resolving a client dispute by flawlessly managing six months of industrial-grade litigation, going to court and winning, hands down, with indemnity costs, on all fronts.<li>
+A ten-minute call you put into the client at the time of the incident to apologise for the misunderstanding, sort out some compromise, talk it off the ledge and make salutary amends, thereby avoiding any litigation costs and preserving a valuable ongoing relationship?<ol>}}
-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 do you demonstrate it? With what [[metric]] can you convince the powers that be of the utter shower of the trouble your legal department has ''avoided''?
-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?
+In the alternative, how much value would it have destroyed — client relationship damage, cost, resources, organisational distraction — by failing to head off the claim, and instead engaging in flawless, meticulous 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''. 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.
+Legal handles ''exceptions''. To do this it requires judgment, experience and wisdom. How do 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?