82,891
edits
Legaltech landscape: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|gsv|}}With a hat-tip to Radiant Law’s {{author|Alex Hamilton}} for this categorisation of the contract process in his excellent book {{br|Sign Here}}, here is a ''functional'' breakdown of the contract process mapped against the | {{a|gsv|}}With a hat-tip to Radiant Law’s {{author|Alex Hamilton}} for this categorisation of the contract process in his excellent book {{br|Sign Here}}, here is a ''functional'' breakdown of the contract process as Alex describes it, mapped against the contract tech landscape, as we find it. | ||
As Alex points out, any of these functions can be captured by more than one application — which is itself a commercial problem for [[ | As Alex points out, any of these functions can be captured by more than one application — which is itself a commercial problem for [[legaltechbro]]s, because no-one likes to pay eye-watering [[rent]] annuities for products which are partly duplicative. | ||
By way of prediction as to what will fly, what won’t, and what will lumber along the ground like a rhinoceros flapping its miniature gossamer wings and wondering why she cannot get airborne, the JC has added commentary along the lines of ''[[cui bono]]'': who benefits? Management or | By way of prediction as to what will fly, what won’t, and what will lumber along the ground like a rhinoceros flapping its miniature gossamer wings and wondering why she cannot get airborne, the [[JC]] has added commentary along the lines of ''[[cui bono]]'': who benefits? Management or [[Eagle squad|Eagle Squad]]? — how hard is each to implement, how readily will a [[legal eagle]] take to it, if it is implemented, and to what extent does its careless implementation ''aggravate'' problems the installation was meant to solve? | ||
There is an argument that the trick the | [[Legaltech startup conference|There is an argument]] that the trick the [[legaltechbro]]s are presently missing is ''consolidation'': there are (''literally''; trust me) hundreds of startup variations with differing combinations of template management, [[document assembly]], [[document automation]], [[contract review]], [[contract approval]] and [[digital execution]] — you would expect this, as they are contiguous steps on the same commercial process — and all of them leave something to be desired. The entrepreneur that can rally these vendors together and consolidate them into a coherent single product — along the way crushing the precious aspirations of so many entrepreneurial plodders who dared to dream — might have a proposition on its hands. Especially one who builds it on an open-source platform. Like that will ever happen. | ||
The colossal collision of interests that needs to be resolved in order to deliver true front-to-back processing brings to mind {{author|Stuart Kauffman}}’s concept of the “[[adjacent possible]]” — being possible worlds that are accessible ''directly'' by opening one of the doors presently available to you — a remark on the path-dependency of any evolutionary change. From most organisations, integrated front-to-back processing as a concept is not ''remotely'' adjacent to where they are now, dealing with a hodge-podge of locally implemented databases, applications, systems, processes, workflows, hacks and work-arounds — ranging from fully weaponised SAP or Tableau implementations to spreadsheets with jury-rigged macros stored on the C: drive, each developed by different teams and individuals, without thought for the wider process, to suit local and probably [[the temporary tends to become permanent|temporary]] needs, with a view to putting something better in place [[when budget allows]]. | The colossal collision of interests that needs to be resolved in order to deliver true front-to-back processing brings to mind {{author|Stuart Kauffman}}’s concept of the “[[adjacent possible]]” — being possible worlds that are accessible ''directly'' by opening one of the doors presently available to you — a remark on the path-dependency of any evolutionary change. From most organisations, integrated front-to-back processing as a concept is not ''remotely'' adjacent to where they are now, dealing with a hodge-podge of locally implemented databases, applications, systems, processes, workflows, hacks and work-arounds — ranging from fully weaponised SAP or Tableau implementations to spreadsheets with jury-rigged macros stored on the C: drive, each developed by different teams and individuals, without thought for the wider process, to suit local and probably [[the temporary tends to become permanent|temporary]] needs, with a view to putting something better in place [[when budget allows]]. | ||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
*[[The temporary tends to become permanent]] | *[[The temporary tends to become permanent]] | ||
*[[When budget allows]] | *[[When budget allows]] | ||
*[[Why is | *[[Why is legal tech so disappointing?]] | ||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} | ||