Reg tech: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{a|tech|}}  
{{a|tech|}} Any sufficiently advanced [[technology]] is indistinguishable from magic.
:::''—{{author|Arthur C. Clarke}}’s Third Law''
===Why is reg tech so disappointing?===
===Why is reg tech so disappointing?===
[[Document assembly]] has been around for a good 15 years — they thought it was “Lawyer-killing disruptive technology” in 2006<ref>See Darrel R Mountain’s OUP monograph on the subject from 2006 [https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/15/2/170/683915  “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly”]</ref> and, well, the cockroaches — ''we'' cockroaches — are still here, ladies and gentlemen, and [[document assembly]] technology ''still'' doesn't work very well.
[[Document assembly]] has been around for a good 15 years — they thought it was “Lawyer-killing disruptive technology” in 2006<ref>See Darrel R Mountain’s OUP monograph on the subject from 2006 [https://academic.oup.com/ijlit/article-abstract/15/2/170/683915  “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly”]</ref> and, well, the cockroaches — ''we'' cockroaches — are still here, ladies and gentlemen, and [[document assembly]] technology ''still'' doesn't work very well.
Line 5: Line 6:
Why?  
Why?  


Any sufficiently advanced [[technology]] is indistinguishable from magic.
[[File:Tipp-Ex.jpg|thumb|left|For your monitor, sir.]]
:::''—{{author|Arthur C. Clarke}}’s Third Law''
If advanced technology is magic, then “magic” is in the eye of, and measured from the perspective of, the beholder. When the beholder in question inhabits the [[legal]] or [[compliance]] department the technology doesn’t have to be awfully advanced to seem magical. Especially in a [[proof of concept]]<ref>One could define the [[terms of reference]] of a successful [[POC]] as being extensive enough to show off the clever bits, but limited enough to conceal the rubbish.</ref>.  Your [[sales]]guy airily drops “[[blockchain]]”, “[[chatbot]]”, “[[natural language processing]]”, “[[algorithm]]” and “[[AI]]” into his patter and he will sail through.  
Where “magic” is in the eye of the beholder, and one measures “sufficiently advanced” relative to the person bewitched. When your beholders inhabit the [[legal]] or [[compliance]] departments - the technology doesn’t have to be awfully advanced to seem magical. Especially in a [[proof of concept]]<ref>One could define the [[terms of reference]] of a successful [[POC]] as being extensive enough to show off the clever bits, but limited enough to conceal the rubbish.</ref>.  Just airily drop in expressions like “[[blockchain]]”, “[[chatbot]]”, “[[natural language processing]]”, “[[algorithm]]” and “[[AI]]” and you will sail through.  
 
And so you do. Thus it should come as no surprise that [[reg tech]] really isn't that clever in the first place. It is sold by big-talking<ref>[[blockchain]], [[chatbots]], [[AI]] - you know go you are. </ref> small-thinking, big-blagging startups who are faking it till they make it. '' If your [[reg tech]] was started by a guy who was an associate at Shearman it isn't going to be much chop''. I mean, is it?


If you want to see real AI and real powerful algorithms at work have a look at a modern [[digital audio workstation]] like Apple’s [[Logic Pro X]]. The tech is genuinely ground-breaking, the user interface is designed to be manned by the user, the expectation is no software-as-a-service ''because the software is so intuitive you don't need it''.
And so he does.  


*Doesn’t disintermediate: still requires [[external IT]] ([[SAAS]], right?), internal [[IT]], [[Chief Operating Officer|management]], procurement, a process through which whatever value the concept offered will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using the tool is a ''chore''. An imposition.
Aside: If you want to see real AI and really powerful algorithms at work have a look at modern music production software.<ref>The [[AI]] drummer Apple’s [[Logic Pro X]] is ''unbelievable''.</ref>. The tech is genuinely ground-breaking, the user interface is designed to be run without interference by the user; the expectation is ''no [[software as a service|software-as-a-service]]'' ''because the software is so intuitive you don’t need any service''.
*Doesn’t provide user flexibility: [[policy]] will see to that. The product will calcify, it is too hard, requiring too many approvals and too many business cases to develop.
*Doesn’t provide out of the box usable content: to be usable the will require lawyers, and there are generally precious few of those, and they generally are refuseniks and low-cost-location rent-a-seat types who can follow instructions but aren't any good at ''writing'' them.  


What none of this does is put useful tools in the hands of the user.
*'''Doesn’t disintermediate''': still requires [[external IT]] ([[SAAS]], right?), internal [[IT]], [[Chief Operating Officer|management]], procurement, a process through which whatever value the concept offered will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using the tool is a ''chore''. An imposition.
*'''Doesn’t provide user flexibility''': [[policy]] will see to that. The product will calcify, it is too hard, requiring too many approvals and too many business cases to develop.
*'''Doesn’t provide out of the box usable content''': to be usable the will require lawyers, and there are generally precious few of those, and they generally are refuseniks and low-cost-location rent-a-seat types who can follow instructions but aren't any good at ''writing'' them.  


*Pricing model req
What ''none'' of this does is put useful tools in the hands of the user.


*'''Pricing model - AKA don't be a [[rentier]]''': How do I make money off something which is basically a simple idea that doesn’t require a lot of maintenance? The whole point of this tech is it is meant to be labour saving, right? I can’t do it per unit - the whole point is to eliminate the cost of having meatware do manual, repetitive tasks, and — once you have set it up — there is no actual cost to having a machine do it. So trying to act like a [[rentier]] is (a) a dick move and (b) is going to get you killed, because your big idea isn’t that flash, and someone will do it, and undercut you. See {{author|Roger Martin}}’s the {{br|The Design of Business: Why Design is the Next Competitive Advantage}}
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Revision as of 19:11, 17 June 2019

The JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter. 

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
—Arthur C. Clarke’s Third Law

Why is reg tech so disappointing?

Document assembly has been around for a good 15 years — they thought it was “Lawyer-killing disruptive technology” in 2006[1] and, well, the cockroaches — we cockroaches — are still here, ladies and gentlemen, and document assembly technology still doesn't work very well.

Why?

For your monitor, sir.

If advanced technology is magic, then “magic” is in the eye of, and measured from the perspective of, the beholder. When the beholder in question inhabits the legal or compliance department the technology doesn’t have to be awfully advanced to seem magical. Especially in a proof of concept[2]. Your salesguy airily drops “blockchain”, “chatbot”, “natural language processing”, “algorithm” and “AI” into his patter and he will sail through.

And so he does.

Aside: If you want to see real AI and really powerful algorithms at work have a look at modern music production software.[3]. The tech is genuinely ground-breaking, the user interface is designed to be run without interference by the user; the expectation is no software-as-a-service because the software is so intuitive you don’t need any service.

  • Doesn’t disintermediate: still requires external IT (SAAS, right?), internal IT, management, procurement, a process through which whatever value the concept offered will be bloated, deprecated, rigidised and commoditised to the point where using the tool is a chore. An imposition.
  • Doesn’t provide user flexibility: policy will see to that. The product will calcify, it is too hard, requiring too many approvals and too many business cases to develop.
  • Doesn’t provide out of the box usable content: to be usable the will require lawyers, and there are generally precious few of those, and they generally are refuseniks and low-cost-location rent-a-seat types who can follow instructions but aren't any good at writing them.

What none of this does is put useful tools in the hands of the user.

  • Pricing model - AKA don't be a rentier: How do I make money off something which is basically a simple idea that doesn’t require a lot of maintenance? The whole point of this tech is it is meant to be labour saving, right? I can’t do it per unit - the whole point is to eliminate the cost of having meatware do manual, repetitive tasks, and — once you have set it up — there is no actual cost to having a machine do it. So trying to act like a rentier is (a) a dick move and (b) is going to get you killed, because your big idea isn’t that flash, and someone will do it, and undercut you. See Roger Martin’s the The Design of Business: Why Design is the Next Competitive Advantage

References

  1. ↑ See Darrel R Mountain’s OUP monograph on the subject from 2006 “Disrupting Conventional Law Firm Business Models using Document Assembly”
  2. ↑ One could define the terms of reference of a successful POC as being extensive enough to show off the clever bits, but limited enough to conceal the rubbish.
  3. ↑ The AI drummer Apple’s Logic Pro X is unbelievable.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Reg_tech&oldid=30937"