|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 24: |
Line 24: |
|
| |
|
| ===[[Legaltech]] as a rent-extraction machine=== | | ===[[Legaltech]] as a rent-extraction machine=== |
| We talk about this elsewhere, but herein is the fundamental ''problem'' with [[legaltech]]. [[Legaltech]] addresses inefficiencies which manifest themselves as negative annuities: ongoing costs and resource drains for quotidian tasks with minimal value. It is, therefore, predicated on the [[vendor]] earning not just a profit, ''but an annuity''. The thought process is this: if customers have an ongoing cost of ''ten'', they will be prepared to pay me an ongoing cost of ''two'' to remove it. Mathematically, unimpeachable logic. | | We talk about this elsewhere, but herein is the fundamental ''problem'' with [[legaltech]]. {{legaltech as rent-seeking}} |
| | |
| But there is a paradox here: If your [[legaltech]] solution costs you something like two: that is, it continues to require costs and resources such that two represents a fair margin on work you continue to do, then ''this is not legaltech but something else.'' It may well be deft process-reengineering coupled with [[outsourcing]]<ref>[[Outsourcing]] has its own hidden costs and shortcomings, of course.</ref> — but that is ''not'' [[legaltech]]. That is [[Management consultant|''management consultancy'']].
| |
| | |
| If your solution really is legaltech: if the work needed to remove your ongoing cost of ten is achieved upon implementation done, there is no-longer an ongoing cost of ten. My question is now: what on earth am I paying this one for? .
| |
| | |
| If the legaltech solution does not consume ongoing resources and costs, then once I have paid for its implementation, why should I pay an ongoing marginal cost per unit? The machine is solving my problem for nothing: the ongoing cost its vendor seeks is pure rent extraction.
| |
| | |
|
| |
|
| {{sa}} | | {{sa}} |