Sign Here: The Enterprise Guide to Closing Contracts Quickly: Difference between revisions

Sign Here: The Enterprise Guide to Closing Contracts Quickly (view source)

Revision as of 18:07, 21 September 2021

16 bytes removed , 21 September 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,882

edits

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 Much of the cut and thrust of a commercial [[negotiation]] is not at all about the interests and benefits of the [[Ultimate client|principals]], but is an elaborate pantomime performed by their [[agent]]s to justify their own appearance. The fear of [[redundancy]] — in the broad sense of ''not having enough to do'', but in the narrow sense of ''losing one’s job'', too drives much negotiation behaviour. This [[iatrogenic]] peripheral fiddling serves the agent’s immediate need — to look busy — but at a long term cost of drip-feeding complication, confusion and bad engineering into templates, processes and roles.
+Says Hamilton: fixing contracts is hard, requires leadership and requires refocus on stuff you don’t always think about.
+Too much contemporary patter regards fixing contracts as an ''easy'' problem: something ripe for solution by simple technology. But thirty years of legal tech disappointment surely illustrates this is ''profoundly'' mistaken. You would think, by now, [[thought leader|thought leaders]] would have started to glom onto this: ''the magical new technology isn’t working very well''.
-Says Hamilton: fixing contracts is hard, requires leadership and requires refocus on stuff you don’t always think about.
+Instead, the challenge for legal innovators is figuring out how to stop the [[Barnacle|barnacles]] forming. There is little wonder cheap technology can’t do this. It doesn’t even try. If you overlay it on bad process, [[legal tech]] makes the process worse.
-Too much of our breathless contemporary patter regards fixing contracts as an ''easy'' problem: something ripe for solution by simple technology. This, thbiurty years of legal tech disappointment surely illustrates, is ''profoundly'' mistaken. You would think, by now, [[thought leader|thought leaders]] would have started to glom onto this: ''the magical new technology isn’t working very well''. Like [[Commercial imperative|relationships]].
+The problem runs deep. Ask those who build and manage legal process: “''do you think there is a problem''?” and “if so, ''what'' do you think is the problem?”
-The challenge for innovators is getting a handle on how to stop the [[Barnacle|barnacles]] forming, and not inadvertently making the process worse, as much [[legal tech]] does. The problem runs deep; no-one has managed it so far. Ask tyhose who build and manage legal process: “''do you think there is a problem''?” and “if so, ''what'' do you think is the problem?”
+Many are so siloed by their own organisations and contrained by their own mandates that they literally ''cannot see the problem at all''. If your remit is “manage credit risk at all costs” then the cost/benefit of the tools you bring to bear is not your problem.
-Many are so siloed by their own organisations and terms of reference that there may not be a problem locally, even when there is globally. Thus, if your remit is “manage credit risk at all costs” then the cost/benefit of the tools you bring to bear is not your problem.
 ===Contracts and [[Scale|scalability]]===