Template:M intro work What will It look like: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Template:M intro work What will It look like (view source)

Revision as of 16:06, 14 July 2023

504 bytes added ,  14 July 2023
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
Another thoughtpiece from yours truly on the prospect of technology overhauling legal processes. Legal processes are, in their essence, ''human'' processes: small slivers of mortal psychology rendered through the medium of words and phrases, but that substrate is not the point: it is the pantomime that matters.
The [[head of documentation]] at a broker I once knew<ref>Names and dates have been changed to protect my reputation.</ref> was offered free internal consulting time, ostensibly, to workshop what kinds of technology could be applied to her operation to enhance and streamline the documentation and onboarding process.
The [[head of documentation]] at a broker I once knew<ref>Names and dates have been changed to protect my reputation.</ref> was offered free internal consulting time, ostensibly, to workshop what kinds of technology could be applied to her operation to enhance and streamline the documentation and onboarding process.


Line 55: Line 53:
Now, plot these three lines on a chart.  
Now, plot these three lines on a chart.  
{{image|Negotiation critical paths|png|}}
{{image|Negotiation critical paths|png|}}
As you can see in each case, there is significant variation. The more requirement for horizontal interaction within the firm to complete the task, the greater the variance — because the negotiator lost effective control of the process. Where the negotiator had to interact with people ''outside'' the firm, she lost total control of the process. Here the variance was greatest. With some clients, the process was resolved in a single round in a couple of days. With others, it could take months or even years. One organisation took four years to conclude a basic stock lending agreement between two of its own European affiliates.
As you can see in each case, there is significant variation. The more requirement for horizontal interaction within the firm to complete the task, the greater the variance — because the negotiator lost effective control of the process. Where the negotiator had to interact with people ''outside'' the firm, she lost total control of the process. Here the variance was greatest. With some clients, the process was resolved in a single round in a couple of days. With others, it could take months or even years. One organisation the JC knows well took ''four years'' to conclude a basic stock lending agreement between two of its own European affiliates.
 
[[File:Critical Path.png|200px||right|Not the problem, yesterday]]
This, in effect a proxy time and motion study, should give us some pretty pig pointers about how to improve this process, and also how ''not'' to. The first thing to leap out is that, whatever is convoluting and holding up the negotiation process, it sure ain’t a lack of document assembly. Even if you reduced the time and effort to zero, you are still taking less than half of one percent of the time in the process.
 
So the process consultant told the docs team leader: whatever you need, you don’t need document assembly. And as far as I know, that was the end of that.
 
The task feels a bit harder, but at the same time the opportunity is greater. We know what causes delay and resource soak: ''lateral communication''.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/76720"

Navigation menu