Reg tech: Difference between revisions

Reg tech (view source)

Revision as of 11:23, 22 May 2019

312 bytes added , 22 May 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|tech|}}
 ===Why is reg tech so disappointing?===
+*[[Document assembly]] has been around for 20 years and it still doesn't work very well.
+:*It's capabilities are limited, it costs a lot (no one has figured out a sensible model) and it is difficult to implement.
-- document assembly has been around for 20 years and it still doesn't work very well. It's capabilities are limited, it costs a lot (no one has figured out a sensible model) and it is really difficult to implement. Few applications use clause libraries, there is no self - validating kogic, few templates and premades. Basically it is rubbish. Specced by tech people who don't understand the application, sold to users who don't understand the technological benefits, and configured by people who want to retain control.
+:*Few applications use clause libraries, there is no self - validating logic, few templates or pre-mades units.
+It is specified by [[IT folk]] who don't understand the business (legal) application, sold to (legal) [[user]]s who don't understand the technological benefits — is there any more dispositionally Luddite a professional than a [[Mediocre lawyer|lawyer]]? — and configured by people (inhouse COOs) who (a) don’t understand (that is, {{risk|fear}} the business application, (b) don’t trust (that is, {{risk|fear}} the legal [[user]]s; and (c) are motivated themselves to retain control of the process.
 The 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?