82,853
edits
Rent-seeking: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
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'']]. | 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, | If your solution really is legaltech: if the work needed to remove your ongoing cost of ten is achieved upon implementation done then, once I have paid for its implementation, why should I pay an ongoing marginal cost per unit? | ||
My problem is solved. There is no longer an ongoing cost of ten. The machine costs nothing to operate. My question is now: what on earth am I paying this ongoing running cost ''for''? {{sa}} | |||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[ClauseHub: theory]] | *[[ClauseHub: theory]] | ||
*[[Reg tech]] | *[[Reg tech]] | ||