Playbook: Difference between revisions

Playbook (view source)

Revision as of 12:53, 16 January 2023

585 bytes added , 16 January 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 67: / Line 67: @@
 ===Remove false floors===
-If you know you will settle at ''at least'' ''Z'', then don’t start X. Your role is to get to [[Consensus ad idem|agreement]] as fast as possible. There are no prizes for effort spent in hand-to-hand combat at points ''X'', ''Y'' and ''Z'', if you don’t agree until ''Q''. Identify walk away points and ''start'' with them.
+If you know you will settle at ''at least'' ''Z'', then ''don’t start at X''.
+Assuming the goal is to transact, your role is to get to [[Consensus ad idem|“yes”]] as fast as possible. That’s it.
+There are no prizes for style, difficulty or technique in hand-to-hand combat at points ''X'', ''Y'' and ''Z'' if you don’t agree until ''Q''. Identify walk away points and ''start'' with them.
 “But the client needs to feel like it has ''won'' something”.
-You will hear this a lot, as a self-serving justification for deliberately starting at a place clients won’t like, but there’s little data on it, nor much other reason to believe it is true.
+You will hear this a lot. It is a self-serving justification for deliberately starting at a place clients won’t like because it keeps people in a job. Invite anyone saying this to give concrete examples where this worked as a strategy, where going straight to the final position would not have. Why deliberately aggravate your clients, adopting an unreasonable position, just to [[performative]]ly climb down from it at the first objection? How does ''that'' create a better impression than presenting a clear, coherent and fair document in the first place?
-With external advisors there is certainly a pressure to be seen to be doing something — but they tend to be on fixed fees and can equally well market themselves as having already reviewed the standard form and being signed off.
+External advisors do like to be seen to achieve something — it helps justify their costs — but only to an extent. They tend these days to be on fixed fees, and will quickly tire of grandstanding on points they know you will not move on. If they think you will move, on the other hand, they will happily grandstand. Who doesn’t like a bit of pantomime when you get to win it! Therefore, standing ground is a good tactic. It sends a clear message.
-Why deliberately aggravate your clients just to climb down [[performative]]ly  at the first objection? How does ''that'' create a better impression (off-market, disorganised, weak) than presenting a clear, coherent and fair document in the first place?
 ===Legaltech as enabler of sloppy thinking===
-And here is where the great promise to [[Legaltech|LegalTech]] stumbles. It offers the capacity to do clerical jobs faster. It opens the door to infinite variability, optionality, within your standard forms. Tech can now accommodate any complications in your standard forms that you can be bothered dreaming up.
+Here is a direct quote from a [[legaltech start-up conference|LegalTech start-up conference]] pitch:
 {{Quote|“We love automation. We love automating complex things. Our app can handle anything with its structured questions: it can add new clauses, new schedules. The complexity is mind-bending.”}}
-This — a direct quote from a [[legaltech start-up conference]] pitch — gets the proposition exactly backward. Embrace complication not because you can, but because ''you have no other choice''. When you are [[Design|designing]] [[user experience]] for a standardised process you absolutely ''do'' have another choice.{{sa}}
+Here is where [[Legaltech|LegalTech]]’s great promise confounds us. Legaltech can accommodate any complication we can be bothered to dream up, as if that is a good thing. It offers the capacity ''to do tedious jobs faster''. It allows more variability, optionality and complication within your standard forms.
+But this gets the imperative exactly backward.  ''You do not want '''more''' complication in your standard forms. You want '''less'''. You want your contracts to all to be the same.''
+Embrace complication not because you can, but because ''you have no other choice''. When you are [[Design|designing]] [[user experience]] for a standardised process you absolutely ''do'' have another choice. {{sa}}
 *[[Process]]
 *[[Tedium]]