Template:Legaltech as rent-seeking: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page with "Legaltech addresses inefficiencies which manifest themselves as negative annuities: ongoing costs and resource drains for quotidian tasks with minimal value. It is, theref...")
 
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Legaltech]] addresses inefficiencies which manifest themselves as negative annuities: ongoing costs and resource drains for quotidian tasks with minimal value. It is, therefore, predicated on the [[vendor]] earning not just a profit, ''but an annuity''. The thought process is this: if customers have an ongoing cost of ''ten'', they will be prepared to pay me an ongoing cost of ''two'' to remove it. Mathematically, unimpeachable logic.
[[Legaltech]] addresses inefficiencies which manifest themselves as negative annuities: ongoing costs and resource drains for quotidian tasks with minimal value. Its business model is therefore predicated on the [[vendor]] earning not just a fee, ''but an annuity''. The rationale is this:  


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 customers have an ongoing cost of ''ten'', they will be prepared to pay me an ongoing cost of ''two'' to remove it.  


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?
Mathematically, unimpeachable logic.


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''?
But there is a [[paradox]] here: If your [[legaltech]] solution itself generates ongoing labour, soaking up costs and resources to keep working, such that that two represents an honest margin on that ongoing work, then ''itis not legaltech but something else.'' This is more like process-reengineering coupled with [[outsourcing]].<ref>[[Outsourcing]] has its own hidden costs and shortcomings, of course.</ref> That is ''not'' [[legaltech]]. That is [[Management consultant|''management consultancy'']].  
 
If your solution really ''is'' [[legaltech]]: if everything needed to remove the customer’s ongoing cost of ten is done upon implementation then, once the customer has paid for it, why should it pay any more to operate the machine? Why should there be an ongoing marginal cost per unit?
 
Here there is no longer an ongoing cost of ten: the customer’s problem is solved. The machine costs nothing<ref>As good as nothing. Electricity, processing power. But the customer does not need to rent these from you.</ref>. The customer’s question is now: what on earth am I paying this ongoing running cost ''for''?

Latest revision as of 11:44, 12 October 2022

Legaltech addresses inefficiencies which manifest themselves as negative annuities: ongoing costs and resource drains for quotidian tasks with minimal value. Its business model is therefore predicated on the vendor earning not just a fee, but an annuity. The rationale is this:

If customers have an ongoing cost of ten, they will be prepared to pay me an ongoing cost of two to remove it.

Mathematically, unimpeachable logic.

But there is a paradox here: If your legaltech solution itself generates ongoing labour, soaking up costs and resources to keep working, such that that two represents an honest margin on that ongoing work, then itis not legaltech but something else. This is more like process-reengineering coupled with outsourcing.[1] That is not legaltech. That is management consultancy.

If your solution really is legaltech: if everything needed to remove the customer’s ongoing cost of ten is done upon implementation then, once the customer has paid for it, why should it pay any more to operate the machine? Why should there be an ongoing marginal cost per unit?

Here there is no longer an ongoing cost of ten: the customer’s problem is solved. The machine costs nothing[2]. The customer’s question is now: what on earth am I paying this ongoing running cost for?

  1. ↑ Outsourcing has its own hidden costs and shortcomings, of course.
  2. ↑ As good as nothing. Electricity, processing power. But the customer does not need to rent these from you.
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Template:Legaltech_as_rent-seeking&oldid=68207"