There is no shortage of technology projects on the agenda at just about every law firm, and you can't do them all, especially at the same time (although there are likely some in your firm who think that you can). How do you decide which projects to undertake and their priorities? There are as many different ways to do this as there are law firms. Some of the most common and typically not very effective ways include:

•  The projects that are selected are the favorites of the most influential attorneys.
• The most “interesting” technology projects get the highest priority, whether or not they have a "business" purpose for the firm.
• The projects that are necessary to overcome a substantial problem are always on the top of the list. This reactive approach, where we are always "fighting fires", typically results in less than desirable results.

What all of these approaches have in common is that they typically are not based on a proactive, planned approach or a strategic plan that has been carefully developed. Most of us who have been the technology leaders in law firms have had this experience.

What is the most effective approach to selecting projects and determining their priorities? There is more than one good answer. In the remainder of this article we will look at one simple but effective approach. This may not be the best approach for every firm, but it is simple and it does work. This approach has been used by firms to help address the issue of project selection and setting priorities.

Like the world around us, project selection can be thought of as being three dimensional. The three dimensions to project selection are:

1.         How the project would impact the firm 

2.         The breadth of the impact of the project on the firm 

3.         The resource requirements for the project, including cost, staffing needs, time requirements and complexity

The first dimension is how the project impacts the firm. In general, there are four possible areas of impact of any technology project in a law firm:

A client service impact. Most projects have some level of a client service relationship, some more than others. For example, implementing a litigation support system has a direct client service impact. Other examples include an extranet capability that would have a direct impact on client service delivery.

An impact on firm profitability. Some projects will have more than others. An example of a project with the potential for a large impact on profitability is the implementation of a new IP Docketing and Management system in an IP firm that will enable the firm to deliver services more efficiently and thus improve firm profitability.

A firm management impact, such as a new financial management system in a firm. There is usually little direct impact on client service with this type of project; there may be an impact on firm profitability.

An operational efficiency impact, such as a project to upgrade a WAN in a firm to enable faster and more reliable data communications between offices in a firm. Other examples would include the upgrade of desktop hardware, desktop O/S or core applications such as an MS Office upgrade.

In general, the more client service impact or positive impact on firm profitability a project has, the higher priority it should have. This is a broad generality, but in the current technology environment and economy, firms are more frequently asking what is the benefit to client service delivery and/or firm profitability for a proposed project.

As to the breadth of the impact, in general, a project that benefits the entire firm will be more important and should have a higher priority than one that affects only one attorney or one client. There are exceptions to this rule that must be considered, but in general there should be a higher priority assigned to projects that have a broader impact on the firm. Clearly, if a major client of the firm can only be retained by implementing a new system, this would carry much weight. This one client type of scenario is not all that common but must be considered. As such, in working through the process of selecting projects, consider the scope of the impact of a possible project.

The third dimension, the resource requirements of the project, dictates that if everything else is equal, lower cost, less resource-intensive projects (the "low hanging fruit") should receive a higher priority than more complex costly projects. There should be some weight given to the easier, less costly, less intensive projects.

It is quite easy to apply this approach. List every project on a spreadsheet.

There should be three columns for each project representing the three dimensions described above. Assign a score to each project for each dimension; you can use a 1-5 scale. The higher the total score the higher the priority for the project. While assigning the scores is somewhat subjective, this approach gives organization to the otherwise totally subjective and, to some extent, random approach to project selection seen in many firms. Simple yet effective.

As with any process of selecting projects or setting priorities, you do need to be prepared to have serious discussions with others in your firm regarding the process and the results. If you communicate the methodology as well as why this approach can work, and if you are prepared to defend the results, it does work well.

About our author . . .

Bob Dolinsky is a Senior Consultant with eSentio Technologies.  Bob has assisted numerous law firms in planning and managing major technology projects.  Bob can be reached at bob@esentio.com.