Please enjoy this blog post co-authored by Sachin Gupta, Practice Innovation Attorney, Paul Weiss Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and Virginia Ong, Legal Innovation Manager, Greenberg Traurig.
Every firm structures its knowledge management and innovation (KM&I) departments differently. The degree of variation in their methods can range from minor to major across different organizations. KM&I departments need to ensure that their KM and innovation teams collaborate closely, not only with each other but also with other departments such as research and technology. There is an inherent tension in structuring departments as combining roles such as KM and innovation can facilitate collaboration within those groups but may also impede collaboration with other essential groups, such as technology. These decisions will largely be guided by your firm’s size, market strategy, KM&I innovation strategy, and culture. Below we examine the strength and weaknesses of different approaches to structuring a KM&I department.
Knowledge Management
At its core, KM is about managing information — capturing it, structuring it, and leveraging it to benefit of the firm. Few areas have been more impacted by technological advancements which have revolutionized how we store, retrieve, and analyze information. While KM solutions are not always technology-centric, whether technology can assist with KM challenges always needs to be considered. Consequently, there are natural synergies between KM professionals focused on traditional KM tasks and innovation professionals focused on technological solutions.
Recognizing this, many firms combine their KM and innovation functions into the same department, and in some cases, into the same role. The latter can provide the advantage of matching the KM needs with solutions in the current LegalTech landscape. However, the demands on a KM attorney can be significant, particularly for large firms. For medium to large law firms, separating the roles can be prudent, as tasking a KM attorney to remain abreast of rapidly evolving technological developments can quickly become overwhelming.
Another consideration when designing a KM program is whether KM attorneys should report to a KM manager or directly to the practice group leads. Valued for their deep practice experience and knowledge, KM attorneys work closely with practice groups. Reporting directly to senior practice group leads, can foster stronger relationships, easier communication, and ensure KM attorneys are closely aligned with the specific needs and strategies of their practice groups. However, reporting KM to a KM manager can promote standardization and cohesion in KM strategies across the firm. This approach can be valuable when configuring and deploying firmwide systems such as precedent databases or experience management systems. Knowledge sharing among KM attorneys can also pay dividends as KM attorneys often face common challenges despite differences in practices. Many firms adopt a hybrid approach, embedding KM attorneys within practice groups but having them report to a common KM manager, ultimately accomplishing both relationship building and consistency.
Another consideration in structuring KM is the firm culture. Some firms may strive for consistency and uniformity across practice groups and office locations, allowing for more demand for KM due to greater applicability. However, other firms, especially those with many locations, jurisdictions, and practice areas, may wish to provide more autonomy to their lawyers allowing them to develop their “gold standard” documents at a more local level. Each culture attracts a different type of attorney, and is a key consideration for whether, and how far, to implement KM strategies. While there is always a place for KM, the approach will vary due to all of these considerations.
Innovation
With the increasing role technology plays in KM, it may seem like a no brainer to place innovation professionals alongside KM professionals. However, implementing solutions, whether built or bought, requires close collaboration with other departments as well, mainly technology. Security assessments, infrastructure considerations, and support services are all critical to rolling out a technology solution and all fall well within the scope of most technology departments.
To some extent, interdepartmental collaboration is a challenge any large organization faces. As innovation departments barely existed in the US legal market a decade ago, they are still very much finding their place within law firms. The increasing focus firms are placing on innovation, particularly in recent years with the hyperfocus on generative AI technologies, has accelerated this process. Much of what was exclusively handled by technology departments, such as strategic planning, adoption, and change management, is now also under the scope of innovation.
Nothing can bring a firm’s innovation strategy to a grinding halt faster than significant barriers between innovation and technology. One approach is placing innovation under technology, which can provide the substantial benefit of allowing the relationship between these two departments to evolve organically without resorting to formal approaches such as joint task forces or dotted line reporting structures. This approach, of course, will come at the cost of simplifying collaboration between KM and innovation. Notably, not all innovation is technology centric. For example, process improvement innovation can lead to significant gains in efficiency and quality of work product.
Innovation departments that are independent or placed in a vertical outside of technology may have greater flexibility to work with KM and practice groups more directly. Another potential advantage of separating Innovation departments from Technology is that it allows Innovation to independently advocate for necessary access, such as admin rights, without being subordinate to technology, thereby reducing the risk of operational roadblocks. To determine which path to take, firms should assess the extent to which technology influences their innovation strategy and identify where interdepartmental collaboration presents the greatest challenges, taking into account the culture of the firm.
Collaboration is Key
There is no golden standard for how to structure KM and innovation departments within law firms, as each provides its benefits and challenges. Assessing a firm’s KM strategy, innovation strategy, collaboration culture, and the role technology plays in the firm’s broader strategy informs how these departments should be structured. Regardless of the structure chosen, collaboration across departments remains critical among KM, innovation, technology, as well as other departments such as business development and practice management. Firm leadership should determine where structure needs to be put in place to facilitate this collaboration and where it can be left to organic drivers.
#PracticeManagementandPracticeSupport
#KnowledgeManagement
#100Level
#Innovation
#Firm