denotes premium content | Dec 4 2008 Feature
posted 10 Apr 2007 in Volume 1 Issue 4
Achieving buy-in for knowledge management
A masterclass highlighting some do's and don'ts for achieving buy-in for knowledge management at all levels of the firm. By Martin Schulz, Freshfields, and Marcel Klugmann, Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft
After developing a KM strategy – defining knowledge goals to be achieved and aligning them with your overall business strategy – it remains a crucial task to achieve a long-term commitment for this strategy at all levels of the firm. Four core aspects may be identified in order to achieve a buy-in to the KM strategy. These are outlined within this masterclass.
Win top management and practice-group leadership support
1. Winning over the managing partner
This may sound paradoxical since buy-in is something that cannot be achieved by a mere ‘top-down’ management approach, but requires commitment from every member of the law firm. As we will explain, a top-down approach needs to be supplemented by ‘bottom-up’ support. On the other hand, most of the obstacles which arise in the process of implementing a KM strategy into a practical KM project can only be overcome if strong support and role modelling from senior management is assured. The benefits of a managing partner strongly advocating the knowledge strategy should not be underestimated. Thus, winning over the managing partner in the first place, not only as a sponsor for KM projects, but as a role model for knowledge- sharing initiatives, will definitely leave the rest of the firm’s personnel with the impression that KM is highly anchored within the ‘executive suite’.
It seems advisable, however, to let the managing partner repeat the core message of KM (to leverage the firm’s intellectual capital, improve lawyers’ efficiency, and so on) on a continuing basis – for example, as part of the annual report. This is particularly relevant when the first euphoria for KM has died. Knowledge managers should therefore regularly provide the managing partner with appropriate information regarding KM projects. In particular, the knowledge manager should always seek to increase top-management support – for example, by ensuring that KM success stories make their way up through the ranks to management – thereby furthering the knowledge manager’s reputation and giving the managing partner the feeling that his commitment and role modelling is bringing profit to the firm, ideally activating a ‘circle of support’.
2. Persuading practice-group leaders
Another important group of top decision makers whose support is invaluable are practice group or department leaders. Persuading the heads of the corporate, finance or labour-law divisions of the firm to appoint dedicated ‘KM sponsors’ (for example, for certain subgroups or specific legal topics) within their respective group will, on the one hand, ease the weight of responsibilities resting on the firm’s management. On the other hand, such diversification of KM responsibilities will also take some of the burden off the knowledge manager’s shoulders, thus leading to a fair allocation of KM duties.
3. Rank your knowledge managers high
Last but not least, it seems advisable (not only on a symbolic level) to rank your knowledge managers high in the organisation. Remember, hierarchy still matters. In our experience, the higher the firm is willing to position the role of the knowledge manager, the more initial credit that particular person will be given – bear in mind, of course, that such credit may be lost during the implementation process or, vice versa, a low-positioned knowledge manager may nevertheless succeed by virtue of his or her excellent skills and personality.
4. Keep reporting short and simple
How can top management or practice-group support be gambled away or never be achieved? First of all, complex reporting structures, including intermediate-hierarchy levels, impair the penetrating power top-management support can have – the knowledge manager definitely needs direct access to the managing partner. However, whatever you do, don’t offend the boss by making unrealistic promises or asking for a high budget at the start of your project. Furthermore, reporting specifications which are too tight – for example, daily e-mails reporting on the progress – will result in too much bureaucracy and diminished creativity of the respective knowledge manager.
Secure sustained staff commitment
1. Involve law firm staff in KM projects early on
We regard staff commitment to the KM strategy that is not simply a flash in the pan, but long-running and sustainable, as the key message within buy-in. There are critical factors which contribute to such long-term sustainment. As a general rule, it is highly advisable to involve the future users of any KM product – a know-how database, an internal legal newsletter, and so on – in the conception, design and roll-out of such tools right from the start, instead of presenting ready-for-use solutions and expecting the intended beneficiaries to then use them. On the other hand, the effort of getting everyone onboard can result in attempting to get buy-in from people who are in no way affected by the project. So, in the long run, ‘schmoozing’ non-stakeholders will only delay a project. An exception should be made, however, for partners who are known to be sceptical about management initiatives in general and/or specifically about KM. Such ‘snipers’ should be brought onboard at a very early stage to prevent them from torpedoing the project. Apart from this exception, any KM projected should be discussed, analysed and tested with a dedicated group of KM stakeholders, consisting of knowledge managers as well as partners, associates and other staff.
2. Implement incentives for fee-earner support
Clearly one of the major drivers for sustained commitment to the KM strategy is the installation of processes aimed at helping to evaluate the time spent by fee earners sharing knowledge. It helps to avoid describing KM work as ‘going the extra mile’ without a reward. Incentives should be offered, especially in those firms where contributions to KM are largely made by fee earners (in contrast to those where professional support lawyers (PSLs) perform much of the ‘donkey work’ – for example, collecting and analysing precedents, drafting standard forms and memoranda, and so on. Nevertheless, even in large firms with PSLs, the creation of incentives for knowledge sharing is always a good idea. Regardless of the number and quality of PSLs, fee-earner input and feedback will always be essential for any KM system.
Not surprisingly, there are numerous suggestions on how to create the right incentives for knowledge sharing. We consider the usual economic incentives, in particular monetary awards, to be too focused on a short-term perspective. In contrast, the prospect of career progression and, first and foremost, the stimulation of an intrinsic motivation to contribute to KM seem to be more promising. However, such motivation can only be achieved by excellent performance on the part of the KM team and by continuously demonstrating the benefits and usefulness of KM.
Spread the KM message ubiquitously
1. Regularly demonstrate the benefits of KM
Demonstrating the benefits of KM for the firm as a whole, as well as for each individual lawyer, is the most powerful tool to spread the message embodied by your strategy. In fact, a knowledge manager should seek any opportunity to present new KM products, such as new standard forms or precedents, briefings on current legislation or court decisions. It may come across as somewhat evangelical, but, in holding, for example, lunch-time speeches, or speaking at firm-wide conferences and weekend seminars, the knowledge manager has the unique chance of being noticed as an ‘information broker’, who helps his colleagues with anecdotes (storytelling) of how successful KM helped lawyers perform better. In contrast, an entrenched KM team, which stays in the back office and subsequently disconnects from the needs of current legal practice, will obviously fail to spread the message and will lose acceptance. On the other hand, if the KM team is visible and accessible, KM will lose its esoteric air and gradually become part of the firms’ day-to-day practice, with the effect that such ‘baking KM into legal practice’ is, by itself, crucial for spreading the message. Ideally, KM should not be regarded as a separate function but as an integrated tool to run the firm’s business more effectively.
2. Beware of negative sentiments and perfectionism
Having said that, beware of negative sentiments against your KM strategy. Such messages are often spread by word-of-mouth far more quickly than any positive message. In our experience, a negative attitude towards KM may result from the following factors: first, the lack of awareness of what KM is providing and how to find it – as pointed out, such ignorance can be overcome by continuously demonstrating the benefits of KM; second, one often hears complaints about over-engineered KM systems that discourage users. This can easily be avoided, if KM is not merely seen as an IT application, but as a whole package of processes, tools and technologies to help lawyers work more effectively. Furthermore, lawyers will not make this type of complaint if they (or their representatives) have been involved in the conceptual design of KM tools. Third, it is advisable to avoid rather theoretical discussions on KM in general. Although it is important to explain the potential and benefits of KM for lawyers and to formulate a KM strategy, always think of its relevance for legal practice – lawyers will usually not be interested in the latest KM insights on the retrieval of experience (tacit knowledge) at Japanese car factories.
Finally, beware of perfectionism when asking for fee-earner input and feedback. Requiring lengthy explanations when collecting precedents or asking complicated questions on feedback for KM tools may discourage fee earners from contributing. Asking too much or being too strict can be a regular cause of resentment towards KM. Instead, keep feedback requests short, simple and easy to use, and try to integrate KM tools into the lawyers’ workflow and their creation of work products (for example, by providing checklists and standard forms for recurring issues). When collecting precedents and other know-how from fee earners, it is the task of the KM team to further refine this, by providing comments, preparing input for the know-how database, and so on.
Culture matters
If and how the KM strategy is spread throughout the firm says a lot about the culture and atmosphere in the workplace. If KM is supposed to be a core value of the firm, the strategy will need to reach every single person – from the first-year associate to the managing partner. A further important factor is fostering a culture of collaboration. In terms of KM, just compare a culture, where people are encouraged to help each other by sharing knowledge and experiences, to a rather competitive climate where everyone works for his own profit (ignoring the benefits of KM) or an atmosphere where the discussion of know-how results in non-objective criticism among colleagues – certainly deterring them from making any future contributions to KM. Unfortunately, in many firms a ‘go it alone’ mentality and the ‘not invented here’ syndrome are still quite prevalent. These attitudes need to be, and can be, overcome by a clear KM strategy and by dedicated law-firm management, KM staff and the (gradual) persuasion of fee earners. In addition, non-legal staff should be persuaded that KM is always a valuable aim to strive for. Undoubtedly, administrative staff possess various skills – for example, knowledge about local authorities, language skills, and so on – which may be of value to the KM team and to the law firm as a whole.
To sum up: if you want KM to happen in your firm, then make it everyone’s business. ?
Martin Schulz is a knowledge management lawyer at the
