The answer is no - so far - but in an article (on page 5
in this pdf) found via
Prism Legal, consultants
Tania Daniels and Mark Horne remind us that the potential of expertise location is yet to be tapped into. More precisely they tell us what it could do for most professional service firms, where the only input and output is knowledge:
On one hand expertise location could speed up the learning process or assist with training in general. In the article it is referred to as"associate education", however I would suggest it could also benefit all levels of practicioners below and above associates. With new joiners this could allow organisations to charge higher rates sooner than without expertise location (or KM tools in general). And for those more senior it could mean knowing more about the value of the relationship capital of those reporting into them, plus also benefiting from the system themselves.
Second, cross-selling & new opportunities, probably the most obvious benefit for professional service firms, such as the answer to "Who had lunch with X from Z and did they talk about anything leading to new business?":
External expertise systems seek to capitalize on the complex layers of relationships and subject matter expertise within firms and between firm personnel and external organizations.
The idea of expertise location is not new but also not yet reality. (the article also refers to the "skills database familiar to HR professionals" and as previously mentioned here, the technology has been around a while, e.g. as the
Fraunhofer Xpertfinder more than five years ago).
The article suggests basic but useful formulas to identify experts such as hours billed by a particular practicioner against a matter categorised in a firm's taxonomy. Another approach suggested is self-ranking (which usually goes pretty bad because of lack of participation) but in this case in combination with time capturing:
"some applications combine the adjustment of quantitative hours billed ranking with qualitative commentary and self-ranking options to account for experience gained elsewhere and provide additional context beyond the sole measure of hours billed." Most of the technology solutions discussed - without their names being mentioned by the authors - include automatic capturing of data or are based on analysis of client/matter data.
Provided matter data has a tag of some useful kind, a simple one off analysis of billing data against matter data could give you a taste of what an automated system could do in a wider context and in a presentable and usable form. The article also mentions e-mail mining:
One firm sought to make better use of all the e-mail messages requesting help with a particular topic. They established a central e-mail address to which users send both questions and answers. The e-mail chain is collected into a full-text search database that has a simple Web search interface on it. The searches allow firm members to identify who within the firm has asked or answered similar questions before and gets them to internal experts quickly. The firm has had such success with this solution that users now check the database first before sending out e-mail requests, and it has become a popular tool to market internal expertise by answering questions posed. This example illustrates how a simple technological solution can solve part of the expertise location problem by capturing relevant e-mail.
This doesn't yet replace the know-how queries via email, but it certainly enhances their reuse possibilities and creates a knowledgebase without anyone ever needing to leave Outlook for filling it. Plus if you are lucky it raises awareness for KM, helping achieve what might be one of your cultural metrics, the overalcommitmentnt to KM of your practicioners.
I don't know why I have never come across
ILTA , the platform publishing these articles. The bottom line however was an annual fee, but the (free) publication itself is an interesting platform to hear more than the short pitch from consultants and vendors. And I quite liked the Editor's note:
From an attorney correctly profiling a document in a DMS, to a secretary tracking a pleading, to the marketing department maintaining contact information, everyone is contributing to the firm's most valuable asset, knowledge.
I am not sure about that. I think the attorney (or consultant) should maintain the contact information himself because the fee earner has seen the benefit in doing so - or ideally it is automatically captured.
Also read the next article on page 8 in the
same pdf: "Is KM Evolving into Practice Support Consulting?" by
David Hambourger:
Many KM initiatives (especially in larger firms) began as firmwide initiatives with the promise of building global systems. While this approach might have some economic and standardization advantages, it avoids the fact that law firms are extremely tribal in nature. These tribes can be centered around practice groups, offices, industries or even particular matters.