Creating New Value in the Law Firm Library
Votes on simplicity show fine dispersion. In contrast, votes for worth show restricted dispersion together with options above the mid-way indicate. That all rated nicely indicates the list of options is a good one. A threat in voting when all of the options are good is this lack of dispersion. With more time, one could either iterate the vote to make dispersion or unite the vote using a driven value position.
The Voting Process. Voting was by show of hands on the audience of 100+ study + intelligence professionals. Kevin Klein, the Ark conference manager and that I eyeballed the series of hands and agreed on a score.
Another highlight was outsourcing. Yes, my day job is with LAC Group, which, among other solutions, provides managed services for law libraries. I work in which I think I can have impact so my views are actually held. I believe senior law company staff must add as much value as possible. For librarians, this usually means combining deep knowledge of their companies with market knowledge and research.
Outsourcing frees up time to concentrate on higher worth activity. And especially outsourcing the more routine aspects of research, or domain specific study, lets librarians concentrate on where they could add the most value. I had a lively debate on this stage with an audience member and we had to agree to admit.
A couple of weeks ago I introduced an interactive session on how law firm libraries can produce new value at the Ark seminar Best Practices & Management Plans for Law Business Library, Research & Information Services (aka Ark Library). In this informative article, I share my slides, some session highlights the voting results of the interactive portion, and a link to my live demonstration.
Two components of our discussion stood out to me. One was the difference between presenting research results as a collection of posts with minimal or no interpretation versus drawing insights and conclusions. I feel that customers of research want comprehension, not research dumps. Most audience members, however, appeared loath to do more than collect the information. I believes that will place librarians in a lousy position as time passes. As an example, in fourteen days prior to the seminar, I met two older friends who lead company management preparation for their big law firms. Both reported pity that the response to their complex research petition was a dump of articles. Both were unhappy with how much time they had to spend synthesizing insight and meaning.
Whether you agree with the nine options and also the voting outcomes, isn’t the main takeaway here. Instead, you should take from this the significance of systematic preparation and using a clear plan . Every library / research + intelligence center needs to have a clearly articulated strategy which aligns with the firm plan and that actively attempts to boost profits. Other approaches operate – exactly what I introduced is just one idea. Whatever approach you choose, though, a one-page result that you may easily and quickly introduce to management.
- Boost cost recovery
- Offer fee-based solutions directly to clients
- Support winning more pitches
- Identify opportunities, both ones and tendencies
- Deliver more actionable insights and fewer study dumps
- Support firm digital offerings
- Rationalize research + intellect operations
- Centralize company research
- Negotiate better contracts (I know, everyone is focusing with this)
- Prompt wisdom and research professionals to consider ways they could align with business strategy and boost firm profits.
- Rank systematically those choices, specifically mapping them by relative value and ease.
Nine Ideas to Increase Contribution to Firm Profitability. I presented nine thoughts, enumerated below, for staff discussion and voting.
Rating Ideas on a 2×two Grid. For every idea, I realized the audience about two measurements: facilitate and worth . By laying out the thoughts on these rankings, one can quickly see which ideas would be most favorable using the 2×two grid below. As with 2×two grids, the scoring is designed to put the ideal choice in the upper right hemisphere and the lowest ones at the lower left.
Session Goals. I’ve discovered my slides below and you’ll be able to listen to my presentation synced to slides at YouTube, so that I won’t pay particulars of the content here. I designed the session with two main aims: