Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m F e b r u A r y 2 0 1 5 19 is currently being played out in our fi rms in the BYOD/MDM space. Firms somewhere along this spectrum need to not only maintain robust security and governance standards, but also allow lawyers the fl exibility to choose the best tools for their practices. A big part of this tension is about cost control and effi ciency for IT. If IT supports one way of doing things it keeps costs down and means they can deliver on requirements and promises. If, however, every- one is doing their own thing on BYOD, the ability to numerate risks and meet compliance standards is seriously threatened. e old abbreviation "PDA" always struck me as a perfect defi - nition — these devices have become very personal indeed. It's not just that they are highly customizable in covers, wallpapers, lay- out, and ringtones. It comes down to very real diff erences between people — technology, like politics and sports, seems to polarize people into tribal identities of one camp or another. e Windows v. Apple debate has turned into Android v. iPhone — as well as those still fi ercely committed to their BlackBerry. On top of that, there are the very personal choices about the apps we use to get stuff done. It's no wonder this issue is so polarizing in our fi rms. If we sit too far on the fl exibility side we have to reduce ex- pectations of support, and perhaps with added personal account- ability. Too far on the security side with not enough freedom to choose built in and we risk aff ecting work effi ciencies for certain practices, which in turn has an impact on adoption of these tools. We also risk creating a guerrilla system of tactics that avoid IT security altogether. Knowing the trade-off s we're making allows us to have these conversations in our fi rms. Tension 3: Operational management v. transformational programs Getting the balance right on budget allocation between keeping- the-lights-on versus future fi rm vision programs is not a new challenge for those in legal IT and other support functions. As an ex-consultant there was always some safety in dragging out a 2x2 matrix during those strategic planning phases to help fi gure out the prioritization of budgets and activities. ere are hundreds returned in a Google search for strategic planning, as well as some legal-specifi c ones that sit in the International Legal Technology Association's vast knowledge repository online. In May 2012, the Harvard Business Review gave us another grid on which to plot and fi nd the balance for managing IT proj- ects — one that included not just keeping-the-lights-on. Larry Page revealed that Google spent 10 per cent of its resources on true trans- formational projects. e "golden ratio" the HBR discusses is a 70- 20-10 split of resources to ensure, while the vast majority of resourc- es should be spent on building and supporting the core business, there is investment of a portion of resources on innovative ideas. As we know, innovation in legal is not quite the same as it is out there — or not yet anyway. However, ILTA's "Legal Technol- ogy Future Horizons" report, and in particular the summer 2014 edition of its Peer to Peer magazine, gets us thinking about this 10 per cent. It's not all jetpacks and robots either. Four core themes emerged that nicely categorize the advancing legal technologies that are to change the way lawyers practise, and the way technol- ogy will support them. Imagine my glee when these four core themes cleanly mapped onto the Richard Susskind Technology Grid (from Transforming the Law). When looking to balance these competing pressures, priorities, and interests, we need to look at these trade-off s holisti- cally and fi gure out where we want to roughly sit. By plotting our projects onto the x- and y-axis of grids like the illustration, we can see where we might be leaning too far one way or the other. If we can plot where it is we're spending our time, money, and resources, we can defi ne our risk appetite with the fi rm; and we can ensure we maintain a fair balance between these competing tensions. Kate Simpson is national director of knowledge management at Ben- nett Jones LLP, and is responsible for developing the fi rm's KM strategy and initiatives. e opinions expressed in this article are her own. iF we can plot where it is we're spending our time, money, and resources, we can deFine our risK appetite with the Firm; and we can ensure we maintain a Fair balance between these competing tensions. What do your clients need? The means to move on. Guaranteed ™ . Baxter Structures customizes personal injury settlements into tax-free annuities that can help your clients be secure for life. Need more information? Contact us at 1 800 387 1686 or baxterstructures.com Kyla A. Baxter, CSSC PRESIDENT, BAXTER STRUCTURES ntitled-1 1 13-09-16 2:53 PM

• Cover