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 J U N E 2 0 1 6 21 support a decision, we need to be even more mindful of how we weigh up, syn- thesize, and use that evidence to make those decisions. Which brings us back to the interest- ing advances in cognitive science. Lead- ing academics like Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have identified many cognitive biases and heuristics that affect our everyday decision-making abilities. I think it's worth exploring a few of these in the context of how we make legal technology decisions. The "availability heuristic," for exam- ple, describes the tendency we have to give more weight to those factors that are top of mind. It's a mental shortcut that we use in our busy and urgent world to manage the here and now. Recent information is more "available" (to recall from memory) and, as a result, opinions or decisions tend to be biased towards the latest news. I'm sure that's why our "recent documents" links are preferred rather than searching in the unknown millions of documents from around the firm. Likewise with buying technology: Since some data or evidence is easier to collect, such as whether a solution has all the functionality we need, that informa- tion appears more readily available and will therefore more heavily influence our decision. "Attribute substitution" occurs when we have to make a decision that is complex and difficult, and our mind unconsciously makes a simpler judg- ment. When we ask stakeholders which solution best meets their needs (which is very hard to predict without extensive time actually using the system), their intuitive response may be based on a much easier question, like, "Which solu- tion has the most features?" or "What has everyone else used?" or "Which do I like the look of better?" Once we have started to form an opinion or preference towards a particu- lar solution, we may then fall victim to "confirmation bias," where we tend to seek out data and information that con- firms our original belief. Evidence that contradicts that belief may be ignored or treated with less significance. We need to remember to keep an open mind during our discovery phases, when we're look- ing at different technology solutions or when we're reading the PR from firms and vendors describing the successes they've had. And that if we've had a hand in building something ourselves or are invested in some way with the outcome of a particular project, we are unlikely to start rubbishing the decision or the result achieved (brilliantly known as the "IKEA effect"). These are just a few of the examples of how decision-making can be biased or influenced if we aren't careful about understanding the processes behind those decisions. When we consider how hard it is to collect some of the most important evidence for our decisions (while we often create an abundance of evidence in areas that are less impor- tant), we start to see how many firms end up following the herd in their tech- nology decisions. We favour technology products that are feature-rich; we think more capa- bilities equals better, rather than think- ing which features are the most impor- tant ones for our specific firms. We are swayed by the success stories we hear from peers in journals or at conferences, while being far less informed of the fail- ures with the very same products or ven- dors. Overall, our decisions are informed far more by the hard information we can quantify or objectively state, compared to more subjective assessments or pre- dictions. And since the hard informa- tion tends to be more publicly available, it's no surprise we often make the same choices as other firms. We scan the familiar legal horizon looking for what's worked and not worked at other firms. We hope their success will be a predictor of our suc- cess. This creates a "bandwagon effect" in our industry where the increasing popularity of a solution encourages even more firms to jump on the band- wagon, too. We assume that with so many installations the solution must be stable, reliable, and usable. But every law firm is unique: our different tech stacks, our cultural dif- ferences in technology uptake, the very different practices that lawyers have (litigators, for example, working in a completely different manner than tax lawyers). The way our business units are structured and to what specialists and experts we have access all have an impact on the eventual success and adoption of any technology implemen- tation. We need, on occasion, to be more open to the unexpected and to take a leap into the unknown with our deci- sions. We need to realize that the saf- est and easiest option is more likely to lead to the safest and most mediocre outcome. No one ever got fired for buy- ing IBM (or Microsoft), I'm sure; but I wonder whether anyone got promoted for doing so? Kate Simpson is national director of knowledge management at Bennett Jones LLP and is responsible for developing the firm's KM strategy and initiatives. The opinions expressed in this article are her own. . . . WE THINK MORE CAPABILITIES EQUALS BETTER, RATHER THAN THINKING WHICH FEATURES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR OUR SPECIFIC FIRMS. When you're working, we're working. End-To-End Legal Marketing Solutions. Visit LawyerMarketingCanada.com Untitled-2 1 2016-05-18 3:42 PM

• Cover