thomson reuters forum on legal project management & process improvement
DESCRIPTION
Thomson Reuters Forum on Legal Project Management & Process Improvement. St. Louis, MO June 6, 2013. James R. Buckley, QLex Consulting. Project management & process improvement: What is there to fear?. The context for LPM. Introduction. The problem: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
© 2013 All Rights Reserved
Thomson Reuters Forum on Legal Project Management & Process Improvement
St. Louis, MOJune 6, 2013
James R. Buckley, QLex Consulting
2© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Project management & process improvement: What is there to fear?
3© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
The context for LPM
4© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Introduction
· The problem: Significant legal matters are filled with complexity and uncertainty Failure to adequately manage these issues impairs productivity and
inflates costs Such losses erode relationships and reduce effectiveness
· Why project management? Not a business school fad, but a tested management system Out-of-the-box tools for managing complexity and tackling
uncertainty/risk
5© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
The delivery of Legal Services is driven by two factors
· Level of legal spend· Nature of fee arrangement· Legal management approach
Low(Immaterial) Uncertainty
(in legal solution)
Sign
ifica
nce
(to c
lient
)
High(Unknown)
High(Material)
Low(Known)
6© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Legal management approaches in this space
Repetitive
Emphasize Project
Management
Emphasize Knowledge
Management
EmphasizeProcess
Improvement
Specialized ExtraordinaryLegal Work
Strategic
Mandatory
Operational
Business Needs
Sign
ifica
nce
High(Material)
Low(Immaterial)
Uncertainty High(Unknown)
Low(Known)
• Segmented by business need (significance) and character of the legal work• Mapped against uncertainty• With management strategy overlay
7© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
The LPM Framework
8© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Basic building blocks
Objectives
Work Plan
Results
Stakeholders
The LPM Framework
9© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Focus on the “Iron Triangle”
· Develop the business case for legal solution, especially in terms of a cost/benefit analysis
· Identify the interests of relevant stakeholders· Document key constraints (the “Iron Triangle” plus . . . .)· Document key assumptions and risks · Define scope, time, and resource dimensions
Quality
Scopeof Work
Resources Time
Adapted from: Project Management Institute
Work Plan =
The “Iron Triangle”
These factors define what we call the “Shared Understanding”
10© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Elaborated building blocks
TimeCost
Work
The“IRON
TRIANGLE”
Objectives
Results
Stakeholders
The LPM Framework
11© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
LPM in Action
12© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Intake/Engagement Launch Monitor Revise/
Refine CloseAfter-
Action Review
P L A N
LPM approaches the work plan in an iterative way
· The team’s execution of the work plan is regularly monitored– To see if the plan is being followed– To assure that objectives are being addressed– To see if constraints are being honored– To see if the assumptions hold true– To see if the stakeholders remain satisfied
· As necessary, the team re-engages with stakeholders– To revisit objectives, constraints and assumptions– To revise/refine the objectives and/or plan
13© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Mapping LPM to the complex litigation context
Intake/Engagement Launch Monitor Revise/
Refine Close After-Action Review
P L A N
Dispute arises
Pleading stage
Trial court management
Discovery
Law & Motion
Trial Prep
Trial
Appeal
Settlement
Settl
emen
t
14© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Mapping LPM to the complex transactions context
NDA/ Letter of Intent
Draft Definitive Agreements
Operational transition plan
Due Diligence
Satisfy Conditions of Closing; Obtain Consents
Closing Prep
Closing
Post-closing matters
A B O R T
A B O
R T
Intake/Engagement Launch Monitor Revise/
Refine CloseAfter-
Action Review
P L A N
A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y a n d T RA N S PA R E N CY
15© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
In closing . . .
· Make conscious and rational choices about risk
· Reduce costs
· Increase predictability
· Improve accountability
· Starting with a clear business case for the legal work
· Tightly relating work to objectives· Improving efficiency and
eliminating unnecessary work
· Better planning and tracking· Improving communication with
stakeholders
· Clarifying responsibility and roles of legal team members to stakeholders
To By
Use Legal Project Management . . .
16© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
LPM Tools Sampler
1. Stakeholder analysis2. Early Case Assessment/Strategic Case Assessment3. Project Charter4. Description of Work5. RASCI Chart (scope + people)6. Timeline Tool (scope + time +people)7. Assessment Snapshot8. Status Meeting Agenda9. Task-based budget (scope + $)10. Trial-outline based schedule (scope +time)11. MS Project (scope + schedule + resources)12. Project operation plan13. Project monitoring plan14. Project communications plan
17© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Legal Project Charter
1. What is the business goal?
2. Who are the stakeholders? 1
3. What is the importance of this matter to the business? 2
4. What is the timing for this matter? 3
5. Complete the Description of Work (or revise or restate it)
1 Possible stakeholders: Internal: Business unit; corporation; corporate staff function; within Legal Department, employees. What are their roles? External: business partners, vendors, customers, government, regulators, community, press
2 Importance might be strategic, operational, financial, non-core, discontinued operations. 3 How urgent is it? What timetable has been imposed by others? Are they realistic? What is the expected date of
completion. If conflicts in timing cannot be reconciled, how has this been communicated to relevant stakeholders?
18© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Description of Work
1. Who is doing what?
2. By when?
3. For whom?
4. What constraints do we have to work within?(Limits on time, resources and the actual work)?
5. How and when do we know we are done?
6. How well did we do?
7. What are we explicitly not doing and has that been communicated to those who need to know it?
19© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
WHO
WHAT Name 1 Name 2 Name 3 Name 4
Activity/ Step 1
Activity/ Step 2
Activity/ Step 3
Activity/ Step 4
Activity/ Step 5
Activity/ Step 6
R = Responsible A = Accountable S = Support C = Consulted I = Informed
APPENDIX 6. RASCI Chart: Links “who” with “what” (resources + scope)7
20© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Time Line and Preliminary Staffing Plan
Activities2011-2012
StaffingMonth1
Month2
Month3
Month4
Month5
Month6
Month7
Month8
Month9
Month10
Month11
Month12
Month13
Month14
Step 1 Full Team
Step 2 AA, BB, CC, DD, EE
Step 3 AA, BB, CC
Step 4 BB, DD, EE
Step 5 AA, BB, CC
Step 6 BB, DD, EE
Step 7 Full Team
Step 8 BB
Step 9 AA, BB, CC
Legend: Start time End time Duration Predecessor end time Dependency start time
8
21© 2013 All Rights Reserved James R. Buckley | [email protected] | (310)489-9266
Legal Project Management Assessment Tool9