Multiple systems, exponential problems
Most, if not all firms, find themselves juggling multiple technological tools and systems, often times even for the same tasks and functions. This can often lead to productivity losses and many costly frustrations — all of which could be alleviated by using a unified, flexible tech platform, highlights Dave Parry, client adviser at LexisNexis Enterprise Solutions
Law firms run on a surprising array of technology systems. Beyond the basics, like email and Microsoft Office tools, they’re managing a tech application stack that includes practice, document, template and contract management tools, and the list goes on — not to mention specialist technologies for accounts and finance.
What’s particularly interesting is that many firms don’t just have different types of systems, often they also maintain multiple systems for the same function. It’s not uncommon to find a firm running several different case management systems (CMS) simultaneously across different practice areas or offices.
The result? A spectrum of challenges in a firm’s eternal quest to ensure smooth, frictionless business operations. From minor workflow hiccups to major system integration hurdles, these obstacles vary dramatically in both scope and complexity. Let’s explore a few critical ones.
Cost implications
Think about the cost implications of deploying multiple systems. There is the financial strain through the various technology vendor contracts, of course, but there’s also costly annual upgrades across the disparate solutions estate — especially if there are on-premises systems. This type of application estate then needs specialised in-house expertise to manage, maintain and provide user support for each system. As such, the costs add up.
Compatibility complications
The compatibility issues are a persistent headache for firms. Multiple systems have competing technical requirements, leading to integration challenges and functionality conflicts. As a result, more complex technical management is needed.
These conflicts manifest in various ways — from resource contention to contradictory processing methods, creating instability and a fragile technological ecosystem. When multiple systems attempt to access the same resources or modify the same data using different protocols, the result is often unpredictable behavior, undermining user confidence and operational efficiency.
Here’s a common scenario. Different vendor systems use different versions of .NET components. Say an email filing solution implements a different version of .NET for a particular functionality compared to the version used by the firm’s CMS. This discrepancy can create a precarious situation where any attempt to upgrade the .NET framework to address issues in one system could potentially disrupt critical functionality in other interconnected systems.
Similarly, incompatibility between a new version of Outlook and an existing version of a document management system can directly impact end users. Such disconnects between systems — that should work in harmony — instead create workflow breaks and inefficiencies.
Privacy vulnerabilities and GDPR compliance
Dealing with multiple systems creates real GDPR headaches. When client data is dispersed across different platforms, compliance teams face an uphill battle trying to gather complete information for tasks, such as subject access requests — a demand that is increasing. It gets even trickier with deletion and ‘right to be forgotten’ requests, as IT has to hunt down and remove data from multiple databases. This manual approach makes it all too easy to miss important data points — especially as different systems will have different compliance rules and policies.
Client information management across disparate systems introduces additional operational risks. Let’s look at an example: individual X is a client of law firm Y across multiple practices — real estate, family law and so forth. Potentially, the details of X are distributed across the various technology systems in the firm.
If X leaves the law firm, the deletion of their information would be required in the future, in accordance with Y’s retention policies, contractual obligations with X or GDPR compliance. Consider the risk of error, privacy vulnerabilities and consequences — an error in removing individual X’s postal address from a system, for instance, could result in confidential information being dispatched to an outdated address.
Reporting and spreadsheet torment
Pulling reports from a patchwork of systems is a cause for constant grief — it could easily be the staff’s biggest day-to-day frustration! It’s spreadsheet torment — extracting data from different platforms (each with its own quirky export process), and then ‘knifing and forking’ the data to create something that resembles a cohesive report suitable for client viewing.
The risk of human error, such as transcription mistakes, formula errors, or misalignment of information across platforms, is real — not to mention the time it takes to put it all together. What is a quick task on paper often turns into a full-day project (or more), pulling staff and lawyers away from fee-earning tasks.
Task switching drains user productivity
From a user standpoint, constantly juggling multiple systems is tiresome, annoying and eats into productivity. Every time an individual switches from one system to another, they need time to mentally “log out” of what they were doing and “log in” to the new task — a mental ramp-up and wind-down time that doesn’t show up on any timesheet.
The workflow disruption is perhaps the most frustrating part. Just as the individual gets into their groove with one task, they need to jump to another system for the next step. Take the case management process — a lawyer might start in one system to review client details, move to another to check document history, then switch again to record time entries. This constant reorientation with multiple systems breaks the productive flow state. The brain needs to adjust to the different interfaces and their unique logic every single time.
Cumulatively, all these transition minutes add up to a serious chunk of lost productive time. And annoyingly, there is the need to manage a collection of passwords and login details, with the inevitable password resets and MFA processes.
A single, centralised source of matter data is the way to go
A unified, flexible case management platform that caters to both high-volume and high-value transactions can help minimise all the above-mentioned obstacles and challenges, providing a more integrated, streamlined work environment.
Firms establish a single source of ‘matter’ truth through data centralisation — thus, data management becomes a by-product, not a task. Many CIOs openly acknowledge that knowing where all their data is keeps them awake at night.
By consolidating information into one unified platform, there’s a reliable foundation for all reporting and conflict checking activities. It eliminates contradictory data versions that plague fragmented environments and streamlines report generation through consistent data structures and integrated business intelligence and analytics tools.
There are consistent, seamless business processes, reduced cost of ownership and administrative overheads, and limited systems integrations — all leading to improved overall operational efficiency and business profitability. Removing the need for system hopping almost certainly enhances team productivity firm-wide, regardless of practice area. It’s definitely worth a consideration!
