May 6, 2009

How BI Deployment Can Be Like a Plane Crash

3:16 pm

At Redwood, we know a lot about implementing Business Intelligence systems at law firms, as we’ve been involved in hundreds. We don’t know much about plane crashes, but Malcolm Gladwell dedicates a whole chapter to them in his newest book, “Outliers: The Story of Success.” And a lot of what he says rings true for BI deployment.

According to Outliers, the data that the FAA has gathered regarding plane crashes - both in the US and globally - reveals the following statistics:
  • 52% of the time, the pilot has been awake for 12 hours or more
  • 44% of the time the pilot and co-pilot have never flown together before
  • On average the black box records show that it is not one single error that causes the crash but SEVEN errors on the part of the crew (working in "cooperation"), which compound one another.
The FAA concludes that overwhelmingly plane crashes are not caused by a lack of knowledge or skill but rather are caused by a lack of TEAMWORK and COMMUNICATION.
When team members from all levels of a law firm are not involved the deployment of BI (the configuration, adoption, the training, etc) the project runs the risk of crashing and burning.  We’ve run into more than a few firms where the project sponsor never communicates the business reasons for adopting a BI solution to the end users. We come in to train the end users and it’s hard to get their buy-in for learning another tool that they don’t see the vision for.  We work with some really smart people - they certainly don't lack the skills or knowledge.  But like a plane crash, the initiative stalls due to a lack of collaboration and communication.
At Redwood, we have found that some of our most successful clients have involvement and cooperation from all levels of the firm, from the Managing Partner to the CFO to the Business Analysts, and I think that defines those firms’ successes with BI as much as every effort we put into it.
Tip of my hat to The Training Doctor for her insights on “Outliers” and the applicability to training.
–Michelle St. Pierre
Michelle St. Pierre is the Manager of Business of Law Offerings for Redwood Analytics/LexisNexis.

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Blog by MichelleStPierre

Leave a Comment

Subscribe without commenting

May 1, 2009

Leaving it on the Table

1:17 pm

I have a nasty little habit of tossing change down in random places in my home, office and car and subsequently losing it. All of my co-workers know that if they need change they can just dig around my desk drawers.  Sometimes I find it later, sometimes I don’t. I realize that it is a poor habit, and for a guy who looks over the family finances with a fine tooth comb, ironic as well. My wife finds this very frustrating and just recently she equated the amount I had probably lost over the years to a flight to Boston and a couple of “Green Monster” tickets to see my beloved Red Sox at Fenway Park. Now in reality I think behind the scenes she was equating it to a shopping spree at Pottery Barn, but still the point hit home. She had nagged me many times about this but it wasn’t until she made the opportunity cost of my poor habit into something tangible that it really sunk in.

I think the same theory holds true with the drivers of profitability in a law firm.   We talk about losses in realization, poor inventory management, and capacity as a detriment to firm profitability, but do we do a good enough job in making it tangible? Dollars lost to these practices for even 50-100 attorney firms fall into the millions range, but again is it sinking in?
Let’s take one billing attorney:
  • 6000 hours billed at an average rate of $350 per hour – $2.1MM
    • Market rates for that accumulation of work was $500 per hour
      • Total discounting loss of $900k
  • Lagging billings and collections that create a client investment speed of 365 days
    • Due to the lagging inventory management $150K is written off
    • Internal rate of return is 8% - investment loss of $168k
Taking utilization (capacity) completely out of the equation, given this example we have a total opportunity loss of ~ $1.2MM. Let’s say the average rate for the firm was $400 per hour. That would mean you would need an additional 3000 hours to make up for the loss from this one billing attorney. From a different and more current perspective if a 2nd year associate was expected to bring in $400K in work that would mean 3 associates. 
Now I know that you can do this sort of analysis using several other alternative scenarios, many of which I have used in the past. I also know there is rate pressure and clients are having a difficult time paying now and discounting has become part of the inner workings of the legal industry. That said as hours are harder to come by and layoffs stream across newswires, identifying bad habits of certain timekeepers becomes essential. In my example if the bill attorney had the ability to improve discounting by a few percentage points and improve his/her inventory management to a more acceptable level, it could mean saving someone’s job. The truth is old habits are hard to break but they can also be costly. As lower level timekeepers look to leadership for direction, changing bad habits should be the first thing addressed not an afterthought. 
–Russ Haskin
Russ Haskin is Director of Consulting for Redwood Analytics/Lexis Nexis

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Law Firm Bus Model by RussHaskin

April 28, 2009

A Bright Spot Ahead for Firms

8:19 am

Despite the state of the economy, there might actually be a bright spot on the horizon for firms who are willing to creatively staff and plan matters, and use leverage to move work to lower cost attorneys located outside of the U.S. 

Julie Triedman over at the AmLawDaily posts about a small firm who is taking on business litigating cases that otherwise they might have settled due to the prohibitive cost of litigation in the United States, thanks to a legal arm in India that bills at a fraction of what a U.S. attorney would bill.
Behind the scenes, the defense team at nine-lawyer SmithDehn and its 26-lawyer Indian arm, SDD Global Solutions, had other reasons to celebrate. For perhaps the first time in a U.S. court case, the heavy lifting of deposition preparations and briefing in what became a motion-heavy case was performed in a time zone 12 hours away, inside the firm's Mysore, India-based arm, SDD Global Solutions. There, led by Padmavathi Shantamurthy, a team of lawyers bill out at between $30-$90 an hour. The role of the U.S. lawyers, firm co-founder Russell Smith and his colleague Michael Cleaver, was confined to editing briefs and court appearances.
We know that clients are less willing to pay for a junior associate’s “training” time so pushing work down the chain to your newest attorneys might not bring in the business that shifting the work geographically might.
As my colleague Bo Yancey pointed out in February, despite the assertions elsewhere in the blogosphere that leverage is on its way out, we continue to believe that leverage will expand in many forms. Some work will be outsourced offshore, or to contract attorneys, and some work will be replaced by technology as legal technology evolves.
As SmithDehn demonstrated these types of leverage can open up possibilities for new business, and the more effectively and efficiently that these opportunities are managed, the greater the opportunity will be for increasing profits per partner in a business environment where increased profits is sure to be an enviable position.

–Michelle St. Pierre

Michelle St. Pierre is the Manager of Business of Law Offerings at Redwood Analytics/LexisNexis.

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Law Firm Bus Model, Leverage by MichelleStPierre

April 15, 2009

Law Firms Focusing on Collections Should Not Overlook Billing Practices

3:46 pm
It is no shock that law firms, reacting to the current economy, are focusing on collections. Cash is still king. Collections push efforts have moved beyond the 4th quarter and are now equally important in all periods. Collection opportunities are analyzed, delinquent clients are squeezed, and write offs are scrutinized more than ever. Still, firms focusing only on invoice collections are missing a very important collections driver: the billing cycle. As my colleague stated a few years ago, “With faster billing, adjustments will decline since a large number of adjustments can be attributed to disputes over work done [many] months ago. Client appreciation for work declines with the passage of time.” Here are a few ways to improve and shorten your billing cycle.
 
Billing Tips
 
In most respects, billing is the sole profit driver completely in your control and the first step in controlling your billing cycle is setting expectations in the engagement letter:
 
1)      State your billing and payment expectations up front. If possible, try to match corporate payment policies and timing.
2)      Promote paperless billing, but be prepared to proactively address technical issues early on.
3)      Identify a contact or person to call if there are questions about invoice receipt and payment schedules.
 
Many firms maintain a who’s who list of missing time entries. However, fewer firms act on the list and often serial repeat offenders are not even reprimanded. The discipline of getting time in on schedule needs to be a job requirement.  We are all familiar with aging reports related to Unbilled and Accounts Receivable, but have you ever measured the number of days it takes to enter time into the billing system? I know of one example where a law firm built a custom report to calculate the number of days from transaction date to data entry date –resulting in fewer data entry lags.   Electronic and remote time entry tools have helped to improve and speed up the entry process, but in this economy every little bit helps.
 
Prebills should include all of the necessary information for the billing attorney and should be generated according to a published schedule. Likewise, billing attorneys should review and turn the bills around in a timely manner. 
 
Identifying Billing Opportunities
 
Responsibility for billing falls to the billing attorneys, however law firm managers can also impact the billing cycle by reviewing unbilled time and looking for billing opportunities.   In theory, every unbilled hour is an opportunity, but billing every hour on the spot is not realistically or logistically possible.  Given limited resources, it is best to focus on trend outliers or clients and billing attorneys with billing practices outside of accepted thresholds.
 
 
The above report is a useful tool for identify billing opportunities because it spotlight clients or billing attorneys with large unbilled balances, and  it provides additional information as well. By looking at the Percent of Total Unbilled, firms can assess the makeup of their unbilled balances. Are a handful of clients causing inventory to grow to unacceptable levels or is the growth precipitated by a large number of smaller clients? Will addressing the billing issues associated with your largest clients have the biggest bang for the buck? Can setting a threshold or goal that no single client or billing attorney exceeds a stated percentage of your total unbilled drive better inventory management? Another useful metric is Unbilled as a % of Total Inventory. This measure provides insight into the total revenue cycle and can point out potential bottlenecks in the collection process.   Age of Unbilled is a common measure that is most useful when measured against a standard. These standards should encompass not only firm policies, but also area of law practices. Lastly, use the YTD Billed Amt to assess whether a problem exists with the client. For large aged balances, ascertain if there is a recurring or one time issue.
 
Analyzing Billing Trends
 
Beyond opportunities, productive inventory management should also include analyzing billing trends. This trend analysis is most often applied to Age of Unbilled, Days of Unbilled, and Bill Speed.
 
Age of Unbilled measures the numbers of days since the work date. When it is high or increasing, WIP management may be deteriorating with material aged invoices continuing to grow older. When it is low, WIP management is good, although significant write downs of old WIP can influence the age. 
 
Days of Unbilled, unlike age, measures the level of inventory relative to the average billing activity. When it is high or increasing, production is growing at a faster rate than billing activity.   When it is low or decreasing, aggressive inventory management is causing bills to get out the door faster than new work is being put into unbilled. 
 
The last trend is Bill Speed or the dollar weighted average number of days from work date to bill date. Simply stated, the number of days it takes to get your bills out the door. Obviously, the fewer number of days the better, but keep in mind how billing only recent work and leaving the old stuff in unbilled can skew the bill speed calculation (bill speed can only be calculated on billed time).
 
There is no silver bullet for WIP inventory management. But applying some common sense billing practices, actively analyzing billing opportunities, and keeping an eye on billing trends can reap big rewards on the collection side.    
 
–Rick Rawls
 
Rick Rawls is a Senior Business of Law Consultant for Redwood Analytics/Lexis Nexis

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Law Firm Bus Model by Rick Rawls

April 14, 2009

Part Two of Leverage: Friend or Foe

1:02 pm

In Leverage: Friend or Foe of Maximized Profits per Partner I discussed an approach that a firm could use to address the dropping demand for legal work. In short, this approach suggested that a firm could reduce their supply of legal work to match current demand by cutting heads in its most junior ranks, the ranks that produce the lowest $PP contribution. This is simply de-leveraging. By doing so, the firm would ensure sufficient utilization and would generate the highest possible $PP for existing partners . At the same time I also hinted at a second alternative that would enable a firm to deliver greater PP$ than simply de-leveraging.

Previously I had described the firm structure that delivered the highest possible $PP, which I called the Managerial Maximum. In essence, the Managerial Maximum is the highest amount of leverage that a firm can effectively manage.   By having the maximum # of associates working (Sr., Jr., etc.) per partner, they are generating the maximum $PP contribution which results in the maximum $PP, assuming 100% utilization. Any deviation from this maximum leverage ratio will deliver lower $PP. (see example pyramid below)

But what should a firm do if demand for legal work decreases and they can no longer maintain 100% utilization? What most firms are doing in today’s environment is de-leveraging, which is taking them away from the Managerial Maximum. I propose that firms should not be making cuts exclusively to lower level associates as the current de-leveraging strategy espouses, ie. cutting off the bottom of the pyramid. Instead I suggest that firms cut the side of the pyramid off, “thinning”, which entails cutting partners and the appropriate ratio of non-equity associates/staff until they reach a point where their supply of legal work matches the demand for legal work. (See example pyramid below)
By adopting this approach to matching supply and demand a firm is also ensuring that the maximum leverage ratio is maintained, which will result in the maximum $PP possible. For a given amount of legal work, this approach will generate more $PP than will de-leveraging. However, it will require cutting into the partner ranks, which may be culturally and politically challenging. 
Below is an example that shows the impact to $PP of the different ways a firm can react to a decline in demand. 
In the Base Case, demand is 200,000 hours. This firm is fully leveraged and is delivering $4,350,000 PP$.
Now demand has dropped to 140,000 hours and the firm cannot maintain 100% utilization or the Managerial Maximum leverage. The firm can de-leverage, “thin” or a combination of the two in order to increase utilization and improve leverage.
Below is a table that shows the PP$ result of the various lawyer combinations the firm can choose depending if they decide to de-leverage or “thin”.

If the firm chooses to address the decline in demand solely with de-leveraging the PP$ will drop to $3,600,000, however, if they also adopt a “thinning” approach their PP$ can increase back up to the $4,350,000 they had delivered in the past. In a vacuum, my recommendation to this example firm would be to “thin” down to 6 partners as this would permit the firm to stay fully leveraged while matching hours demanded as close as possible to hours worked (ie. supplied).
Overall, there are two ways a firm can react when demand for legal work declines:  1) they can de-leverage or 2) they can “thin”.  De-leveraging will deliver the maximum $PP for existing partners, “thinning” will deliver the maximum $PP possible.   Note: I recognize the challenges of eliminating equity partners from a firm. This recommendation is strictly the result of objective considerations.
–Scott Nickerson
Scott is an analyst in the Redwood Think Tank.

Related posts

Permalink Print Add Comment

Filed under Law Firm Bus Model, Leverage by Scott Nickerson

Page 1 of 17012345»Last »