ILNews

Finney: 8 steps to evaluating and selecting your firm’s software

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

FinneyThe words, “This software is horrible,” often echo through the halls of many firms. “We’ve tried all the systems available, and they’re all equally as terrible” is the resounding response. Why does it seem that no software developer can get it right?

The answer may be as simple as shifting the focus from what the software developer needs to change to evaluating what internal processes need to be changed. Oftentimes firms select software based upon performance during a software demonstration rather than evaluating what will provide the best results for specific firm needs. Finding the right software requires identification of job requirements including process workflows prior to selecting the tool. The following steps are useful in both selecting new software and improving satisfaction with current systems.

Step 1: Document current process. When firms skip this step and jump directly to demonstrations, the selection becomes merely about showmanship. Without a true understanding of the current process it is nearly impossible to recognize if the software is the right fit.

At this stage a focus group representative of each role in the current process should be established. By documenting the process as a group, it often becomes apparent that portions of the process are resulting in duplication of efforts or people unknowingly causing conflicts with the workflow of others.

Step 2: Identify current pain points. Without knowing what seems to be broken, it will be difficult to fix. While some pain points will be known prior to Step 1, many others will likely arise during the documentation of the current process. Bottom line, a detailed list of pain points must be identified to recognize the end goal.

Step 3: Categorize needs, wants and deal-breakers. No single software tool can encompass every single task you may desire to perform. Therefore, classifying requirements is necessary to ensure that necessities are not overlooked and that too much time is not spent trying to accommodate wishful thinking.

Step 4: Set a budget. Oftentimes this can be difficult without knowing reasonable ballpark ranges. While most software companies will provide such information upon request, realistic quotes will require information regarding the intent and goals identified by your focus group. By setting a spending limit upfront, time will be saved limiting demonstrations to include only packages and features within budget.

Step 5: Assessment. Receiving feedback about popular software packages can assist in identification of packages to review. Software reviews can be easily collected via various legal technology publications, legal technology networking groups, and of course colleagues in other firms. When requesting a demonstration, it is best to provide the sales representative with key information identified by the focus group to find any deal-breakers within a package and allow the demonstration to be tailored to your firm. Ideally all members of the focus group should be available to view the demonstration and compare each package.

Step 6: Selection of software and workflow. The selection phase may seem daunting, but viable options often become apparent when measuring against comprehensive benchmarks. Once a selection has been made, the focus group should then reevaluate the firm’s process to determine what tweaks will need to be made and standards set to enable the software to work as intended.

Step 7: Implementation. This phase is not merely a matter of installing software and allowing users to sit through a 30-minute webinar to learn the product. Members of the firm should be trained on both the product and firm-specific processes to ensure data integrity and process consistency. This will require extensive planning to ensure reasonable standards are set for things like naming conventions, consistent usage of fields and general best practices. Documentation of these standards is essential to ensure they are adhered to into the future. If data is not entered consistently, anticipated features will not produce the intended results and often leads to a general distrust of the product creating a consensus that the product does not work.

Step 8: Audit. This process should not stop after implementation because it is not uncommon for people to revert back to old habits. Additionally, it is normal for changes in desired reports and similar output to occur over time. Without continual attention to ensuring standards are being followed and underlying processes continue to be practical, the effectiveness of the software can quickly decline.

Though this process may seem tedious and time consuming, remember the wise words of Theodore Roosevelt: “Nothing worth having was ever achieved without effort.”•

__________

Deanna Finney (deanna.finney@miscindiana.com) is a co-owner of the Indianapolis-based legal technology company, Modern Information Solutions LLC. Areas of service include traditional IT services, software training and litigation support including trial presentation services. www.miscindiana.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT