Creating An Effective Deal Database

Managing the life-cycle of a transaction, whether an offering, a financing or a merger, requires an attorney to seek information from disparate sources within the firm. These searches are often inefficient, time-consuming and may not always yield the required data. The firm can use knowledge management (KM) techniques to build a one-stop repository of transaction data to help attorneys manage a transaction from pitch to press release.

An attorney draws upon many firm resources, from Finance to Human Resources (HR), from Records and Timekeeping databases to the document management system, during a transaction's life-cycle. Some of these resources help bring the transaction into the firm and others help provide efficient client service and attorney training. If the attorney's goals (business development, marketing, client service and attorney training) are clear, the steps to mine the firm's resources at best are not clear and at worst are not available. Consider the example of an attorney who, over the course of handling a new financing matter, needs to identify how many financings her firm has done in the life sciences industry and specifically, in the genomics space, as well as estimate fees and costs, find the firm's internal experts, find sample documents and define 'what's market' for this financing. Where does the attorney go to get the information? Lots of places at the firm, which takes lots of time, and even then the information may be incomplete or not available.

An effective deal database that pulls data into a central repository information from the other firm resources (eg, Finance, HR, Records, document management system, etc.), and offers a profile of each deal (select meta data), is one way the firm can use KM techniques to help its corporate and securities attorneys and other transactional practices attorneys manage the life-cycle of a transaction efficiently. The business case for a deals database is improved business development, marketing, client service and training, and the well-designed and properly maintained and marketed deal database is a great tool for the attorneys. The hat trick is for the firm to build a database with the necessary data that can be maintained and when marketed to the firm, easily mined by attorneys or by administrative staff, such as marketing, finance and KM staffers, who can push the much-needed data out to the attorney. This article reviews some of the issues a law firm should consider and certain challenges that arise when trying to create an effective database.

Know Your Business

There is a KM mantra (hard-earned knowledge from those in the avant-garde of law firm KM) that plays on an oft-quoted leitmotif: if you build it, they will not necessarily come. Before you build a central repository for any transaction, know what your attorneys need to manage a deal (the underlying business process), identify the transactional attorney's normal workflow, and then build a resource that's closely aligned with the underlying business process and workflow.

Disparate resources call for desperate measures

The business process to manage a transaction ranges from marketing the firm (law firm rankings such as Thomson Financials league tables) to defining 'what's market.' Without a central repository of deal information, attorneys find the necessary data to manage the transaction from pitch to press release where he or she can. But it is not easy. To underscore the business case for an effective deal database, below are a few examples of what attorneys need and the difficulties encountered trying to wrest data from disparate resources.

Find similar deals/internal experts

' Resource/Method: Contact colleagues or comb the Records database

' Challenge: Hard to do in a large organization; the Records database may not identify similar deals with sufficient granularity (eg, cross-border mergers closed in the last 6 months)

Deal hours/financials

' Resource/Method: Search the Finance database for hours, fee and cost information

' Challenge: Difficult to identify completed deals.

Sample documents/analysis of market terms

' Resource/Method: Search the document management system

' Challenge: Inefficient searches/ imprecise results — system has millions of unrelated documents

KM Challenges Building the Deal Database

Once you've identified the underlying business process and the firm resources you want to link to your central repository, the next tasks are to design the data collection process and define the technical requirements and marketing plan. While there isn't one solution that fits all law firms, a common thread is the challenges arising from these tasks, including:

' Cultural barriers regarding data capture and maintenance

' Technical challenges

' Promoting the database

' Measuring success

' Planning improvements

Cultural Challenges

' Data collection and maintenance: Who collects what data and how? For those who've spearheaded initiatives to build a collection only to watch the collection become stale shortly after launch because the data was not replenished or maintained, this issue is familiar.

' Asking for the attorney's help ' but just a little bit: A data collection/maintenance process requires some participation by attorneys but the process may fail if the proposed participation falls too far outside the normal workstream of a deal, if it is not rewarded and burdensome. The challenge is to design a process that is part of that workstream or insinuates itself into that workstream through rewards.

' The data: Weigh the granularity of the deal data against the difficulties obtaining that data. For example, it might be convenient to offer structured searches that locate deals with certain breakup fee or indemnification cap percentages in an M&A database, but not a worthwhile collection effort if you capture that data for just a small number of deals. When designing the database, the challenge is to identify the key data points sufficient to meet the attorney's marketing, client service and training needs (the underlying business process) and then determine if that information can be obtained for most deals.

' The deal tracking process: Once you've identified the key data points, another challenge is to design the deal tracking process (ie, identifying which pending matters are now completed deals and streaming the identified meta data and deal documents to the staff responsible for publishing to the deal database. But here's the rub ' how do you know when a financing or merger deal is completed (public equity offerings are the easy case). One method is to start the deal tracking process when a matter is opened (this builds your list of deals), with the data collection portion of that process triggered once the attorneys identify which financings or mergers on that list are completed deals.

' Once the deal is completed, meta data and document collection is triggered, which presents its own challenges since the best people to profile the deal and provide the documents (attorneys and paralegals handling the transaction) are also the least available people to participate in the collection process. One solution is to design a process that assigns and rewards non-billing staff to collect as much data as possible (this may mean redefining the role of the secretary or paralegal and creating a new deal workstream for that population, as well as assigning tasks to the non-billing KM staff) and also rewards attorneys and paralegals who identify the remaining key meta data.

Technical Challenges

Building an effective deal database also requires working with in-house technical staff and vendors in order to make technical choices (and compromises). Here are a few of the challenges that arise:

' Address the buy or build decision

' Work with other administrative groups and with the Information Systems (IS) group to leverage and link to other firm databases (eg, Finance, HR, Records, Timekeeping, etc.)

' Liaise with the IS staff and attorneys ' KM staff are the translators explaining substantive requirements to IS and technical issues to the attorneys

' Work with vendors to integrate their products into the firm, including leveraging products designed for one use for another use (eg, a redaction tool like Sanitize becomes a document automation tool)

' Structured Searches/User Interfaces (UI) ' include essential elements within an easy-to-use UI

Marketing Challenges

Marketing the deal databases internally is an under-emphasized challenge. The well-maintained accurate data may not get used if you don't aggressively market the deal database to the diverse user population ' push the data in a targeted fashion. Push Series E financing fee summaries to Members who've just opened a new Series E matter. Analyze the market terms you've collected and push the analysis and sample documents to associates. Train Marketing staff to pull data for Thomson Financial and Bloomberg rankings. This kind of marketing will foster adoption of the database.

Measuring Success

Another challenge is determining whether you've built an effective deal database. A few ways to measure success include:

' Usage: Buy a usage survey product to measure the number of users searching the database, viewing meta data profiles of deals and opening deal documents and track which documents are opened

' Marketing Externally: Mine the deal database deals to report financial reporters such as Thomson Financial and Bloomberg who publish law firm M&A rankings ' measure success by quarterly or yearly improvements in ranking.

' Other: Measure results by improved realization rates; collect and publicize anecdotes regarding efficient client service and training successes related to use of a deal database.

Improvements to the deal database

Building the first iterations of the deal database requires compromise ' but keep track of what you defer and plan for improvements, including:

' Deal tracking. Experience shows that when the process is too far outside the normal workflow, it meets resistance. A few ways to improve the process include:

o Automated deal tracking process. Use an automated process at start the process at the beginning of the matter's life cycle.

o Manual deal tracking process. Continue to bring the process into closer alignment with the attorney's normal workstream in order to harness that workstream; where possible create new workstreams, including formal deal tracking roles that are rewarded with promotions

' Vendors. Deal documents linked to the deal database take time to redact for re-use in another deal. Improve efficiencies by finding and integrating new products like Sanitize from OpenSource Inc. so that linked deal documents can be efficiently readied for re-use by auto-redaction.

' KM staff. Hire individuals with substantive legal experience to support the data collection process.

Conclusion

This article has set forth a few of the issues and challenges that arise when building an effective deal database. While there is not one solution to building an effective database, a key principle to take away is that any solution is a team effort that requires the participation of attorneys and administrative staff and a data collection process that is closely aligned with the already-in-place workflow for a transaction. Building the database (centralizing a transaction's key meta data, financials and timekeeper information and documents) is a complex task but is one well worth the effort ' a deal database built with the workflow and business process of the transactional attorney in mind offers improved business development, marketing, client service and attorney training.

Managing the life-cycle of a transaction, whether an offering, a financing or a merger, requires an attorney to seek information from disparate sources within the firm. These searches are often inefficient, time-consuming and may not always yield the required data. The firm can use knowledge management (KM) techniques to build a one-stop repository of transaction data to help attorneys manage a transaction from pitch to press release.

An attorney draws upon many firm resources, from Finance to Human Resources (HR), from Records and Timekeeping databases to the document management system, during a transaction's life-cycle. Some of these resources help bring the transaction into the firm and others help provide efficient client service and attorney training. If the attorney's goals (business development, marketing, client service and attorney training) are clear, the steps to mine the firm's resources at best are not clear and at worst are not available. Consider the example of an attorney who, over the course of handling a new financing matter, needs to identify how many financings her firm has done in the life sciences industry and specifically, in the genomics space, as well as estimate fees and costs, find the firm's internal experts, find sample documents and define 'what's market' for this financing. Where does the attorney go to get the information? Lots of places at the firm, which takes lots of time, and even then the information may be incomplete or not available.

An effective deal database that pulls data into a central repository information from the other firm resources (eg, Finance, HR, Records, document management system, etc.), and offers a profile of each deal (select meta data), is one way the firm can use KM techniques to help its corporate and securities attorneys and other transactional practices attorneys manage the life-cycle of a transaction efficiently. The business case for a deals database is improved business development, marketing, client service and training, and the well-designed and properly maintained and marketed deal database is a great tool for the attorneys. The hat trick is for the firm to build a database with the necessary data that can be maintained and when marketed to the firm, easily mined by attorneys or by administrative staff, such as marketing, finance and KM staffers, who can push the much-needed data out to the attorney. This article reviews some of the issues a law firm should consider and certain challenges that arise when trying to create an effective database.

Know Your Business

There is a KM mantra (hard-earned knowledge from those in the avant-garde of law firm KM) that plays on an oft-quoted leitmotif: if you build it, they will not necessarily come. Before you build a central repository for any transaction, know what your attorneys need to manage a deal (the underlying business process), identify the transactional attorney's normal workflow, and then build a resource that's closely aligned with the underlying business process and workflow.

Disparate resources call for desperate measures

The business process to manage a transaction ranges from marketing the firm (law firm rankings such as Thomson Financials league tables) to defining 'what's market.' Without a central repository of deal information, attorneys find the necessary data to manage the transaction from pitch to press release where he or she can. But it is not easy. To underscore the business case for an effective deal database, below are a few examples of what attorneys need and the difficulties encountered trying to wrest data from disparate resources.

Find similar deals/internal experts

' Resource/Method: Contact colleagues or comb the Records database

' Challenge: Hard to do in a large organization; the Records database may not identify similar deals with sufficient granularity (eg, cross-border mergers closed in the last 6 months)

Deal hours/financials

' Resource/Method: Search the Finance database for hours, fee and cost information

' Challenge: Difficult to identify completed deals.

Sample documents/analysis of market terms

' Resource/Method: Search the document management system

' Challenge: Inefficient searches/ imprecise results — system has millions of unrelated documents

KM Challenges Building the Deal Database

Once you've identified the underlying business process and the firm resources you want to link to your central repository, the next tasks are to design the data collection process and define the technical requirements and marketing plan. While there isn't one solution that fits all law firms, a common thread is the challenges arising from these tasks, including:

' Cultural barriers regarding data capture and maintenance

' Technical challenges

' Promoting the database

' Measuring success

' Planning improvements

Cultural Challenges

' Data collection and maintenance: Who collects what data and how? For those who've spearheaded initiatives to build a collection only to watch the collection become stale shortly after launch because the data was not replenished or maintained, this issue is familiar.

' Asking for the attorney's help ' but just a little bit: A data collection/maintenance process requires some participation by attorneys but the process may fail if the proposed participation falls too far outside the normal workstream of a deal, if it is not rewarded and burdensome. The challenge is to design a process that is part of that workstream or insinuates itself into that workstream through rewards.

' The data: Weigh the granularity of the deal data against the difficulties obtaining that data. For example, it might be convenient to offer structured searches that locate deals with certain breakup fee or indemnification cap percentages in an M&A database, but not a worthwhile collection effort if you capture that data for just a small number of deals. When designing the database, the challenge is to identify the key data points sufficient to meet the attorney's marketing, client service and training needs (the underlying business process) and then determine if that information can be obtained for most deals.

' The deal tracking process: Once you've identified the key data points, another challenge is to design the deal tracking process (ie, identifying which pending matters are now completed deals and streaming the identified meta data and deal documents to the staff responsible for publishing to the deal database. But here's the rub ' how do you know when a financing or merger deal is completed (public equity offerings are the easy case). One method is to start the deal tracking process when a matter is opened (this builds your list of deals), with the data collection portion of that process triggered once the attorneys identify which financings or mergers on that list are completed deals.

' Once the deal is completed, meta data and document collection is triggered, which presents its own challenges since the best people to profile the deal and provide the documents (attorneys and paralegals handling the transaction) are also the least available people to participate in the collection process. One solution is to design a process that assigns and rewards non-billing staff to collect as much data as possible (this may mean redefining the role of the secretary or paralegal and creating a new deal workstream for that population, as well as assigning tasks to the non-billing KM staff) and also rewards attorneys and paralegals who identify the remaining key meta data.

Technical Challenges

Building an effective deal database also requires working with in-house technical staff and vendors in order to make technical choices (and compromises). Here are a few of the challenges that arise:

' Address the buy or build decision

' Work with other administrative groups and with the Information Systems (IS) group to leverage and link to other firm databases (eg, Finance, HR, Records, Timekeeping, etc.)

' Liaise with the IS staff and attorneys ' KM staff are the translators explaining substantive requirements to IS and technical issues to the attorneys

' Work with vendors to integrate their products into the firm, including leveraging products designed for one use for another use (eg, a redaction tool like Sanitize becomes a document automation tool)

' Structured Searches/User Interfaces (UI) ' include essential elements within an easy-to-use UI

Marketing Challenges

Marketing the deal databases internally is an under-emphasized challenge. The well-maintained accurate data may not get used if you don't aggressively market the deal database to the diverse user population ' push the data in a targeted fashion. Push Series E financing fee summaries to Members who've just opened a new Series E matter. Analyze the market terms you've collected and push the analysis and sample documents to associates. Train Marketing staff to pull data for Thomson Financial and Bloomberg rankings. This kind of marketing will foster adoption of the database.

Measuring Success

Another challenge is determining whether you've built an effective deal database. A few ways to measure success include:

' Usage: Buy a usage survey product to measure the number of users searching the database, viewing meta data profiles of deals and opening deal documents and track which documents are opened

' Marketing Externally: Mine the deal database deals to report financial reporters such as Thomson Financial and Bloomberg who publish law firm M&A rankings ' measure success by quarterly or yearly improvements in ranking.

' Other: Measure results by improved realization rates; collect and publicize anecdotes regarding efficient client service and training successes related to use of a deal database.

Improvements to the deal database

Building the first iterations of the deal database requires compromise ' but keep track of what you defer and plan for improvements, including:

' Deal tracking. Experience shows that when the process is too far outside the normal workflow, it meets resistance. A few ways to improve the process include:

o Automated deal tracking process. Use an automated process at start the process at the beginning of the matter's life cycle.

o Manual deal tracking process. Continue to bring the process into closer alignment with the attorney's normal workstream in order to harness that workstream; where possible create new workstreams, including formal deal tracking roles that are rewarded with promotions

' Vendors. Deal documents linked to the deal database take time to redact for re-use in another deal. Improve efficiencies by finding and integrating new products like Sanitize from OpenSource Inc. so that linked deal documents can be efficiently readied for re-use by auto-redaction.

' KM staff. Hire individuals with substantive legal experience to support the data collection process.

Conclusion

This article has set forth a few of the issues and challenges that arise when building an effective deal database. While there is not one solution to building an effective database, a key principle to take away is that any solution is a team effort that requires the participation of attorneys and administrative staff and a data collection process that is closely aligned with the already-in-place workflow for a transaction. Building the database (centralizing a transaction's key meta data, financials and timekeeper information and documents) is a complex task but is one well worth the effort ' a deal database built with the workflow and business process of the transactional attorney in mind offers improved business development, marketing, client service and attorney training.