<b><i> Law Firm CI:</i></b> Inspiring Change

As such, their contribution is in reaction to ' rather than an integral part of ' the strategic function of the firm, a point that leads us to a second tie-in to Gilad/Fuld's list of success factors: Proactive research, while gaining traction, is far from commonplace and seldom gets the attention or funding it deserves.

Most CI departments within law firms are set up to be more of an occasional resource or afterthought instead of a proactive contributor to the firm's decisions. This internal structure alone puts law firm CI at a disadvantage.

Finally, a reactive function is rarely privy to the big-picture understanding needed to deliver the highest quality insights and perspectives. The team's ability to serve as a true change agent ' one that can sway opinion or have a hand in opening management's consideration of alternatives ' is handicapped. Without the resources, time, information ' or perhaps most importantly, authority ' required to engage in forward-thinking scenario planning and forecasting, the CI function at law firms will continue to fall on the “less valuable” side of Gilad/Fuld's usefulness equation.

Where Law Firm CI Is Hitting the Mark

Yet despite these shortcomings, law firms are making greater use of CI, generally, and even greater strides in using CI to support and validate their decisions. Is there perhaps more to the value of CI in law firms than meets the eye?

In their research, Gilad and Fuld define “useful” competitive intelligence as that in which the “input on a major management decision made enough difference to improve the decision.” Hence, their findings suggest that having the analyst integrally involved in decision-making or product launches make sense; linking CI results directly to go-to-market strategies will make for better choices. But what about the rest of the CI performed ' the analyses that do not explicitly influence a management decision? Are these firms not “actually using the competitive intelligence they collect” as the authors suggest? For example, if the practice head of a law firm engages the CI team in an exercise to validate his belief that a particular type of work is dwindling or under great rate pressure, does this truly render the findings of no value?

Not necessarily. In fact, the premise of Gilad and Fuld's conclusions may be flawed, particularly when examined in the context of professional services. Law firm CI, in practice, can have a powerful impact even if it is not being used to improve management decisions. While it may seem this line of thinking contradicts the previous paragraphs highlighting the vulnerabilities of law firm CI, the Gilad/Fuld definition of what it means to be useful neglects to factor in a critical component of driving organizational change in a law firm: people.

Whereas many companies are selling products and using CI to enhance product development and positioning, professional service firms' greatest assets are their people. And “re-engineering” or “re-branding” people demands more than just understanding the competitive marketplace, it requires having effective tools, techniques and approaches in place to motivate change. This is where CI comes in.

Lawyers, analytical by nature, respond well to data and information. In 1993, Dr. Larry Richards' research on lawyer personalities found, not surprisingly, that lawyers score much higher than the average person on abstract reasoning. The same study revealed the difference between lawyers and a typical person in skepticism is even greater. This combination of personality traits helps to make CI an essential ingredient in the quest to overcome law firms' (at times daunting) aversion to change.

To a highly analytical skeptic, what better fodder to motivate change than facts, data and analysis? Returning to the previous example, an analysis conclusively demonstrating a decline in demand or rates for a particular service area could compel attorneys within the practice to behave differently, perhaps embracing new practice efficiencies, fee models or approaches to staffing.

Thus, the role of CI in law firms is not simply to inform decisions (though it is encouraging to see the industry moving in that direction), but also to inspire change. Today, CI teams do this most often by providing the analytical foundation to support and validate key decisions, influence perspectives and help to motivate organizational change through facts and figures.

Ideally, in the future, law firm CI functions will continue to evolve; eventually, perhaps, espousing many of the successful elements Gilad and Fuld identified in their study. Leaders of the CI team will be integral members of a law firm's strategic group. They will participate as equal members in practice launches, office openings and merger discussions. Their voices will resonate with anticipation of market shifts, identification of competitive advantage and revelations of opportunity otherwise obscured by the day-to-day activities of delivering legal services. In the meantime, let's embrace them for what they can do: inspire change.

Marcie Borgal Shunk' a member of this newsletter's Board of Editors, is a Senior Consultant at LawVision Group and a member of the Legal Marketing Association's Board of Directors.