Issue link: http://read.uberflip.com/i/12204
and alternative fee arrangements, and a stronger focus on project/matter management. We believe that KM can play a valuable role in helping firms address these challenges. You will find other articles in this white paper and sessions at this year’s ILTA conference on this topic. While the survey indicates that some KM teams are supporting these initiatives, it is still a small number. The majority of firms and law departments don’t have any tools relating to fee estimates, AFAs or matter management. In the majority of firms that are looking at these issues, KM does not yet seem to have any involvement. However, from 12 to 22% of KM teams are involved in these initiatives, particularly in project/ matter planning tools. This is likely a significant increase from two years ago when we didn’t even include such initiatives on the list of KM functions and responsibilities we inquired about. You can see from the survey summary results that KM is supporting these initiatives through budgeting tools, tools to mine fee information about past matters, project plan templates, task-based billing, document assembly, education programs and more. WEB 2.0 The implementation of Web 2.0 collaboration tools in the legal environment has been another hot topic in KM over the past two years. So how are law organizations meeting the challenge of getting lawyers to use these tools? Almost 70% of respondents indicated that their organizations are using Web 2.0 tools to some extent (see question 17), however when asked about specific tools (see question 22), the responses indicate that most organizations are limiting usage to one or two tools. It also appears that use is still primarily on the administrative side of the business. The most popular tool among lawyers seems to be team sites, the next most popular is 8 Knowledge Management ILTA White Paper discussion forums, then wikis. The most common use is for collecting legal knowledge and resources on a topic or precedent, and the next for administrative committees. Quite a few organizations are using wikis and blogs for project management. SharePoint is, by far, the most commonly used technology. A number of firms are starting to use social networking tools similar to Facebook or LinkedIn for internal networking. PRIORITIES The priorities of KM organizations seem to be spread out across a number of areas. The most common priority seems to be implementing new (or upgrading) portals. The next most common is enterprise search, followed closely by development of a KM strategy and DMS implementation. Breaking results down by size of organization, we see that small organizations (<50) have a slightly higher priority on DMS and e-mail management; mid-sized (51-250) on DMS. Priorities for large mid-sized (251-500) are spread evenly across all possibilities. Large firms (501-1,000) are focusing on enterprise search. Priorities for mega firms (>1,000) are spread out pretty evenly, with a slightly higher focus on new portal implementation. CORPORATE LAW DEPARTMENT KM The size of law department respondents spanned the spectrum with 5 respondents coming from being small departments(less than 50), 9 from mid-sized (51-250) and one from large (501-1000). Regarding whether they have a formally articulated strategic plan or vision, the breakdown is about the same as for law firm KM, with approximately 27% with, 27% without, and 46% working on it. However, a higher percentage of corporate law department KM initiatives do not have a separate KM budget (80% vs. 61%). This is not