Issue link: http://read.uberflip.com/i/34417
THE COMMODITY VS. PREMIUM WORK DEBATE: OBSERVATIONS ON THE TRANSCENDENT ROLE OF KM “The shareholder was interested in a KM solution, a way of re- engineering the handling of administrative agency charges.” He believed, correctly, that the client would reject such a proposal because it meant the firm would jettison the work if the losses became too heavy or the upside return too minimal. Instead, the shareholder was interested in a KM solution, a way of re-engineering the handling of administrative agency charges that would meet his and the client’s four objectives: • Scalability: Developing the capability to manage an increased volume of cases • Price Reduction: Reducing the client’s costs • Profitability: Increasing efficiency to ensure that the work could be done profitably • Quality: Ensuring that the quality of the work produced was not diminished as a result of achieving the first three objectives Of course, the first question was whether this type of work was even amenable to standardization or commoditization; could the handling of these types of cases be re- engineered using the business process methodologies that typify the “law factory” model? While individuals filing administrative agency charges are typically not represented by counsel, these matters are adversarial in nature. The administrative agencies charged with enforcing the pertinent statutes act in an investigative role and, if they determine that a violation may have occurred, they may seek to conciliate or initiate legal proceedings against the employer on behalf of the individual filing the charge. While not as complex as single-plaintiff or class-action litigation, these proceedings still involve extensive variables, including unpredictable actors and decision-makers. www.iltanet.org Knowledge Management 35