Lawyers could learn a thing or two about communicating with clients from this explanation on the Stake Ventures blog: Why the LLC is the Ruby on Rails of legal entities.
Lawyers could learn a thing or two about communicating with clients from this explanation on the Stake Ventures blog: Why the LLC is the Ruby on Rails of legal entities.
At the Conferenza Blog, they just posted a great recap of the TED Conference. One of the three trends that emerged at the event was really fascinating, and its something I’d like to talk more about at our LexThink! Lounge event and maybe even at LexThink! 2020.
Youth, Innovation and ‘Upgrade Paradox’. A variety of speakers addressed the issue of innovation, creativity, educating youth and our future. Sir Ken Robinson argued creativity is as important as literacy, and said we train it out of our youth. Zany astronomer Clifford Stoll suggested those who want to know the future 20 years out should ask kindergarten teachers, not technologists or futurists. Neil Gershenfeld of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms described how his $20,000 mobile fab labs are used by young children, who are often bedazzled and spend hours learning to build complex technical systems. Finally, NYTimes tech columnist David Pogue described the “upgrade paradox” by which well-meaning, consenting (presumably) adults work to “improve” a piece of software so many times “you finally ruin it.”
Do you think legal marketing sucks? Then read Church Marketing Sucks, a great new blog focused on — yep, you guesed it — church marketing. Great blog design too!
Found this article (via Digg) titled Why Features Don’t Matter Anymore: The New Laws of Digital Technology. In the author’s words, “user experience (along with a strong brand, and clever marketing) is much more important for the success of a device then technical specifications.” There is much to be learned here for all service providers as well, so I encourage you to read the entire article with that in mind. Here are the author’s 10 fundamental rules (read the article for his explanation):
1) More features isn’t better, it’s worse.
2) You can’t make things easier by adding to them.
3) Confusion is the ultimate deal-breaker.
4) Style matters
5) Only features that provide a good user experience will be used.
6) Any feature that requires learning will only be adopted by a small fraction of users.
7) Unused features are not only useless, they can slow you down and diminish ease of use.
8) Users do not want to think about technology: what really counts is what it does for them.
9) Forget about the killer feature. Welcome to the age of the killer user-experience.
10) Less is difficult, that’s why less is more
Technorati Tags: client+service, experience, marketing
Sam Decker shares Twenty Questions to Develop Your Business that every small business should be able to answer. Really worth a read.
Technorati Tags: small+business,
Jack Vinson summarizes the two days of a legal KM (knowledge management) conference he attended. Check out his posts about Day One and Day Two.
Technorati Tags: km, knowledge+management, law
I’m going to be hanging around a lot of people waaaaaaaay smarter than I am at BarCamp Los Angeles next weekend (Saturday and Sunday, March 4–5, 2006). I’ve tentatively titled my session “UnConferencing for Normal People — Taking the UnConference Mainstream.”
While everyone else is building cool web2.0 applications full of ajaxy goodness (I don’t really know what that means, either), I’ll be working to build the perfect conference. I’ll post my presentation up here later this weekend.
Come join me! Have a Beer. Don’t cost nothin’.
Technorati Tags: unconference, barcamp, barcampla
Could a law firm bring in its target clients and ask them for marketing advice? Here’s an introduction to how it just might work:
Rather than simply offer free samples, previews, test-drives etc to opinion leaders, the idea of seeding trials is to create goodwill, loyalty and advocacy among the opinion-leading 10% of your target market by putting the product or service in their hands and giving them a say in how it is marketed. By involving opinion leaders in this way, by effectively inviting them to become part of your marketing department, you create a powerful sense of ownership among the clients, customers or consumers that count.
The reason this works is called The Hawthorne Effect. Here’s a fascinating example from the article:
Back in the 1930s, a team of researchers from the Harvard Business School were commissioned to run some employee research for the telecom giant Western Electric (now Lucent Technologies). Conducted as the company’s production plant in Hawthorne, near Chicago, the research program involved inviting small groups of employees to trial various new working conditions before rolling them out to the general workforce. To the researchers’ amazement, whatever was trialed the participants seemed to like, to such an extent that their productivity increased! For example, when researchers invited participants to trial working in brighter lighting conditions, productivity increased. But then when they trialed dimmer lighting conditions, productivity also increased. In fact, productivity kept increasing in successive trials of working under progressively dimmer lights, until the lighting was no stronger than moonlight! In another trial, the research participants were invited to test working shorter hours, and sure enough their productivity increased again. Indeed, subsequent trials showed that the more breaks the research participants were given and the less time they worked, the greater their productivity. But then, when the researchers asked them to trial longer hours, productivity went up again – to an all time high.
Technorati Tags: marketing, seeding, professional+services, law, hawthorne+effect
Don’t know how I missed this one, but Kevin Heller is selling the domain name sucksmyan.us. Too funny!
Ross Dawson e-mailed me a link to a new White Paper he’s written, titled The Seven MegaTrends of Professional Services. You can read the paper online (one trend at a time) or download it from Ross’ blog. I’m through Trend Two, and find it pretty interesting reading so far.
In case you are wondering, Ross’ Seven MegaTrends are:
Ross is sending me a copy of his new book, the Second Edition of Developing Knowledge-Based Client Relationships and I’ll let you know what I think. I own the first edition, and am looking forward to reading the second.
Technorati Tags: RossDawson, Professional+Services, Trends
At BlawgThink, my friend Doug Sorocco told me something that, the more I think about it, is the single best thing that has happened because of my blog. Last year, I posted this appeal from Doug, asking for help with a raffle for the Spina Bifida Association of America (SBAA), which Doug chairs. Doug told me that someone clicked on the link though my site and donated $10,000 anonymously to the SBAA.
First, if that generous person is still reading this blog, THANK YOU!
Second, in hopes that lightning may strike twice, I’m going to post this request from Doug he sent me today:
Hello friends!
As many of you know, I am the Chairman of the Spina Bifida Association of America – a national non-profit organization whose mission it is to prevent the occurrence of spina bifida (i.e through education of the benefits of consuming folic acid prior to conception) and promotion of all those affected by spina bifida.
Although spina bifida is the number one permanently disabling birth defect in the United States, research funding through the NIH is at a woefully inadequate level. As a result, we as an organization have championed the Center for Disease Prevention’s (CDC) efforts to create a National Spina Bifida Program – a program that has been outstanding in its very limited time of existence and is used as a model by the CDC for public/non-profit cooperation. The program’s funding is being threatened by cuts in the FY2007 budget.
I strongly support the program at the CDC and can personally vouch for the programs fiscal responsibility, effectiveness and meaning to the individuals living with spina bifida and the 60 million women of childbearing age in the United States.
Please take a few moments and click through the link below to send a message to your Congressional representatives that the National Spina Bifida Program at the CDC is also important to you. It doesn’t take many responses to truly make a difference.
It would also be helpful if you could forward this email to a couple of your friends and colleagues.
Thank you so much for your assistance – it truly means a lot to me.
Douglas
Here’s a link to the Action Alert from the Spina Bifida Association website, and here’s the link to send an e-mail to your Member of Congress.
If you check out the LexThink! site, we’ve changed the logo and tagline, and are slowly (but surely) refreshing the content and updating the navigation in anticipation of the LexThink Lounge and another event we’ve got in the works.
I’m working on a much-overdue and comprehensive redesign of the [non]billable hour, along with MatthewHomann.com and a new blog, so the changes to LexThink will be a bit more significant in time, but for now we needed to freshen it up a bit.
The new tagline “The Legal UnConference Company” fits better with what we do. Though I really liked “Think Big Thoughts, Do Cool Things, Change The World,” it wasn’t very descriptive. Let me know what you think.
Technorati Tags: lexthink, unconference
Here’s another idea from David Seah that I absolutely love: The Pickle Jar. Here’s his explanation:
I’m sometimes distracted by too many project ideas. When the ideas pile up, my productivity sinks because I keep thinking about them, and multitasking slows me down. To keep focused, I evolved a mind trick called The Pickle Jar that, despite its hokey name, actually works for me. It got me through my thesis, when writing was the last thing I felt like doing.
The Pickle Jar is an actual glass jar that once held pickles. Next to it is a square pad of paper, about 4 inches on the side. To get unrelated thoughts out of my mind, I write down a brief synopsis down, fold it twice, and put it into the Jar.
The physical act of writing down, folding, and then “pickling” the idea for later consumption is weirdly cathartic. Since I’m no longer in danger of forgetting the thought, I can relax. The act of formulating on paper has also satisfied the urge to follow up on it. The size of the paper also prevents you from writing too much…there’s just enough room to get the essence of the idea down.
Technorati Tags: picklejar, DavidSeah, innovation,
Andrew Razeghi has a great article titled Create Success: Stop Thinking Like a Lawyer he wrote a few years ago, but that I just found. Among other things, he takes on the topic of law firm retreats:
No firm can create strategy in a half day, or even a full day. Not only is the time insufficient, the contributors are isolated. There are typically no clients at such retreats, or any investment bankers, accountants, and other professional advisers that law firms work with. Therefore, the retreat often devolves into a feel-good exercise.
Wouldn’t it be better to have 20 attorneys thinking about strategy for four hours a month for 10 months? Who are those who make things happen? Who are the thought leaders in your firm? What if you gave them the chance to think strategically as a part of their job? Create a “strategy network” within your firm – a web of business thinkers with a structured forum in which to think about the business of law, not the practice of law. This network should not just include senior partners and rainmakers, but new partners and senior associates too.
I really like this idea and think it could be a good fit for a practice group or small law firm. Anyone want to try this in their firm? I’d be happy to help you get it off the ground.
Here’s a great list of billable hour resources from my friend Lisa Solomon at The Billable Hour.
Here’s a cool utility that could help you recapture some of that lost time. From the TimeSnapper website:
With TimeSnapper you can
play back your week just like a movie. You can play it at any speed you like, and jump in at any time you like. When it’s time to fill out that dreaded timesheet, TimeSnapper is a savior. No need to tear your hair out trying to remember where all the time went.
Via Lifehacker.
Mark at Manager Tools writes about an exercise he has all of his executive coaching clients do before he begins working with them: He asks them to list their priorities and then looks at their calendars. The result?
90% of the time they don’t match.
When I review with my clients what they said their priorities were, versus what their calendars proved they actually were, the primary emotion, once we fight through disbelief and dissembling, is embarrassment. The smart ones get something powerful from this: the disparity between what they know their jobs to be and what they spend their time doing is the primary source of their dissatisfaction in their role.
Such a simple, yet profound exercise. Try it yourself and see if your calendar and priorites match?
Thanks to Lisa for the tip.
ZDNet has a great list of “classic clueless-user” stories submitted by IT folks. Here’s one that made me laugh:
4. We currently have a great policy for keeping e-mail to a minimum. It’s only kept 90 days, then it’s deleted, so if you want to save it past the retention period, you have to put it into a file somehow.
This has been in effect for several years, but amazingly, we had a couple of executives in the legal dept who built up 40,000 messages in their inboxes each, without having any deleted. I finally got the connection when the new “retention policy” was published. The company lawyers who wrote it had a line in the document that excluded themselves from the policy and made sure they could keep everything forever!
We are almost ready to announce the complete details of LexThink!(R) Lounge. Here are some more details:
On April 19, 2006, one hundred invited guests will congregate in Chicago for the inaugural LexThink! Lounge, presented by Dennis Kennedy, Matthew Homann and JoAnna Forshee.
Taking place on the eve of the American Bar Association’s TECHSHOW*, the LexThink! Lounge is a salon-like gathering of some of the brightest minds in legal technology today.
Beginning at 4:00 pm, and continuing into the evening, the LexThink! Lounge will combine LexThink! collaborative brainstorming techniques, OpenSpace facilitation, and small discussion groups with fine food and drink to create an amazing atmosphere for in-depth discussions about the future of legal technology.
Attendees at the invitation-only event are expected to include many of the TECHSHOW speakers, prominent legal and technology bloggers, alumni of prior LexThink! events, and other Chicago-area innovators and influencers. The centerpiece of the evening will be a Legal Tech Five by Five, where five legal technology pioneers will offer their five tech predictions and a glimpse into the future of legal technology.
*The LexThink! Lounge is not affiliated in any way with the American Bar Association or TECHSHOW.
We have 9 of our 11 sponsorships spoken for. If anyone wants to know more, e-mail me at Matt@LexThink.com or download the sponsor sheet (in pdf) here.
Lisa Haneberg posts the winning entries in her Best Management Ideas contest. All are worth a read.
Mark Merenda gives some great advice on law firm taglines, and then shares this story:
It put me in mind of the — much shorter — tag line of a young attorney whom I met at a NAELA event at Hilton Head Island, S. C. in May, 2004. His business card read (with a change of names to protect the guilty): Joe Jones, attorney at law, N.A.A.
I asked what the N.A.A. designation stood for. He said, “Not An A**hole.”
According to the article [here], many mechanics charge between 100 and 140 pounds ($174 -$244) an hour just in labor costs. Junior barristers charge 30 – 100 pounds ($52- $174) as their typical hourly fee; physicians charge from 44 to 63 ($77-$110) pounds per hour.
Management By Baseball breaks down a silly law suit by Major League Baseball against the owners of fantasy baseball leagues. What’s so interesting about the post is the explanation of the three common reasons big companies sue small ones. The third one doesn’t sound familiar, does it?
COMMON REASON #1 — The attacking organization is on a decline it cannot stem with the creative energy & growth in its market & is just trying to squeeze a little more juice out of the old beetle before it folds.
COMMON REASON #2 — The attacking organization is struggling to survive because even though it has creative energy, its markets are blocked & the chump change it stands to claim is more than it currently has.
COMMON REASON #3 — The attacking organization just brought counsel in house or hired new outside counsel and the newcomer is trying to make an impression or the hiring executives want to show off their new toy.
I ran across this great tip on brainstorming a better career on the Achieve-It! blog:
Take a pad of paper and write down at the top your objective in question form. Then, simply list out 20 answers to your question.
For example, in this case, you would write “What should I be doing with my time and life?” Then stay seated for a half hour to an hour coming up with answers to that question. The key to this exercise is coming up with 20 answers – don’t quit until you have 20 answers.
Take this tip, and at your next client meeting take 30 minutes for you and your client to both complete the exercise, answering the question “What is a successful outcome of this case” or something similar. Trade answer sheets and discuss.
I wish I’d thought of this for my mediation practice. Imagine having each side do the exercise and then giving their answers to the mediator
I’m completing my “Beyond ROI” presentation for ABA’s Techshow and have come up with a theme I like a lot. Let me know if you like it too:
The only “Return on Investment” that matters is the return your customers receive on their investment in you.
Don Dodge hits the nail on the head:
The web, and more specifically blogs, have made it simple and cheap to promote your product. And it can all happen in 24 hours…without ever leaving your computer screen. This is transformational. It has been happening gradually over the last 5 years so we haven’t really noticed how dramatic the change has been. It is huge.
Hugh MacLeod on the billable hour:
The thing about consulting I hate is, you just get paid by the billable hour. So the minute you stop tapdancing, you’re dead.
A Journeyman gets paid while he works. A Master gets paid while he sleeps.
Here are 21 great tips for better blogging, from MakeYouGoHmm.com. They’re all great, but a few got a hearty AMEN! from me, including:
6. Start blogging about subjects that aren’t already being blogged to death, or write about them with a fresh perspective. Unless you are some kind of celebrity, the head of a major company, movie star, etc, just being you is likely not enough in today’s overcrowded blog space. If too much of your content is “me too” then readers will find it harder to stay interested and look elsewhere.
8. Don’t slap a bunch of flashy banners and buttons (no matter how small) all over the place. The clutter effect will happen if you keep jamming more and more stuff onto the pages, so be picky about what gets on the pages — and keep the content relative — and when something doesn’t seem as important or relevant either remove it completely or move elsewhere.
16. Don’t cripple the RSS feed. Some readers may actually prefer to read your posts in their favorite aggregator or portable device, so try not to punish them for their preferences.
20. Are you having fun? Readers are smart and can tell who is having fun from their writing over those who are laboring. Don’t labor, have fun. If trying to follow too many things on this list is peeing in your cornflakes, then stop following this list. It’s not the gospel, although I believe these tips will help those who are seeking some guidelines and direction.
While talking tips, if you haven’t already, check out Evan Schaeffer’s presentation from BlawgThink here.
Well, not exactly tips on legal writing, but pretty solid advice from my favorite author. The best of the bunch?
Never use a verb other than “said” to carry dialogue. The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said is far less intrusive than grumbled, gasped, cautioned, lied. I once noticed Mary McCarthy ending a line of dialogue with “she asseverated,” and had to stop reading to get the dictionary.
Never use an adverb to modify the verb “said” . . . he admonished gravely. To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin. The writer is now exposing himself in earnest, using a word that distracts and can interrupt the rhythm of the exchange. I have a character in one of my books tell how she used to write historical romances “full of rape and adverbs.”
Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip. A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he’s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character’s head, and the reader either knows what the guy’s thinking or doesn’t care. I’ll bet you don’t skip dialogue.
Imagine if Law Review writers followed the last tip. No more footnotes!
Technorati Tags: elmore+leonard, writing, law+review
Man, I’ve got to get me one of these. The only problem, not much of a waiting room.
Attorneys Aren’t Knowledge Workers by guest blogger Ron Baker
In light of my last post titled Your Employees are Volunteers, this one is sure to cause some cognitive dissonance. My VeraSage Institute colleague Dan Morris thinks I’m wrong about professional firms being filled with knowledge workers; he believes the majority of them are more akin to factory workers.
Now I know this is a heretical view, but Dan assembles a very powerful argument to support his assertion. He doesn’t deny professionals have the potential to be knowledge workers. His argument is they are not largely because of the incentives and structures of the firms in which they operate, which function like sweatshops of yore.
Now this is a powerful argument, and it made me pause to reexamine my core assumptions about automatically asserting that just because someone is a credentialed professional they are automatically a knowledge worker.
There’s no doubt they can contribute a certain amount of creativity and innovation to the jobs they perform and the customers they serve, but being a knowledge worker also requires that the leaders of your organization recognize and treat you like one.
Stephen Covey writes about exactly this in his latest book, The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness: “It’s the leadership beliefs and style of the manager, not the nature of the job or economic era, that defines whether a person is a knowledge worker or not.”
When you consider the metrics used by most firms to measure their team members, they all come from the Industrial Revolution’s command-and-control hierarchies (realization, utilization, billable hours, etc). Yet as I discussed in my posts on The Firm of the Past and The Firm of the Future, the metrics we use to measure a knowledge worker’s effectiveness are woefully inadequate.
Dan further supports his argument by stating that true knowledge workers:
If the above describes your firm, congratulations — you are a true knowledge organization. Perhaps nothing illustrates the value knowledge workers can add to a business than last week’s purchase of Pixar by Disney for $7.4 billion in Disney stock.
Disney will have to respect Pixar’s culture and continue to let it make quality movies at its own pace, in its own way. Otherwise, if Pixar’s creative talent leaves, “Disney just purchased the most expensive computers ever sold,” according to Lawrence Haverty, a fund manager at Gabelli Asset Management.
Unfortunately, most professional firms we’ve come into contact with around the world do not fit Dan’s criteria, which is why he makes such a strong case they function more like manual laborers than knowledge workers.
UPS founder Jim Casey remarked in 1947: “A man’s worth to an organization can be measured by the amount of supervision he requires.”
The moment you feel the need to hover over your knowledge workers, either physically or metaphorically with the Sword of Damocles — the timesheet — you’ve made a hiring mistake.
Until professional service firm leaders begin to grant their team members autonomy — Greek for self-governance — and treat them like self-respecting knowledge workers, I think Dan’s argument trumps mine.
What do you think?
Technorati Tags: ron+baker, knowledge+workers, law, firm
The Caffeine Nap is simple. You drink a cup of coffee and immediately take a 15 minute nap. Researchers found coffee helps clear your system of adenosine, a chemical which makes you sleepy. So in testing, the combination of a cup of coffee with an immediate nap chaser provided the most alertness for the longest period of time. The recommendation was to nap only 15 minutes, no more or less and you must sleep immediately after the coffee.
Are you including self-addressed stamped envelopes when you send your bills to your clients? You should be.
I’ve known Adriana Linares for a few years now. She’s cool, hip, and on top of her technology. And she’s blogging! If you want practical, no lingo advice on using the technology you already have, check out her I Heart Tech blog, and you’ll “Heart” Adriana too!
Patrick Lamb passes on a great tip from an article by Charles Green about how a law firm, given 90 minutes to “pitch” themselves to the General Counsel of a Fortune 50 company threw the pitch away — and hit the ball out of the park. From the GC:
Then came firm three. They said, ‘We have 90 minutes with you . We can either do a standard capabilities presentation–which we’re very happy to do–or we can try something different. We suggest that we get started on the job, right now–as if you had already given us the contract–and begin the job, right here, right now. After 85 minutes, we’ll stop and you’ll have firsthand experience of exactly how it feels to work with us.’
Consider this approach for your next pitch — and let me know how it goes.
Human Capital (not Cattle) by guest blogger Ron Baker.
In the knowledge society, the most probable assumption for organizations–and certainly the assumption on which they have to conduct their affairs–is that they need knowledge workers far more than knowledge workers need them.
-Peter Drucker
The term human capital was first used by Nobel Price-winning economist Theodore W. Schultz in a 1961 article in American Economic Review. His basic thesis was that investments in human capital should be accounted for in the same manner as investments in plant and machinery.
The obvious challenge is that investments in tangible, physical assets can be counted and comprehended, but those in people cannot. It is as if accountants would value the average human being at $50 since that is the approximate worth of our various chemical components. Human capital is like the dark matter of the cosmos, we know it’s out there but we can’t measure it.
Once again, Peter Drucker was at the forefront of thought when he coined both the terms knowledge society and knowledge worker in 1961 and positing it was the G.I. Bill of Rights–which made available higher education to some 2,332,000 veterans and was certainly the largest single investment in human capital up to that time–which caused the shift to a knowledge society.
Presently, less than one-fifth of the labor force is employed in blue collar occupations, and approximately two-fifths are “knowledge workers”–those who work with their heads, not their hands.
Knowledge Workers Have Nothing to Lose but Their Chains
Knowledge workers are not like workers from the Industrial Revolution who were dependent on the employing organization providing the means of production (factories and machines). Today, knowledge workers themselves own the firm’s means of production in their heads. This has been a tectonic shift in our economy, the ramifications of which we are still trying to comprehend.
For example, how does one measure the productivity of knowledge workers when what goes on inside their heads cannot be observed, let alone objectively measured?
In a factory, the worker serves the system; in a knowledge environment, the system should serve the worker. Knowledge work can only be designed by the knowledge worker, not for them. Unlike work on an assembly line, knowledge work is not defined by quantity but by quality. It is also not defined by its costs, but by its results.
It may be possible in a widget factory to work harder, but in a knowledge factory working smarter is the only option. The traditional metrics of productivity need to be replaced by judgment, and there is an enormous difference between a measurement and a judgment: a measurement requires only a stick; a judgment requires knowledge, insight, wisdom and discernment.
Knowledge Workers are Volunteers
There is a Chinese Proverb that teaches the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. Your people are not assets, resources, or inventory, but human capital investors seeking a decent return on their investment.
In fact, your people are actually volunteers, since whether or not they return to work on any given day is completely based on their own volition. Consider for a moment how people decide which volunteer organizations to contribute some of their talent. It’s usually based on a desire to contribute to something larger than themselves. They work hard–some would say harder than at their jobs–for these organizations because they are dedicated to the cause, they have the passion, the desire and the dream to make a difference in the lives of others. All for zero pay. Why?
This is not just an economic decision, it is a psychological and emotional decision. With all this evidence of human behavior, many firms still treat their people as if they will slack off if they’re not held accountable for every six minutes of every day. Is this any way to inspire people to be their best? Is this any way to instill a spirit of service, creativity and innovation?
Or is this nothing but antiquated thinking about the nature of man being lazy and slothful unless forced to work, redolent of Frederick Taylor’s time-and-motion studies? Your people may hang their hat at your firm, but where is their heart?
Becoming A Lightning Rod for Talent
It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do. – Steve Jobs, Founder, Apple Computer
Attracting, hiring, developing and retaining talent are the most important jobs to which everyone in the firm can contribute input and ideas. Partners spend more of their time–or at least they should–making people decisions than any other. No other decisions have as many repercussions throughout the firm, or have lasting significant effects than who to hire.
Typically, a firm is batting 0.333 on its hiring decisions–that is, one-third turn out to be good decisions, one-third are minimally effective, and one-third are abject failures. It is rare in any other area that firm leaders would accept this level of performance.
The issue of attracting Human Capital investors is a marketing issue. As in all marketing, it does not look inward and ask, “What do we want and need?” On the contrary, it looks outward and asks, “What do you want and need?” There is an enormous difference between these two approaches.
In effect, firms have to do the same to win over people as they do to gain new customers–show them why the firm is their best competitive alternative.
Because knowledge workers are investing their Intellectual Capital with firms that will pay a fair return, the question should not be, “How much is this person worth to the firm?” The real questions are: “How much is the firm worth to this knowledge worker? How can the firm add to this person’s Intellectual Capital, and develop it even further?”
A New Order of the Ages
Characteristics like passion, desire, obsession, motivation, innovation, creativity and knowledge may not show up anywhere on a firm’s financial statements or timesheets, but they are the traits that will ultimately determine the fate of your firm. Knowledge work is non-linear and not subject to the cadences and rhythms of an assembly line; rather it moves by iteration and reiteration, a process of the mind.
My favorite one dimensional test for creating a culture worthy of the respect and dignity of the people you are trying to attract is simply this: Would you want your son or daughter to work in your firm?
My colleague Dan Morris flies a flag over his firm’s office building with its name and logo in three colors. It is interesting to me because when I first saw it, I recalled those who first called themselves liberals–in the classical definition of the word–had in mind three liberations (which explains why the appropriate liberal flag is always tricolore).
They intended, first, to liberate humans from tyranny and torture; second, to liberate humans from poverty; and, third, to liberate humans from censorship and other oppressions of conscience, intellect, and art.
It is time we hoist a new flag over The Firm of the Future and usher in a new order of the ages, one that respects the dignity, and earns the rewards, of its Human Capital investors.
Buffalo Wings and Vodka sets out a great list of classroom participation strategies. My favorites:
The Admiral Stockdale: Most professors will simply move on to the next student if faced with an answer like “POTATOES! I LIKE POTATOES! WHERE’S MY PONY? MOM? ARE YOU THERE? POTATOES!” Also known locally as “The Shawn Rutherford?”
The Paige Pipkin: Really just a stalling tactic, forces the professor to clarify as many parts of the question as possible while you frantically flip pages in your case book: “Could you repeat the question?” “Could you say that one word again?” “Could you give me the language of origin?” “Could you use it in a sentence?” “Could you use it in a sentence other than the original question?”
Scorched Earth Policy: If the professor is going to take you down, then you’re going to take him down with you. Pull in an unrelated law review article. Cite Blackstone. Bring up the war in Iraq. Or abortion. Calling your professor a racist is also good for this, though it often takes a little bit of creativity in some of the drier classes. Trust your instincts.
To that, I’d add the Mutharika Mambo: When the professor dislikes your answer and asks you the question again, repeat your first answer verbatim. The professor will likely be so confused he’ll move on to another student. Or, in my case in first year contracts, reward the second answer (that, remember, was identical to the first) with a “very good, Mr. Homann.”
Dave Pollard sums up marketing 101: “Know what urgent problem you’re uniquely solving.” Dave continues:
Over the years I have advised many entrepreneurs, worked with a lot of consultants, and coached executives. All three groups repeatedly make the same mistake: They try to introduce ‘solutions’ that are really interesting, quite feasible, and well within their area of competency, but which fail to uniquely solve an urgent problem (in the eyes of whoever is paying for it).
Here’s another nugget:
Unless you’re willing to resort to such advertising hype, and burn a lot of bridges behind you, you need to focus on offering products and services that meet real needs. And if you’re wise, you’ll focus on urgent needs before important ones, because to most of us, there is always tomorrow to look after that important need, while the urgent need must be addressed today.
Go read his entire post. It’s really great.
Here is a good practical introduction to the Theory of Constraints from the Juice Analytics blog. The author is going to try imposing these constraints on his company:
As the author notes, “There is pain in fitting into constraints. And it isn’t always worth it. But there can be pay-offs in innovation, efficiency and focus.” Where can you utilize the Theory of Constraints in your practice?
Technorati Tags: constraints, law+practice
You Are Your Customer List by guest blogger Ron Baker
You’re really not in business to make a profit, but you’re in business to render a service that is so good people are willing to pay a profit in recognition of what you’re doing for them. – Stanley Marcus (1905-2002)
The purpose of your firm is to add to your customer’s wealth. By focusing on what customers really buy-expectations-and how important it is to exceed them, you will be well on your way to continuously delivering on that purpose at an increasing rate each day.
Your firm’s value proposition is a combination of price, quality and service, which come together to create a unique offering for your customer in order to offer a superior alternative in comparison to your competition.
Since the 1980s, the Total Quality Management movement arose as a way for firms to increase their quality, moving towards a Six Sigma, or zero defects, standard. The flaws in this strategy for an professional firm are obvious, since to err is human and rather than focusing on zero defects, I propose a zero defections standard, along with an effective customer complaint recovery strategy.
The most successful firms in the world today turn away more customers than they accept because they have a rigorous pre-qualifying process and they understand that, ultimately, bad customers drive out good customers.
In my last post, I suggested the metaphor of your firm’s fixed capacity as a Boeing 777 airplane, in conjunction with the concept of the Adaptive Capacity Model, in order to segment your customer base by the value they place on your offerings. I believe The Firm of the Future is just as diligent in forecasting this capacity-in terms of its yield and load factors-as the airlines are today.
Customers will continue to patronize businesses where they are invited and remain where they are appreciated. Your firm will get the customer behavior it rewards. Customer loyalty is worth rewarding.
Of course, that does not imply you need to accept all customers, or keep low-valued customers within your firm. Since you cannot be all things to all people, it is important to work with only those individuals and businesses you enjoy and who have personalities you get along with.
In surveys conducted by David Maister, he found professionals spend between 55% and 80% of their time working with people they are either indifferent about, or just don’t like. Why do professionals do this? As Maister pointed out in his book True Professionalism:
Supposedly, professionals are among society’s most bright, educated, and elite members–people who are supposed to have more career choices than anyone else. Yet they seem to be willing to accept a work life made up largely of “I can tolerate it” work and clients, and they feel that they cannot safely do anything about all that.
The fact is, you can do something about it, and you do have a choice of whom you work with and whom you accept as a customer. There is no justifiable reason for accepting–or retaining–customers whom you or your team members personally do not like. Toxic customers can have a negative effect on team member morale, which will ultimately have a deleterious effect on the firm’s wealth-creating ability.
If, on the other hand, you work with people you enjoy, not only will you do better work, be a more effective marketer, cross-sell more services, and attract like-kind customers, you will be a better professional and have a better quality of life.
Indeed, you are your customer list. How does that make you feel?
Baker’s Law: Bad Customers Drive Out Good Customers by guest blogger Ron Baker
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,…
-Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Whenever anyone quoted those immortal words from the Declaration of Independence — all men are created equal — Federalist Fisher Ames, an ardent opponent of Thomas Jefferson and a superb congressional orator, would retort: “And differ greatly in the sequel.”
While Fisher’s admonishment might not be the best way to administer a country’s laws — where all should be treated equally — it is profound when it comes to understanding no two customers are equal. A German Proverb teaches, “He who seeks equality should go to a cemetery.”
Maximum vs. Optimal Capacity
All firms have a theoretical maximum capacity and a theoretical optimal capacity. From a strategy perspective, it is essential to see how that capacity is being allocated to each customer segment. Your maximum capacity is the total number of customers you firm can adequately service, while the optimal capacity is the point at which customers can be served adequately while maintaining your competitive advantage and pricing integrity.
Insuring a proper amount of capacity is allocated to various customer segments, while offering a differentiating value proposition within each segment, is an essential element of implementing value pricing strategies. It also prevents bad customers–those who are not willing to pay for the value you deliver–from crowding out good customers.
The Adaptive Capacity Model
Think of your firm as a Boeing 777 airplane, similar to the one below:

When United Airlines places a Boeing 777 in service, it adds a certain capacity to its fleet. However, it goes one step further, by dividing up that marginal capacity into five segments:
A. First class
B. Business class
C. Full fare coach
D. Coach
F. Leisure, Priceline.com, and Bereavement fares
The airlines — and hotels, cruise lines, golf courses, car rental agencies, and other industries with fixed capacity — are adept at managing and predicting their adaptive capacity to maximize profitability.
Lessons from Yield Management
The airlines understand it is the last-minute customer who values the seat the most and hence they reserve a portion of each plane’s capacity for their best customers. They do this even at the risk the plane will take off with some of those high price seats empty — and that revenue can never be recaptured since they cannot inventory seats.
Why do they take that risk? Because the rewards of reserving capacity for price insensitive customers comprise the majority of their profits.
Airlines allocate only so many seats to coach, leisure, Priceline.com (or bereavement) seats, which they offer well in advance of the flight. However, no airline adds capacity in order to accommodate these customers.
This point is noteworthy, as too many firms will, in fact, add capacity — or reallocate capacity from higher-valued customers — in order to serve low-valued customers. This is the equivalent of the airlines putting the upper deck in the back of the plane rather than the front.
Furthermore, many companies will turn away high-value, last minute work from its best customers because it is operating near maximum capacity, usually at the low-end of the value curve for price sensitive customers. This is common during peak seasons; the lost profit opportunities are incalculable.
Many worry about running below optimal capacity and cut their prices in order to attract work, especially in downturns or slow cycles. This strategy is fine, but you must understand the tradeoff you’re making. Usually, that capacity could be better utilized selling more valued services to your first-class and business-class customers, who are less price sensitive than new customers.
This way, the firm does not cut its price and degrade its pricing integrity in order to attract price sensitive customers, sending a signal into the marketplace it is willing to engage in this strategy and affecting the perception of its value proposition.
The conventional wisdom is you have to be at maximum capacity — where demand exceeds supply — to raise prices. But since when do you have to wait to be fully booked to demand a premium price? Do not confuse working harder (supply-side capacity) with working smarter (demand-side pricing).
Prices are determined by value created for the customer, not the internal capacity constraints of your firm.
How much fixed capacity are you allocating to each customer class? What will be the criteria you use to ascertain where in your airplane each customer sits?
By viewing your firm as an airplane with a fixed amount of seats, you will begin to adapt your capacity to those customers who appreciate-and are willing to pay for-your value proposition.
Technorati Tags: ron+baker, pricing, law+firm, economics, value
The Marketing Concept by guest blogger Ron Baker
There is only one boss: the customer. And he can fire everybody in the company, from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else. -Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart (1918-1992)
I miss Peter Drucker. He was one of the few management consultants who had original insights, could write without making his readers feel like they were watching a fly ascend a drape, and has taught me so many lessons there is no way I can even separate his thinking from my own. He deserved a Nobel Prize, and it’s a shame he didn’t get one (they are not given posthumously).
One of his lessons was you are not in business to make a profit. Profit is merely oxygen for the body; it is not the reason for being. Profit is nothing more than a lagging indicator of what is in the hearts and minds of your customers.
He indefatigably pointed out that “there is only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer.” This is known as the marketing concept.
The purpose of any organization–from a governmental agency, non-profit foundation to a corporation–exists to create results outside of itself. The result of a school is an educated student, as is a cured patient for a hospital. For a law firm, a happy and loyal customer who returns is the ultimate result.
The only things that exist inside of a business are costs, activities, efforts, problems, mediocrity, friction, politics, and crises. There is no such thing as a profit center in a business; there are only cost and effort centers. In fact, Peter Drucker said in a 1997 interview, “One of the biggest mistakes I have made during my career was coining the term profit center, around 1945.”
The only profit center is a customer’s check that doesn’t bounce. Customers are absolutely indifferent to the internal workings of your firm in terms of costs, desired profits levels and efforts. Value is only created when you have produced something the customer voluntarily, and willingly, pays for.
For example, cosmetic companies, as Revlon founder Charles Revson pointed out, sell hope. What makes the marketing concept so breathtakingly brilliant is the focus is always on the outside of the organization. It doesn’t look inside and ask, “What do we want and need?” but rather it looks outside to the customer and asks, “What do you desire and value?”
Your firm exists to serve real flesh and blood people, not some mass of demographics known as “the market.” In the final analysis, a business doesn’t exist to be efficient, to do cost accounting, or to give people fancy titles and power over the lives of others.
It exists to create results and wealth outside of itself. This profound lesson must not be forgotten.
Thank you Mr. Drucker. R.I.P.
Technorati Tags: peter+drucker, cost, profit, law+firm, ron+baker
From this month’s edition of Brainmail:
A US study says that just four ideas copied thousands of times account for 80% of all breakthrough new businesses created between 1965 and 1995. The four ideas are: power retailing, focus/simplify/standardize, value chain bypass and mega-branding. Ref: Strategy + Business (US)
Which of the four will your firm rely upon to create your breakthrough new business?
Why Customer, Not Client? by guest blogger Ron Baker
Customers are people; consumers are statistics.
–Stanley Marcus [1905-2002], Quest for the Best
Stanley Marcus was the son of one of the founders of Neiman-Marcus. I believe he understood customer service better than almost anyone, and I have learned many things from his books.
One of his favorite sayings was: “No ‘market’–or ‘consumer’–ever purchased anything in one of my stores, but a lot of customers came in and bought things and made me a rich man.”
Words mean things. The words we use and the language we adopt, as a firm and as a profession, take on certain meanings over time. They become part of our culture, the way we do things.
When I began researching the Total Quality Service (TQS) and customer loyalty movements in the late 1980s, it struck me how many organizations have tried to call their customers something other than a customer.
The word client, when you look at its etymology, is an inappropriate word to describe the relationship between a professional and the person he or she serves in today’s marketplace. Client is derived from the Latin word cliens, which is a follower, retainer, one who follows his patron. In other words, a person dependent on another, as for protection or patronage.
According to my Dictionary, “among the ancient Romans a client was a citizen who placed himself under the protection of a patrician, who was called his patron; a master who had freed his slave, and retained some rights over him after his emancipation; a dependent; one under the protection or patronage of another.” Are these the type of images you want to project?
The Problem with the Contemporary Meaning
I realize words change in meaning, and they adopt contemporary usage and generally accepted definitions, and client is no exception. The Dictionary also describes client as “a person or company for whom a lawyer, accountant, advertising agency, etc. is acting; loosely, a customer; a person served by a social agency.”
But visit any governmental agency that dispenses aid to individuals, and you will soon discover they too use the word client. A social worker may have clients but I do not believe this describes the relationship we have (or want) with our customers.
What has happened to the word customer, and why do so many businesses attempt to describe the people they serve as something else? After all, customer is derived from the word custom, which is something done regularly. Therefore, a customer is a person who buys, especially one who buys regularly.
Why is it when you see the doctor, you’re a “patient,” when you board an airplane, a “passenger;” when you get into a taxi, a “fare;” to your utility company, a “ratepayer;” to your insurance company, a “policyholder;” and to a newsletter, a “subscriber.”
What’s going on here? Why not call customers what they are? Why do businesses develop a special terminology to describe what is, in essence, a commercial transaction? It is as if professionals believe we are not subject to the laws of supply and demand along with everyone else.
Partially, it’s arrogance, a way for us to feel superior about ourselves relative to our customers. After all, one doesn’t “sell” to a client; one doesn’t pander in the marketplace with non-professional advertising to attract clients; rather they rush to seek us out for our expertise, experience, guidance, etc. Does this sound like the current environment in which we operate?
The customer is sovereign, period. We may not like it, we may wax nostalgic for the good old days when customers lined up like passive sheep to be fleeced, but those days are gone, forever. Professionals can no longer place themselves above the “crass marketplace.” We must participate in it, and we must differentiate ourselves from the competition if we are to succeed.
Walt Disney insisted his customers be called “guests.” His attitude, which still permeates the entire culture of all Disney theme parks, is that the role of employees (“Cast Members”) is to entertain the guests and show them a good time. The words used to describe the people served by a business are a good indication of the attitude of the firm.
I’m not suggesting if you change your vernacular you will automatically instill a culture committed to the customer. Far from it. But the words you use to describe the people you serve says an enormous amount about the attitude of your firm–and it is the attitude and actions of your people that ultimately determine your firm’s culture.
I don’t expect many professionals to adopt the word customer. And that’s a good thing, for you. After all, you’re reading this Blog for the purpose of differentiating yourself from the competition, because competition really is conformity. Start referring to your clients as customers, and you will discover it has a salutary effect on your attitude, firm culture, customer loyalty and respect, and ultimately, your bottom line.
Technorati Tags: ron+baker, client+service, customer+service
The Firm of the Future by guest blogger Ron Baker
In my last post, I exposed the predominant practice equation for The Firm of the Past, and dissected the problems with it, how it does not explain the success of professionals (because it is far too focused on hours, efficiency, and inputs, rather than results, output and value), and why it no longer comports to the intellectual capital economy professionals inhabit today.
The New Practice Equation offers a viable and proven alternative to leveraging the real critical success factors of The Firm of the Future:
Profitability = Intellectual Capital x Effectiveness x Price
The Market Share Myth
This theory has many advantages over the old one. First, rather than focusing on top line revenue, the firm is forced to think about the profitability of each customer. Business is a game of margins, not market share, and growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, not a profitable business.
Further, not all customers are equal, and many firms could stand to lose up to 40-60% of their customers, and they’d be more profitable if they did so. Marginal customers may contribute revenue, but they also absorb precious, fixed capacity that is better allocated to more valuable customers.
Mind Over Matter
Second, professional firms don’t sell hours. They create and sell — and their customers buy –– Intellectual Capital (IC). This is a far broader view than thinking about leveraging people and hours. Microsoft didn’t create the wealth it has by pricing by the hour, and I doubt Bill Gates keeps a timesheet.
A firm’s IC consists of three components: Human Capital (its people); Structural Capital (its systems, proprietary software, checklists, resources, etc., that enable it to perform its work); and Social Capital (customers, vendors, suppliers, referral sources, alumni, and alliances). These components are the real levers of profitability in any professional service firm, not people hours. You can’t leverage an hour; time is simply time, and all businesses –– indeed, all living beings –– are constrained by it. So what?
There are so many more ways to leverage the three components of IC, but it requires a radical change of mindset to get away from the notion that “billable hours” drive a firm’s profitability. As Archimedes said, “Give me a lever long enough, and I shall move the earth.” The real lever in a professional service firm is its IC.
Doing the Right Things
Third, the Firm of the Future will focus on effectiveness, not efficiency. There’s not much the average firm can do to squeeze another 15-20% efficiency from its Human Capital, which are only fallible human beings. The focus on billable hours has hindered professional firms from focusing on being effective with their customers.
If you study surveys of how customers select –– or fire –– their attorneys, efficiency is never mentioned. It is always because of outstanding service, or lack of service –– issues such as they don’t ignore me, they are proactive in looking after my interests, they are aggressive in helping me pursue opportunities, etc. You can’t do all of these things if you are focused on nothing but billable hour quotas.
Therefore, the Firm of the Future will measure and judge team member effectiveness by utilizing Key Predictive Indicators (KPIs), which are leading indicators of performance. Timesheets are lagging indicators, and don’t offer firm leaders a relevant, or timely, measurement of the right things (effectiveness); instead, they attempt to focus on doing things right (efficiency). And they do a lousy job of it, since one can look great on a timesheet while having a lousy service attitude, or upsetting colleagues, or performing sub-quality work.
I will take effectiveness over efficiency any day in a knowledge environment. Let me be clear: The Firm of the Future does not have timesheets.
Pricing on Purpose
Last, Firms of the Future recognize they are a business just like the airlines, hotels, rental car companies, etc. Businesses have prices, not hourly rates. You’d never fly an airline that tried to charge you $4 per minute. The idea is simply ludicrous. In fact, professional firms need to start pricing up-front for everything they do, period. No more excuses.
To retort a firm can’t do that because it doesn’t know exactly how long it is going to take is specious. The customer doesn’t care how long it takes, they only care about the price relative to the value, and they want to make that comparison before they buy, not after. Do you care how long it took Toyota to build your car?
Besides, from the firm’s perspective, it is much better to know the customer doesn’t agree with the price before you do the work, which helps you prevent committing precious firm capacity to customers who don’t value the work.
Pricing earthquake and other disaster insurance is far more complicated than legal services, yet my insurance company gives me a fixed price, before I buy (and before they know what their costs are going to be). It’s called risk, and it is where all profits come from. The professions are going to have develop pricing competency if they are serious about capturing the value they create, and if that means they have to hire pricing professionals, including actuaries, then so be it.
Pricing is the number one driver of profitability in any business, and is far too important to leave to people who lack the creativity, imagination and self-esteem to price based upon value. You know who the mediocre and wimpy pricers are in your firm. They are severely handicapping your profitability by leaving money on the table, since they are far too focused on costs, hours, and efforts to think clearly about results, outputs and value to the customer.
Lawyers are subject to the same laws of economics, and consumer psychology as every other business. It is time they learned to Price on Purpose, and stop hiding behind the veil of billable hour.
Do Professionals Hate Change?
Other consultants will tell you professionals won’t take this journey to become a Firm of the Future because they hate change. In fact, the physicist Max Planck once said “Science progresses funeral by funeral.”
I reject this line of reasoning. I don’t think a profession progresses by shooting its elder members. It is not change, per se, lawyers fear, it is the uncertainty of the effects of the change they fear. That is a much different issue to deal with.
If I was Lloyds of London, and I could insure a firm’s losses for a given period of time if they were to try my theory and it failed, I think many more would change. Unfortunately, I’m not Lloyds and can’t do that.
I have to convert my colleagues based upon the logic of my arguments and ideas, through the use of words. I am optimistic I can do that –– I have a fairly good track record so far –– which is why I will continue to write, lecture, educate, and disseminate my ideas into the national conversation, through our think tank, VeraSage Institute.
In fact, the Fellows at VeraSage are so committed to this process –– a group of 14 dedicated professionals world-wide assembled in order to better the professions and quality of life –– we offer any firm assistance, in the form of e-mail and telephone consulting, if they are truly serious about making the transition. They can learn from our collective experience –and from other firms –– and this will help them avoid the mistakes others have made, thereby lowering their risk.
A Paradigm Worthy of a Proud Profession
Professional firms are Intellectual Capital organizations, and it is time for them to begin acting as if they understood this fact, rather than trying to constantly enhance efficiency by treating their Human Capital as if they had no mind of their own, redolent of the days of Frederik Taylor’s time-and-motion studies.
Humans are not simply machines that exist to bill hours, yet the old practice equation keeps us mired in this mentality. No one entered this profession to bill the most hours; it is simply not a relevant metric to judge the success of an attorney. I believe we can –– indeed, must –– do better than the one-dimensional opportunities presented by an antiquated model.
When I first publicly presented and contrasted The Firm of the Future with The Firm of the Past, a CPA explained to me at the break why she thought the new equation was so superior to the old. She said, and I’m paraphrasing here, “Your equation presents so many more factors that enable a firm to achieve its objectives than the old one did. It is like being freed from a cage that has restricted our firm for decades.”
I have offered you a testable hypothesis, one that is subject to the falsification principle of the scientific method. I hope someday this theory will be replaced with an even better one, as that is how all knowledge creeps. I only hope to live long enough to see it.
Clare Boothe Luce used to say, “The only difference between an optimist and a pessimist is the pessimist is usually better informed.” When it comes to the professions, I certainly hope she was wrong. But the road not yet traveled is long, and it seems the professions, to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s exhortation of America, will do the right thing –– once they have exhausted the alternatives.
Despite this, I remain optimistic. Milton Friedman tells a wonderful story that may illustrate what we need:
A young nun was out driving a car down a superhighway and ran out of gas. She remembered that a mile back there had been a gas station. She got out of her car, hiked up her habit, and walked back. When she got to the station she found that there was only one young man in attendance there. He said he’d love to help her but couldn’t leave the gas station because he was the only one there. He said he would try to find a container in which he could give her some gas. He hunted around the gas station and couldn’t find a decent container. The only thing he could find was a little baby’s potty that had been left there. So he filled the baby potty with gasoline and gave it to the nun. She took the baby potty and walked the mile down the road to her car. She got to her car and opened the gas tank and started to pour it in. Just at that moment, a great big Cadillac came barreling down the road at 80 miles an hour. The driver was looking out and couldn’t believe what he was seeing. So he jammed on his brakes, stopped, backed up, opened the window, and looked out and said, “Sister, I only wish I had your faith!”
The Firms of the Future must lead the profession by following a model worthy of its proud heritage. If we reinvigorate and revitalize the professions, begin to understand and leverage the Intellectual Capital it creates, there is no limit to what we can achieve, as long as we do not lose faith in ourselves.
Technorati Tags: ron+baker, billable+hour, efficiency, timesheets, intellectual+capital
Nothing stops an organization faster than people who believe that the way they worked yesterday is the best way to work tomorrow. To succeed, not only do your people have to change the way they act, they’ve got to change the way they think about the past.
––John Madonna, former Chairman, KPMG International
Revenue = People Power x Efficiency x Hourly Rate
Technorati Tags: ron+baker, timesheets, billable+hour, efficiency
One of the coolest things about blogging for me is that I have gotten to know some really amazing people. One of those folks is Ron Baker. When I first started blogging, I called him an absolutely amazing visionary and called two of his books, The Firm of the Future (with Paul Dunn) and The Professional’s Guide to Value Pricing “absolute must reads.” Ron left a comment to that post, and since then he and I have grown to be friends.
Ron and I were talking about his new book, Pricing on Purpose, and I asked him if he’d like to promote it on this blog. Instead of a quick Q&A, he’s written several provocative posts for my readers. The first will follow today.
I can’t tell you how excited I am to have him here on the [non]billable hour this week. I hope you enjoy what he has to share.
For those of you who don’t know Ron, here’s his bio:
Ronald J. Baker started his accounting career in 1984 with KPMG Peat Marwick’s Private Business Advisory Services in San Francisco. Today, he is the founder of VeraSage Institute, a think tank dedicated to teaching Value Pricing to professionals around the world.
As a frequent speaker at events and conferences, and a consultant to professional service firms on implementing Total Quality Service and Value Pricing, his work takes him around the world. He has been an instructor with the California CPA Education Foundation since 1995 and has authored eleven courses for them.
He is the author of the best-selling marketing book ever written specifically for the professions, Professional’s Guide to Value Pricing, Sixth Edition, published by CCH, Incorporated. Also, Burying the Billable Hour; Trashing the Timesheet; and You Are Your Customer List, published by The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants in the United Kingdom. His book, The Firm of the Future: A Guide for Accountants, Lawyers, and Other Professional Services, co-authored with Paul Dunn, was published in April 2003 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., and is in its fourth printing. His latest book, Pricing on Purpose: Creating and Capturing Value, was published in February 2006 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.). His next book, The Canary in the Coal Mine: Why Your Company Needs Key Predictive Indicators, is due out in the latter part of 2006 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).
Ron has toured the world, spreading his Value Pricing message to over 70,000 professionals, including leading a seminar series of Value Pricing seminars for the American Association of Advertising Agencies in 2005. He has been appointed to the American Institute of Certified Public Accountant’s Group of One Hundred, a think tank of leaders to address the future of the profession, named on Accounting Today’s 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 Top 100 Most Influential People in the profession, and received the 2003 Award for Instructor Excellence from the California CPA Education Foundation.
He graduated in 1984 from San Francisco State University with a Bachelor of Science in accounting and a minor in economics. He is a graduate of Disney University, Cato University, and the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business course: Pricing: Strategy and Tactics. He is a member of the Professional Pricing Society and presently resides in Petaluma, California.
Technorati Tags: value+pricing, billable+hour, ron+baker
OK, I know I have hinted at this a few times, so here’s the skinny:
On April 19, 2006, one hundred invited guests will congregate in Chicago for the inaugural LexThink! Lounge, presented by Dennis Kennedy, Matthew Homann and JoAnna Forshee.
Taking place on the eve of the American Bar Association’s TECHSHOW*, the LexThink! Lounge is a salon-like gathering of some of the brightest minds in legal technology today.
Beginning at 4:00 pm, and continuing into the evening, the LexThink! Lounge will combine LexThink! collaborative brainstorming techniques, OpenSpace facilitation, and small discussion groups with fine food and drink to create an amazing atmosphere for in-depth discussions about the future of legal technology.
Attendees at the invitation-only event are expected to include many of the TECHSHOW speakers, prominent legal and technology bloggers, alumni of prior LexThink! events, and other Chicago-area innovators and influencers.
The centerpiece of the evening will be a “Legal Tech Five by Five,” where five legal technology pioneers will offer their five tech predictions and a glimpse into the future of legal technology.
Oh, and did I mention bowling?
If you want to come, I’ll post more info next week. If you are an alumnus of either of our previous LexThink! events, your invitation will be in the mail soon. If you are interested in sponsoring the event, e-mail me at Matt@LexThink.com
* The LexThink! Lounge is not affiliated in any way with the American Bar Association or TECHSHOW (though we like them a lot).
I love Yvonne DiVita, even if she hadn’t written these kind words about LexThink! when talking about a recent conference she attended:
1. Not enough audience interaction – because you didn’t plan enough time for Q&A. It wasn’t the speakers or the presenters faults…it was the organizers fault! Puh-lease! The Q & A is THE best part of the event. Say, you should talk to Matt Homann over at the [non]billable hour. He and Dennis Kennedy know how to run a conference where everybody wins. They’ll set you straight. I hear they’re available to help plan your next event in the open space style.
If you are planning a conference, I’d love to chat with you and share some of the lessons we’ve learned at our two “unconferences,” LexThink and BlawgThink.
Just got back last night from LegalTech NY, ALM’s mondo legal technology event. I’ll post some thoughts on the conference later, but one thing I would have loved was a “Best in Show” award for the coolest product. Here’s my vote: the O-yA search appliance. Very cool!