The Intelligent Intertubes: A Weekly Roundup

Here's your weekly roundup of the CIosphere - which was very busy this week, indeed:

Compare those apples: The Strategic Librarian posted the results of ILTA's CI survey. The post lists some facts and figures, along with a list of CI tools NLJ 250 firms are using. Check out the results, and be sure to leave a comment with CI tools not listed.

Last week, Hildebrandt announced fees are down. This week, the ABA Journal reports that flat fees are the way to go, and dishes on which firms are making clients very, very happy.

From my roundup to the JDJournals', get a good idea of what the competition is - and isn't - up to.

The collective really is more than the sum of its parts: The Washington Post reports that the super secret, oh how I wish I could spend five minutes with it, Intellipedia developed by the CIA and 15 other agencies proves that wikis work. Now if I could just convince Firm management…

Strategically Thinking wishes to remind you that CI won't matter when you are dead.

Nasty vitriol-spewing trolls, teenagers (and teenagers-at-heart) loving all over the latest video game, those annoying twits who tweet seven times about their lunch menu… they all have feelings, and the NY Times has an interesting write-up on the latest in Web 2.0 analytics: Sentiment analysis.

And here we go 'round the mulberry bush… AGAIN. Techdirt has a piece on the ethics of information gathering at trade shows and seminars. CI Pros, do yourself a favor and make it clear who signs your paycheck. 'Nuff said.

The Globe and Mail has a good introductory piece on the benefits of CI, which, granted, most of the people reading this blog probably already know.

Do you have blogs/podcasts/sites that you'd like included in the weekly roundup? I'd be ever so delighted if you could send your suggestions to ssanksto@quarles.com. Many thanks to Nina Platt for alerting me to her blog post!

And hey, Intertubes! Do you have a blog? Perhaps a blog that talks about CI stuff? Then for Heaven's sake, leave a comment and promote yourself shamelessly - or your friend, or some stranger that you think had a pretty good post!

Thanks for the picture, yourfunnyvalentine!

The Intelligent Intertubes: A Weekly Roundup

Here's your weekly roundup of the CIosphere:

This economy has been pretty tough - both for seasoned CI pros and those recently entering the job market. Sources and Methods has an 8-part series on getting a CI job, with the latest installment on independent consulting.

Lacking in social skills? Strategically Thinking will teach you how to be a good friend to management.

Switzerland or Germany: Strategically Thinking gives pointers for how to act as an advocate, and how to keep your opinion to yourself.

Hildebrandt released it's FY09Q2 MergerWatch results this week. Law firm merger activity was down in the second quarter, while California seems to be the place for new office openings. Meanwhile, demand for legal services was still down in the second quarter, but cost containment measures (which we like to call, "The Ax") have prevented massive profit losses. Lastly, if you are wondering how and why firms fail, Hildebrandt's post mortem will decipher all.

Find out who they really hire: In the latest installment of their annual nose-thumbing at confidentiality, Corporate Counsel's Taking It Outside: Who Represents America’s Biggest Companies has been released.

Do you have blogs/podcasts/sites that you'd like included in the weekly roundup? I'd be ever so delighted if you could send your suggestions to ssanksto@quarles.com.

Thanks for the picture, yourfunnyvalentine!

Teaching a Person to Fish in a "Reactive" World

If you are like me, you spend most of your time "reacting" to the demands of the day. People walk into my office, call me on the phone, or email me requests all day long, and I (like the good little automated message that I am) try to answer them in the order they were received. When I go home at night, I generally quote one of my favorite Thurgood Marshall sayings to myself -- "I did the best I could with what I had." This usually satisfies that little voice in my head that wonders if I could have approached a project in a different way, or made a better decision if I had more time. Unfortunately, my little voice hit me with a different question -- "Hey, shouldn't you be teaching these requesters how they can answer some of these questions themselves?" (darn little voice....)
[Photo Credit to wstryder (creative commons)]

The little voice was right, of course. Especially since it was referring to the fact that there are some specific questions that I handle over and over again. In this instance it is a generic question of taking a huge list of company names and finding a way to quickly identify which of these companies has every hired the firm to represent them. For anyone that has had to deal with the mixture of business development, marketing, competitive intelligence or records departments within law firms, this is a question you'll get a lot.

I created a pretty good solution to this almost two years ago. I created a MySQL database that stored some basic client information, indexed it, and then placed a simple (yet superb!) PHP web front end on the database that allowed me to copy and paste the names of the companies and do a quick search on our index to see if they matched. I even created some fancy "fuzzy" logic buttons that really stretched the idea of "best guess" results (but was still effective in finding matches.)

I demonstrated the database, passed out the link to the different departments so that they could run these searches themselves, and I've used it quite a few times. But... (and here's the morale of this story) I never really followed up with anyone, or did any additional training on the product after that initial introduction. I just assumed people were still using it and it was such a great product that obviously they would understand how to use it, remember it was there when they needed it, and gush over how smart I was for having come up with this great product.

My first clue that I was assuming incorrectly should have been the lack of my not winning the "Internal Product of the Year Award". The second clue should have been the fact that people were still coming to me with this same request. But, I, like many people, don't actually see the big picture until I got someone (usually an "angry someone") telling me that they spent hours doing this project and it would have been nice if I'd have shown them this product before they wasted all their time on it. Somehow my pointing out to them that I showed them this two years ago doesn't seem to fly as a good excuse on why I haven't followed up with anyone since.

The good news is that I get to reintroduce my great product and train people on how to use it. I'll probably do a cool little video screencasting of my desktop to show them exactly how to use the product for some "on demand" training. And in a few months, I'll follow up with everyone to see if they are still using the product. I'll also expect to be in the running for the "Internal Product of the Year Award."

My little voice is still telling me that I should have been more proactive over the past two years and made sure that the product was being used and that people understood it. It is pretty darn hard to be proactive in the reactive world where we work. But, the little voice is right, and I'll learn from this lesson to work harder at being a little better at recognizing when it is time to stop feeding my folks fish, and instead teach them how to fish for themselves.

The Intelligent Intertubes: A Weekly Roundup

Here's your weekly roundup of the CIosphere, with many thanks to SCIP's PR List:

“Typical win/loss analysis from sales force: majority of losses due to product and price. Majority of wins due to relationship.” Hmmm... where have I heard that one? The Primary Intelligence Blog argues that client decision-makers' opinions should be included in win/loss analyses, and provides a case study to illustrate the point.

Can I get an AMEN?! Strategically Thinking has a 15-part CI Series on The Human Side of Competitive Intelligence. The latest installment gives tips and tricks for evangelizing the CI function. Previous installments covered, amongst other topics, branding CI and budgeting.

Do attorneys' eyes glaze over when you describe your job duties? If so, Strategically Thinking has some suggestions for how to better word your job description.

Wondering how the competition are faring? The American Lawyer dishes on Baker & McKenzie's experience of the recession. It's not pretty: Layoffs, offshoring and rebranding, oh my!

Legal Blog Watch goes Nostradamus on the Law Firm of The Future, which, it is believed, might include raising capital from investors, KM professionals on the executive committee and fixed fees.

Do you have blogs/podcasts/sites that you'd like included in the weekly roundup? I'd be ever so delighted if you could send your suggestions to ssanksto@quarles.com.

Thanks for the picture, yourfunnyvalentine!

Best CI Resource is You

In a recent conversation with a Business Development Director at an AmLaw 100 firm, who is supported by several legal CI professionals, I asked what I later realized might have been misconstrued as a trick question. When the topic of products and services for legal CI came up (CapitalIQ, Thomson, etc.), I asked whether my colleague preferred any of these products or services over their competitors, or did he think any of these was essential to doing good CI? I was thinking of collection management and wondering if I was overlooking a great resource...

The answer I received, and I think a great message for the legal CI community, was that the best CI resource is the researcher/analyst. The value of expensive databases and tools is not fully realized without intuition and insight from your research and CI staff. As a librarian who has moved into CI, it was important for me to be reminded of this. Resources and tools do matter, not to say that they don't, but the purpose of CI is to develop the synergy of questions and answers into actionable intelligence for firm management. There are many ways to make CI valuable to firm leaders, but one thing is constant: The sum of CI research and writing is truly greater than its parts, because of the analyst's contributions. Divining the hidden meanings of the research and communicating that effectively is the real value of CI, and that comes from you.

Google CSE for Top Texas Firms

A few months ago, a link for Fee Fie Foe Firm (FFFF) was making the rounds on twitter, including a post or two from me. (Thanks to @annleegibson for the original link.) FFFF is a Google Custom Search Engine compiling top law firm sites into one easy search. It's brilliant, and I use it frequently. Available jurisdictions include the US, Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Africa, but one country state that is not currently highlighted is Texas. I thought I might get creative and make my own so I took the top 25 firms from the 2009 AmLaw Top Texas Firms rankings and added each URL as a site to be included in my search. (A nice page of instructions and FAQs may be found here)

Top 25 2009 Texas 100

This custom search engine is a handy way to identify Texas firms that are (publicly) representing Texas companies. (i.e. Southwest Airlines or American Airlines) It's also a neat tool to use to quickly see which firms are using which key phrases in their materials (i.e. "Distressed Commercial Real Estate" or "cleantech") This search is specific to Texas law firms, but my firm is active in several markets and I may build other regional search engines to focus on other specific regions.

In addition to regional searches, one might craft topical searches, focusing on a favorite practice area or industry's websites, blogs, and newsletters, etc. Or one may combine regional universities and professional organizations into one handy "CLE search." I know Google Custom Search has been around for a while, but I'm only now exploring the full potential of this service for conducting legal CI research and having fun thinking of what other "shortcuts" might be developed...Happy searching!

Reversal of Fortune – Corporate CI Mirroring Law Firms?

In a recent post on Outward Insights CI Blog, Ken Sawka discussed the trend in corporate CI for training of non-dedicated teams or individuals in core CI tactics. As he describes it, “the decentralization and deprofessionalization of competitive intelligence. For many organizations, especially decentralized, multi-business-line companies, there is more value to be derived from embedding CI skills in other, more well established corporate functions, than from building a dedicated, professional CI program.”

I couldn’t help but think that this is the primary tactic most law firms use to embark on the CI path: beginning with their existing research, marketing, and knowledge management teams and perhaps eventually carving out a dedicated CI group as the need increases. Sawka outlines the benefits of this approach, “there's no reason why professionals in functions related to competitive intelligence can't or shouldn't selectively apply core CI competencies to what they do, especially if doing so enhances decision-making at a variety of levels. It also engages more and more professionals in the conduct of competitive intelligence.”

Who knew law firms would one day be on the cutting edge of a trend?