I’ve been thinking about my last post on integrations, and thought it might be useful to delve a little further.  So:

Initiative # 6.5:  More Integrations!

I don’t think there’s any argument on the usefulness of thoughtful data ownership models, or of establishing enterprise systems of authority. But what kinds of integrations?  Following is my list of the Top 5 Data Integration Spec’s for IP Management systems:

(Please note, some items here are generalized; firm processes and system can vary greatly, and will affect the implementation methodology of the following integrations.)

1.       Client creation

a.       System of Authority: Accounting System

b.      Data Ownership:  All clients should be opened first in the accounting system.  Client numbers are assigned in the accounting system. Client billing contact and client address entered and maintained in the accounting system.

c.       Methodology:  When a new client is opened (on insert), copy client name, number and  contact information to IPM system’s Clients or Parties tables, with Party Type = Client (variations depending on system). In this manner, clients may only assigned to matters in the IPM if they are opened first in the Accounting System.

2.       Matter creation – for FIRST IP Matter in a Family

a.       System of Authority: Accounting System

b.      Data Ownership:  All matters should be opened first in the accounting system.  First matter number is assigned in the accounting system.

c.       Methodology:  When a new matter (the first in a matter family) is opened (on insert), copy matter name, number, filing type, country  and responsible attorney to IPM system’s Matter tables (variations depending on system). In this manner, matters may only be opened in the IPM if they are opened first in the Accounting System and ensures they have gone through the conflicts process.

3.       Matter creation – for subsequent IP Matters in a Family

a.       System of Authority: IP Management System

b.      Data Ownership:  All matters opened subsequent to the first matter in a family must be opened in the IPM system.  This is because the IPM system’s workflow is critical to the propagation of matter family, related matter and priority information. 

c.       Methodology:  When new matters are created by the IPM system (on insert), copy matter name, number, filing type, country and responsible attorney to Accounting System’s Matter tables (variations depending on system). Matter numbers must be synchronized with the Accounting system – either by the IPM owning the numbering or by polling the accounting system for the next available numbers (variations depending on matter numbering schema).

4.       Timekeepers/Attorneys

a.       System of Authority: Accounting System

b.      Data Ownership:  Timekeeper/attorney assignments are critical to the Time and Billing function and should be assigned and maintained in the Accounting system, . 

c.       Methodology:  Originating and Billing Attorneys are typically assigned for all new Clients; no need to propagate these to the IPM system.  Billing, Responsible and Working (Handling) Attorneys are typically assigned for all new Matters; these should be copied to the IPM system on the first Matter opened (see #2 above).  The Accounting System integration (which owns these data elements) should synchronize attorney assignments on all IPM matters on a regular basis (nightly).

5.       Matter Bibliographic Information

a.       System of Authority: IP Management System

b.      Data Ownership:  Matter bibliographic information is established and maintained in the IP Management System. It should be copied to the Accounting System for informational and billing purposes. Typical data elements include:  title, client ref no,  serial number, patent number, IP Status and Inventor.

c.       Methodology:  Daily synchronization. Each field, based on date modified = today, should be copied to the Accounting System’s matter information tables (typically UDF’s for IP-specific information) on a nightly basis.

Of course, variations abound in these integrations, depending on firm-specific processes, systems and configurations.  However, the above five integrations, in whatever form they are implemented, are critical components of responsible and efficient data management processes.

Process improvement initiatives don’t have to cost money!  Remember, technology isn’t a panacea; it’s a useful tool for making your work easier and more efficient.  Ideally, it should be able to do routine tasks for you, so that you can concentrate on the bigger things.  In the spirit of “using what you got”, my continuing series on DYI improvements:

Initiative # 6:  Integrations!

Integrations are thoughtful intersections of workflow and automation.  Fundamentally, technical integrations should be built to share information and propagate data within the framework of a well-thought-out data ownership model.  By this, I mean that you should review all of your enterprise systems, and designate systems of authority for key data elements. 

For example, law firms typically use their Accounting/Time and Billing system as the owner of data relative to client names and numbers and matter names and numbers.  The HR system might own timekeeper information.  And, of course, the IP system will own all Matter docket information (among others). 

So why integrate? For one, there’s a lot of merit to the data entry model that says “enter data once, and never enter it again.” It’s a very efficient model, to be sure.  But it’s also a compelling risk mitigation model. Entering data once and propagating it to all systems that need to use it ensures parity across systems.  Multiple entries open the possibility, and probability, of multiple errors.

Finally, data integration and information synchronization are a “boots on the ground” way of creating workflows and policy enforcements.  I often recommend to my clients that they create and manage Client and Matter information in one system – typically the Accounting System (although, I am a strong proponent of the Case-centric information universe; more on that later).  By building integrations that synchronize client and matter names and numbers with ancillary systems , you can control when and if those systems get access to that information.  So, by proxy, no work can be done for a client or a matter until that client or matter is pushed into the business application. 

Conclusion:  Use data ownership models to enforce policy.

Initiative # 5:  Automated Docket Clearance – my proposition

My vision for automated docket clearance would go something like the following. Please note, all current “next-gen” IP Management systems (the thin-client, web-based collaborative models) are built to manage the following process; they’re just not deployed with any imagination:

1.       Lawyers would log in to their “My Matters” screen in the morning and review their due dates for the day (or week or month – we should all be clearing dates well in advance, right?) (more…)

Continuing my series on “quick and dirty” process improvement initiatives that don’t cost anything to implement:

Initiative # 5:  Automated Docket Clearance

Well, I might be stretching the definition of “quick and dirty” here, but I really think that one of the most transformational changes an IP practice can make is to leverage their IP Management system to implement a workflow for the automation of the docket clearance process.  (more…)

Continuing my series on “quick and dirty” process improvement initiatives that don’t cost anything to implement:

Initiative # 4:  Review your docket progressions

In my many years of working with IP docket groups, both in-house and in law firms, I’ve observed that there are as many approaches to managing docket progressions as there are IP practices.  Some have little structure and docket most actions as “ad-hoc”, while other engineer every possible interaction with the docket system to anticipate every plausible scenario.  Of course, you can likely predict that my suggestion would be to find a balance that’s middle-of-the-road.  What I can say is that most every IP practice can benefit from a review of their docketing procedures.  (more…)

Continuing my series on “quick and dirty” process improvement initiatives that don’t cost anything to implement:

Initiative # 3:  Automated Correspondence

You might note by the fact that this is my third installment document assembly-based improvements that I think this is a major functional cornerstone for any process improvement initiative.  And again, if you’ve mostly kept up with technology over the past 5 or so years, you’re likely to realize that most of your enterprises systems already installed provide this functionality built-in.  So, in addition to creating documents to leverage your existing information systems, why not automate their use as much as possible? (more…)

Continuing my series on “quick and dirty” process improvement initiatives that don’t cost anything to implement:

Initiative #2:  Get a handle on your Forms

Continuing our last discussion on document assembly, few tasks are more important than to review and “certify” all client-facing and official form document formats.  Most firms use a mish-mash of forms cobbled together over many years, developed by different attorneys across practices, acclimated from acquired practice groups, or added to the repertoire by previous “process engineering” initiatives.  Today, however, these forms libraries are generally unwieldy, and rarely represent current firm policies or regulatory office requirements.  Believe it or not, there are still a preponderance of firms that are using proprietary document formats for USPTO official filing forms. (more…)

Many of my clients have been worrying lately about how to continue to provide excellent customer service, even differentiate their services, in an economy that’s greatly restricted their abilities to embark on process improvement initiatives. I’ve long expressed that “knowledge management” starts in the trenches, and focuses on making small improvements to the daily work of lawyers and staff.  In my nod to my IPM Imperative philosophy, following is the first suggestion in my (as yet brief) series on Doing More With Less.

Initiative #1:  Document Assembly (more…)