Don’t filter out your customer

 The two sides of Customer centricity

Yesterday, I involuntarily witnessed a customer phone call. You know, in German-speaking countries, "managers" regard large-capacity compartments of express trains as walk-in telephone booths. The man had to conduct an escalation conversation with a dissatisfied customer. In doing so, he moved very skillfully between appeasement, assurances, but also pressure (“Yes, what am I supposed to do now, I can't change the situation either”). At the end of the long phone call, the customer was satisfied to the extent that the conversation could end on a consensual basis.

Things only got really exciting afterwards, when Mr. Manager followed up in one-on-one meetings and/or conference calls with his employees. The fact that the tone of voice changed depending on the person being talked to is not unusual. Between the lines, however, it was clear that the customer's concerns were dismissed as an annoyance - mistakes happen and capacity problems are externally determined.

If you communicate this to your employees, you can spare the expense of customer centricity programs. It is then a mere mask that does not promote genuine customer understanding, but filters it out. Just like the masks in the pandemic.  Customers in project business, on the other hand, are well advised to invest a lot of energy in contract design - even if it hurts and puts the brakes on. Otherwise, they will be just as defenseless against the supposedly inevitable defects in (software) development as the unfortunate person on the other end of the line was yesterday.

Customer Centricity for Conference Organizers

Last week I had the opportunity to give several international startups from the LegalTech scene a crash course in customer centricity. An interesting experiment in times of zoom and teams. With all due respect, even the organizers of congresses and specialist conferences should occasionally visit one, because…

Understandably, no realiter, i.e. on-site, congresses could take place in the past 15 months. Somebody has now given the organizers the tip to turn a 1- or 2-day congress into a series of events, for example four afternoons. That would not strain the virtual attention of the participants too much, and you would also stay in contact with the customers all year round. A win-win situation? 

Yes, but only for the organizer. Because when do these dates take place? At absolute prime time. Wednesday or Thursday afternoon. Or over lunchtime, quickly three hours of presentations and panel discussions.

Please, it won't work that way. We customers all have one main occupation. If we take a day to attend an event, that's one thing. But getting blocked for three or four half days is a no-go. 

What remains of Covid-19?

Recently, an interesting discussion took place on the topic of "What remains of Corona?" from the perspective of specialist information providers. There were predictable, but also surprising opinions. Here's a quick look. 

#1 Information Behavior. Those professionals who have "digitized" their information behavior in the now almost 1 ½ years since the Corona outbreak will stick with it. This is especially true for the use of cloud services; those who have given up their reluctance will not want to miss the benefits.

#2 Meeting culture. Participants did not draw a clear picture. If one wanted to draw a succus, it might be that virtual meetings will always remain when distance and duration play a role. Pure status meetings could also remain digital. On the other hand, it is safe to assume that meetings in which personal contact plays a role will be held in real life again as soon as possible. (The hospitality and tourism industries will thank you).

#3 Education and training. A similar trend is drawing here. Hardcore continuing education may remain digital; events that are more about face-to-face contact, such as conventions, will become real again.

#4 Home Office. This is where there was the most discrepancy. One discussant expects his employees to remain largely in home offices, and has already initiated a large-scale reduction in office space. Another managing director, also from the trade publishing industry, maintains individual offices for all her employees and has no thoughts of giving up direct personal contact.

Conclusion: General trends are not apparent; individual conditions and cultural aspects are the drivers. Also, all opinions mentioned reflect the German situation; trends in other countries and cultures may vary significantly.

Justice by app?

 

One topic that comes up again and again in the course of the home office discussion (see last week’s article "Home or Office?") is that of fairness in the distribution of work. Specifically, it is a matter of the assumption that those practitioners or assistants who are available on site are disproportionately assigned to acute tasks.

 Of course, one could argue that the opposite would also be logically justifiable: after all, there are supposed to be managers who basically assume that employees in the home office contribute little or nothing to the company. Consequently, these superiors would then assign a disproportionately large amount of work to home office employees. However, we don't know.

 A new software product wants to clear up this lack of knowledge. It is called Capacity and is intended to bring transparency to the workload of employees.

The assignment status of the employees integrated in Capacity can be viewed at any time via a dashboard, and unfairness can be prevented. Even more, employees can grab jobs that interest them, which, according to Capacity's founders, should lead to increased employee satisfaction.

Capacityapp.io is still in its beginnings, but in any case it is an interesting initiative to eliminate possible irregularities in the distribution of law firm work.

Home or Office?

 

The decline in the number of infections throughout Europe has many dreaming of a "normal" life again. A "green passport" should soon allow us to travel, which everyone is happy about, except the (frothing) data protectionists. But what does this actually mean for the professional lives of lawyers? Here's a quick overview:

Hardcore #1 - back to the office. The legal profession has not been home-office friendly in the past. Under the dictates of immediate action, it is said to be best for all lawyers in a firm to be on-site for as long as possible each day. Those who think this way will grasp the next opportunity to call all employees back to the workplace. It is questionable whether they will willingly follow.

Hardcore #2 - no office anymore. Revolutionary minds among advocates are pursuing this path: there is no longer an office in the traditional sense, only conference rooms are provided in central locations. Advantages and disadvantages are obvious: maximum cost savings for the employer, highest possible flexibility for the employees - but where is the corporate culture?

The middle ground. Cultural issues are probably one of the reasons why the majority of firms aim for a percentage solution: 50:50. 60:40, 40:60 - a minimum of two days per week at the workplace is probably a must. The problem with this is that average solutions only ever suit a small proportion of the workforce! Home office, for example, is particularly attractive for childless midagers,  if they are suitably equipped and can work undisturbed. If the opposite is the case, it is hell if it is mandatory. The stability of the client relationship also plays a role here. However, the question of training and further education of younger colleagues is particularly sensitive. Some advice from an experienced colleague fails to be given due to a casual encounter, not to mention picking up information and knowledge by chance.

In view of the general uncertainty about the development, real estate agents advise law firms against premature changes. There is really nothing to add to this.

 

The greater the choice, the cheaper the price?

 One might think so, but is this also true for legal services? A recent ArtificialLawyer article looked at this issue using the platform www.contractcounsel.com and came to some interesting conclusions:

Contractcounsel is an intermediary platform where legal seekers can request legal services. Approved lawyers then submit offers, with the parameters of duration for the provision of the service and flat-rate price presented in tabular form. Full transparency!

The result to the initial question: The more offers there are, the greater the probability that neither the cheapest nor the most expensive offer will be chosen.

But what makes the platform successful? First, the transparency. Secondly, the fact that only fixed prices are permitted, and thirdly, the advertising promise that only "vetted" lawyers can participate in the program. 

As an aside, the platform naturally collects data, so that in the further future it could also determine the "fair price" for a legal service. Some lawyers see this as a danger, but others see it as an opportunity: they register on the marketplace to get a feel for market prices in the first place. As the founder, Ray Allen, points out in ArtificialLawyer. Nobody can be interested in offers that vary by a factor of 10.

And in German-speaking Europe? There are several lawyer marketplaces with fixed prices in Germany. An interesting approach is taken by frag-einen-Anwalt.de: here, it is not lawyers who submit bids, but the law seeker who offers a price. Of course, this platform also collects data and uses it to suggest a minimum price to the right seeker based on his inquiry and other parameters. This is also a remarkable business idea, which admittedly remains non-transparent to the outside world. Does that bother anyone here?

Clause libraries instead of doc automation?

As Chief Product Officer of LexisNexis GB, Andy Sparkes is the master of 250 employees. In an interview for Artficial Lawyer he recently gave insight into the focus of their developments .

The most important asset continues to be high-quality content. In a first, complex step, it is technically developed and interlinked, for example by systematically adding references or metadata. This is followed by the introduction of analytical tools to make the content more accessible to customers. The third step is integration into the customer workflow. 

The whole thing is called "Legal Intelligence" and is intended to help lawyers make more decisions based on data (facts).

There was an interesting and, at first glance, surprising statement: LexisNexis GB is fully committed to integrating their content and tools into Office 365. The reason: the use of Office programs is so deeply established that customers are not willing to use third-party software. Clause libraries and guidance notes instead of doc automation.

What do we learn from this? Law business is local business - even in times of digitization.