DMS 2.0: What's New and Different?

Monday, August 23rd, 1 - 2pm

Session Objectives• Learn more about unique, “outside-the-box”

configurations of document management systems• See examples of matter-centricity 2.0 • Hear what worked well and what challenges

encountered• Provide lessons learned & advice in DMS design and

configuration.• Debate cloud-based systems versus thick-clients• Discuss taxonomy versus folksonomy/tagging• Consider where we are today? What should 2.0 look

like? How do we get there?

Speakers

• Anthony Decerce (TDCGE c/o Clifford Chance)• Martin Metz, Director of Information Technology,

O'Melveny & Myers LLP• Scott Preston, CIO, Fulbright & Jaworski LLP• Chris Romano, CIO, Ward and Smith

Firm OverviewFirm # Attorneys # Offices

Operates in (continents)

Clifford Chance 3,200 29 North, South America, Europe and Asia

Fulbright & Jaworski

940 16 North America, Europe, Asia

O'Melveny & Myers

900 14 North America, Europe, Asia

Ward and Smith 80 5 US

Mobile App Question #1Which DMS are you using today?• Autonomy/iManage• Documentum• OpenText/Hummingbird• NetDocuments• SharePoint as DM• StarLaw• Worldox• None/aka "Microsoft Native"• Other

Mobile App Question #2Where do you plan to be in 12-24 months from now?• Autonomy/iManage• Documentum• OpenText/Hummingbird• NetDocuments• SharePoint as DM• StarLaw• Worldox• None/aka "Microsoft Native"• Other

Products CoveredFirm Product Add-Ons

Fulbright & Jaworski Autonomy/iManageDomestic Server ~11 million docs- Worksite 8.5 with Verity 8.2International Servers ~ 500 thousand docsClients are Windows XP FileSite 8.2 sp1

BakerRobbins-FastFiler-Extender-MacPac-DocXTools

O'Melveny & Myers Aderant - StarLaw Recommind, Wall BuilderWorkshareMacPac

Clifford Chance SharePoint RecommindWall builderDocXtoolsLaserformsOracle/Keystone

Ward and Smith Net DocumentsOffice 2003Windows XP

Netdocuments EMS

Project Overview Fulbright

• Migrated from Practice-centric to Matter-centric ~ 3 years ago

• Used iManage nearly 10 years• Currently

– Redesigning matter workspaces offering more flexibility

– Enhancing search– Improving workflow

Fulbright

Litigation workspaceEnvironmental workspace

Fulbright

What Worked Well• Advisory Group for Workspace design

– Represented by legal teams, technologists and records managers

– Held multiple working sessions specific to areas of practice

– Incorporated interactive feedback during and after sessions

• Road work– Visited offices to demo the solution– Held e-learning programs prior to roll-out– Incentivized participation with giveaways

Challenges

• E-mail management• One Matter Workspace in a global

environment• Federated searching

Lessons Learned

• Communication and feedback are key• Don’t expect early adoption• Plan on continual refinement

Advice

• When considering a DMS migration, answer these questions:

– How robust does your DMS need to be?– How tolerant of technical problems is your

firm?– How redundant are your systems?

Net Documents Project Overview• On old version of OpenText. Significant

hardware and software upgrades necessary.

• Cloud – built in DR and BC.• Netdocuments presented to lawyers, WP

and paralegals.• Pilot group – IT, App Dev, WP, some

power users

Screenshots

Screenshots

What Worked Well

• Marketing – Weekly updates on firm Intranet, particularly Camtasia videos –Netdocuments is coming!

• Training – Intensive training for one week prior to implementation

• KISS – On day one users can search, create, save. Just like old DMS

• Floor support and follow-up

Challenges

• Re-educate on how you search. 500 hit limit. You don’t need more than that.

• Follow-up. Robust features, such as Netbinders (collaboration) required more training.

• More desktop maintenance (.tmp files).• My documents are where? Cloud?

Lessons Learned• Time spent testing, training and marketing

probably prolonged implementation schedule, but it was worth it.

• But wait, there’s more!! Move your .pst files into Netdocuments! We waited another six months for that surprise.

Advice• Carefully evaluate your culture, users, and

technical needs.• Get lawyers in front of the sales pitch first.• Despite web access, lawyers still like to go

through Citrix. • You are now in the switching and

bandwidth business.

StarLaw at O’Melveny

The Final Frontier!!!

StarLaw Project Overview

• First saw StarLaw at ILTA in 2007• What attracted O’Melveny to StarLaw?:

– Extremely rich system for first generation release– The end of “Profiling’ – Yay!!– Integrated DM, RM and EM

• Could we really get people to file email?????

– Better Architectural mousetrap– Last- and First- Mover advantages

• Started live pilot in early 2008– One office – 60 users comprised of about 30 attorneys– Pilot lasted until StarLaw lost funding in August 2008

StarLaw Sold to Aderant

• August 2009 Aderant announced the Acquisition of StarLaw

• Restarted project but now refocused effort to include Office 2010

• Rollout is planned to start in January 2011– Testing with 2007 version– Waiting on various 3rd party pieces to come together

The End of Profile Cards

The StarLaw Client

Unique Timeline Views

Simple Email Filing

Filed Email Remains in Outlook

StarLaw Architecture at O’Melveny

What Worked Well?

• Live User Pilot as opposed to IT pilot gave us a strong sense of what worked well in the new product and what needed to be completed

• Strong commitment and team approach to supporting the project internally

• Strong testing philosophy

Challenges

• Managing a live pilot requires lots of communication, but we know that lawyers don’t focus on non-client messages

• When things go wrong in a live pilot, client work product is affected

• Having two DMS’ running together creates additional synching challenges

• Going with a vendor that is small is risky – it has its rewards, but, …………………………..well, they could go out of business!

Lessons Learned

• New products are seductive but no matter how good a first generation product is, it won’t be fully ready for all corner cases

Advice

• Get some outside help in performing your evaluation

• Think about the long run, do you want to deploy something that is already dated?

SharePoint Project OverviewClifford Chance

• Firm’s strategy - improve the way we view and share our content globally

• December 2009 - Microsoft agreement entered to develop a matter-centric DMS

• Early 2010 – feasibility study complete

• Proof of Concept - concluded June

• First Release – in development

What Worked WellClifford Chance

36

Understand Requirements & Change Issues

Objectives & ChallengesClifford Chance

• Integrating SharePoint into MS Office so fee-earners can stay within productivity applications

– File Open/Save dialogues– Outlook file attachment– Compare

• Simplify general usability (copy/move)– Implementing SharePoint = signification change the users

• Maximize use of “Out of the Box” functionality– Document numbering– Conversion to Microsoft's OXML formats

• Better access to audit history

• Migration and coexistence – Archive historical content

AdviceClifford Chance

• Executive sponsorship• Understand requirements & change issues• Constant feedback/ iterative approach• Office/regional buy-in• Partnership with vendors• Teamwork

Development Phase

AdviceClifford Chance

Model Office

Business Change

Planning Phase

Prototypes

Stabilisation Phase

Deploy to “Model Office” Review, test, feedback

Pilot

DeployPhase

UAT

Pilot Planning UAT Planning

Process change

POC

Milestone 1Start Model Office?

Milestone 2Launch Pilot?

Model Office

Iteration

Constant Feedback/ Iterative Approach

Model Office

Iteration

Model office

Iteration

Model office

Iteration

Discussion Items• Cloud-based versus client-based for DMS• Taxonomy versus Folksonomy (tagging)

– Taxonomy – Top-Down• Predictable - Central control creates consistency• Costly – investment of time• Structured – relationships / inflexible

– Folksonomy – Bottom-Up• Organic – grows with community• Democratic • Flexible• Reflects change• Low Cost

Discussion Items• Changes made since the firm’s initial matter-centric

setup? • Where we are today? Biggest challenges in the DMS

market space?• DMS 2.0 - Are we there?

– What should 2.0 look like? – How do we get there?

Questions?