Lean Discussion Very Insightful | | In Search of Perfect Client Service

Certain posts from In Search Of Perfect Client Service are posted on the Legal On Ramp discussion board. The comments by fellow "rampers" on my two recent posts on Lean, Lean Client Service and Update on Lean: Ron Baker Takes Issue have been so interesting that I am taking the liberty of posting them here;

From Anthony Kearns, National Risk Manager for the Legal Practitioners Liability Committee (LPLC), a non-profit statutory insurer that provides first layer professional indemnity insurance to Australian law firms:

Patrick,

Kudos on bringing up Ron.

A couple of points:

From what I understand Toyota doesn’t employ lean production in their engineering department although they are fantastic at project management so this fits with your apply the right tool to the right "bucket" theory.

Lean production was developed for an industry with sophisticated error management systems already in place. Even more importantly, there were well defined production standards against which output could be measured. In law we have neither of these so it will be difficult if not impossible to determine in advance where efficiency in process can be achieved without unsatisfactory compromise in quality.

So, again we come back to quality.

Efficiency in professional services comes from expertise. Expertise can be developed more efficiently than we do at the moment through effective education and (somewhat ironically) better error management. Lean production may have to wait until all this has been achieved.

From Fred Bartlit of Bartlit Beck:

Experience has shown that increased efficiency almost always results in increased quality

So, 6 Sigma does, to me, have lot of application in litigation firms

From John Brown of Brown Law Firm:

I join Pat in disagreeing with the contention that applying ‘lean’ to a knowledge firm, where efficiency in professional services comes from expertise, runs the risk of creating bad results efficiently.
I’ve seen data that ‘discovery’ can constitute 80% of the cost of litigation, and well over half of that cost can be tied up in document review if there is a significant amount of electronically stored information.
To produce a good result for the client requires the application of trial experience and judgment to ‘process’ discovery information in a way that strategically positions the matter for trial, with evidence that will bear on the ultimate issues developed with the right weight and emphasis to create leverage for a successful resolution by way of verdict or settlement.
The ‘value billing proponents’ have properly noted that in traditional hourly billing engagements there is an economic incentive to employ a linear, checklist-issue spotting, turn over all the ‘discovery rocks’ process that might arguably perfect outside counsel recommendations but in reality gain the client very little advantage in the litigation.
It is worth noting that the value billers want to be judged on results, believing that a ‘leaner process’ that focuses on development of evidence around the key issues that will impact a trial result and create settlement leverage is superior to a much broader, more diffuse undertaking of sorting through all possibly relevant information in a way not cost-effective for clients.
In that sense a ‘lean’ focused process is more likely to lead to successful results.

From Scott Irwin of International Paper Company:

I’ve always viewed "efficiency" according to the following formula:

Effectiveness + Cost Control = Efficiency

The error pundits usually commit when arguing that productivity tools such as Lean, JIT and Six Sigma don’t translate well to knowledge-based service firms is they tend to focus on only part (typically, Effectiveness) of the foregoing equation. While its true Effectiveness is a far more objective, statistically-measurable criteria in the manufacturing context, this does mean Effectiveness cannot (and, therefore, need not) be measured in the knowledge context. There tends to be less disagreement on the susceptibility of the Cost Control criteria to quantitative evaluation and improvement. Nevertheless, the (incorrect) assumption that the Effectiveness criteria does not lend itself to quantitative evaluation and improvement seems to be what prevents (or, more properly, excuses) otherwise intelligent, well-intentioned professionals from achieving their highest capacity for Efficiency.