Automating legal documents so your lawyers can focus on what matters. Fast track your project with RLegal.
To POC or not to POC?! On the plus side, a POC can: 1️⃣ Be a great way to validate that a product does what it claims to. 2️⃣ Confirm existing requirements and identify new ones 3️⃣ Gain some early engagement in a product. 4️⃣ Test out potential ROI numbers and allow comparison to existing forecasts. This last point does highlight some of the key risks of a POC. Its unlikely that you are going to gain maximum ROI in the early phases of a project. There will be some resistance to change, internal resources may need upskilling (or hiring). These factors could lead to lower ROI than expected during a POC, which could kill the project completely. Its important therefore that if a POC is carried out, objectives and success criteria are balanced and realistic. Stakeholders are engaged and expectations are managed. Doing a POC doesn't mean you can skip the prep-work you would expect to do for a wider roll-out (requirements gathering, business case, etc.) I touched on this in a talk I did for Jon Beaumont a while ago, and would like to thank Puranjay Trehan who's post and our conversation this morning prompted me to re-visit the topic. Do you think its still important to do a thorough analysis and business case for new #legaltech projects, or is a more agile approach needed as the pace of innovation and change continues to accelerate?
Puranjay Trehan
9mo
It's a great way to nudge organisations that are sceptical about legal tech adoption. Also can be a good way to get a foot in the door for early age startups in this space.
Legal Tech Builder
9moI think the extent of your planning, analysis, business case etc should depend on the scope of the problem you’re trying to address. Firm wide problem and application = big investment and therefore extensive and thorough. Point solution, addressing a niche problem = small investment and therefore contained and agile trial / POC.