Some of the detractors of outsourced and offshore legal services invariably cite quality concerns as a top issue (along with security and reliability). What is often overlooked is that the same issues of managing quality are also quite apparent in the large-scale document review operations performed domestically, as well. The challenges of onshore quality management were outlined in a recent article appearing in the ABA Journal.
The true tipping point for the offshore legal services industry will be when offshore vendors can definitively demonstrate that they are producing superior quality to comparable onshore operations.
With appropriately structured outsourced legal services and discovery engagements, superior quality is attainable as a result of the following:
• A superior talent pool (composed of better educated and more motivated personnel)
• Cost advantages (gained when offshore vendors devote resources more economically toward managing and training staff)
• Process structuring (developed when vendors leverage their service delivery knowledge of outsourced business services to legal services)
These factors can lead to quality, but often do not do justice to demonstrate quality. Perhaps the best way to compare offshore work quality is to try it out first-hand. There are a number of ways to test drive prospective offshore vendors. The most infamous demonstration being the Milbank’s blind survey which resulted with the outsourcing vendor coming out on top on all criterion as compared to the existing internal legal support department.
We have always been proponents of basing alternative legal services delivery on other factors and not simply on cost advantages alone. If the quality is not satisfactory, there are no cost savings in the long run. Furthermore, by focusing only on the cost side of the equation, law firms and in-house counsel are leaving substantial value on the table such as improved services levels, quicker response times, more flexible business models and, most importantly, better quality.
Showing posts with label Quality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quality. Show all posts
Monday, November 2, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Conversation with Doug Hubbard
Quality is a big point of differentiation between outsourcing vendors. But how can law firms and corporate counsels determine that their prospective vendor can deliver on quality? Moreover, how can contracting firms manage quality of their outsourcing vendor even if the processes are not performed under their direct supervision.
The key for managing quality is measuring quality. To measure quality, it needs to be explicitly defined. More succinctly: Defining Quality => Measuring Quality => Managing Quality
This past week I had the pleasure of speaking with Doug Hubbard regarding his thoughts on measuring and defining quality. Doug is the author of the very insightful book, How to Measure Anything. Below are some of his thoughts from our conversation.
“When measuring quality, the most important thing is recognizing that quality is not ‘intangible’. Rather, quality is quite tangible and has observable consequences. If it didn’t have observable consequences, why would we care so much about it?”
Hubbard believes that lawyers should excel at defining quality: “At its core, the practice of law is defining legal issues. For example, it is the lawyers’ job to explicitly define each clause in a client contract,” he stated. “It’s all about avoiding ambiguity. The same principles and skills can be used to define quality.”
Defining quality invariably requires defining errors so they can be avoided. “To define quality requires defining what an error means and the appropriate scope of that error,” Hubbard explained. “Events defined as errors can’t be so rare that the error rate is consistently zero. This is misleading about the underlying risk of error. By measuring lower consequence-higher frequency errors, one can use these findings to make more accurate assessments of quality, as the low consequence errors are often indicative of high consequence-low frequency errors. For example, in space travel, if one were only to measure the loss of a crew member as an error, for the first Space Shuttle missions the risk of error would appear to be zero. But if one were to measure the number of high frequency-low consequence errors such as the number of times an O-ring burned through or when foam fell off the external tank, this error rate would be much more indicative of the actual risks.”
Following the same principles outlined by Hubbard, lawyers cannot define errors purely by high-consequence-low-frequency errors, such as avoiding a malpractice lawsuit or sidestepping a default judgment. These events occur infrequently and often do not directly correlate to quality. Rather, when creating a quality management system, legal professionals must use as a barometer high frequency-low consequence errors such as a typographical error or missed redaction.
*These above quotes and others also appear in our upcoming publication, Implementing a Successful Legal Outsourcing Engagement. More details on the book to follow.
The key for managing quality is measuring quality. To measure quality, it needs to be explicitly defined. More succinctly: Defining Quality => Measuring Quality => Managing Quality
This past week I had the pleasure of speaking with Doug Hubbard regarding his thoughts on measuring and defining quality. Doug is the author of the very insightful book, How to Measure Anything. Below are some of his thoughts from our conversation.
“When measuring quality, the most important thing is recognizing that quality is not ‘intangible’. Rather, quality is quite tangible and has observable consequences. If it didn’t have observable consequences, why would we care so much about it?”
Hubbard believes that lawyers should excel at defining quality: “At its core, the practice of law is defining legal issues. For example, it is the lawyers’ job to explicitly define each clause in a client contract,” he stated. “It’s all about avoiding ambiguity. The same principles and skills can be used to define quality.”
Defining quality invariably requires defining errors so they can be avoided. “To define quality requires defining what an error means and the appropriate scope of that error,” Hubbard explained. “Events defined as errors can’t be so rare that the error rate is consistently zero. This is misleading about the underlying risk of error. By measuring lower consequence-higher frequency errors, one can use these findings to make more accurate assessments of quality, as the low consequence errors are often indicative of high consequence-low frequency errors. For example, in space travel, if one were only to measure the loss of a crew member as an error, for the first Space Shuttle missions the risk of error would appear to be zero. But if one were to measure the number of high frequency-low consequence errors such as the number of times an O-ring burned through or when foam fell off the external tank, this error rate would be much more indicative of the actual risks.”
Following the same principles outlined by Hubbard, lawyers cannot define errors purely by high-consequence-low-frequency errors, such as avoiding a malpractice lawsuit or sidestepping a default judgment. These events occur infrequently and often do not directly correlate to quality. Rather, when creating a quality management system, legal professionals must use as a barometer high frequency-low consequence errors such as a typographical error or missed redaction.
*These above quotes and others also appear in our upcoming publication, Implementing a Successful Legal Outsourcing Engagement. More details on the book to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
