Selection of a matter management system seems daunting; configuring or customizing the one you chose, installing it, converting historical data to it, and then training staff on its functions and the changes it requires in processes seems even more intimidating. Even then you have to keep it running and bringing value. This raises operational issues (See my post of June 28, 2009: four applications for tracking and managing matters in one law department; Sept. 22, 2009: Belgian Post’s litigation management program; March 29, 2010: four technology observations based on speaker’s bio; Sept. 12, 2010: my plan to blog about sales to named legal departments; and April 12, 2011: Rockwell Automation’s matter management experience.).
It never ends, the care and feeding of a matter management system (See my post of March 19, 2008: metrics presume effective policies and disciplined procedures; July 5, 2010: programming burdens and multiplicity of packages; Oct. 22, 2010: percentage of law firm fees billed other than on an hourly basis; April 3, 2011: ratios of legal spend to the costs of two kinds of software that track it; June 1, 2010: difficulties with replacement of a matter management system; July 28, 2010: four levels of support for users of software in a legal department; April 22, 2011: security and access by law firms to matter management systems; and June 2, 2011: tune-up your system rather than replace it.).