The Importance of Adoption in Legal Technology Implementation
The successful go live of a legal technology system is often celebrated by technology leaders within firms. Milestones are achieved, training is completed, and the system is operational. However, this moment should not be viewed as the conclusion of the project.
Technical implementation and operational transformation are distinct processes. A system may be deployed flawlessly, yet a firm can still struggle to change its operational practices. Frequently, technology functions as intended, while existing habits, workflows, and behaviours remain unchanged.
Viewing go live as the finish line is a common misconception. In truth, it signifies the end of implementation and the commencement of adoption, which can prove to be the more challenging phase. A familiar pattern emerges: milestones are met, project teams feel a sense of accomplishment, yet within 18 months, active usage may decline significantly. Workarounds and outdated processes often resurface, and investigations typically reveal that the project was deemed complete long before users felt the transformation had genuinely begun.
When technology initiatives are treated merely as IT projects, a disconnect often arises. Requirements may be filtered through intermediaries rather than shaped by those closest to the work, leading to disengagement from the business. By the time of go live, the system may reflect the technology team’s understanding of the business needs rather than the actual requirements. Successful programmes involve collaboration from the outset, ensuring shared goals and accountability across all levels of the organisation.
The human aspect of change is frequently underestimated. Transformation impacts identity, not solely workflow. Uncertainty regarding a new system's implications for roles or expertise often manifests not as overt resistance but as slow adoption and a return to familiar practices. Firms that excel in transformation create an environment where such concerns can be addressed early, treating them as legitimate rather than inconvenient.
Effective leadership in transformation remains steadfast through challenges. It requires ongoing commitment beyond the initial launch. For a transformation to be recognised within an organisation, individuals must understand its significance and feel invested in its success. However, awareness must be accompanied by the necessary infrastructure to facilitate change. Leaders who navigate the difficult middle phase of a project possess a clear plan, including defined milestones and accountability, allowing all levels of staff to engage with the roadmap.
Real commitment to transformation is evident in the support structures established to assist individuals throughout the process. This includes workshops addressing practical concerns, open office hours for raising issues, and regular check ins to identify problems early. Such structures are essential in translating leadership intent into tangible impact.
The model of continuous incremental improvement, derived from Japanese manufacturing practices, can sustain transformation efforts over time. Regular, small enhancements signal to users that the organisation remains committed to making the system effective. This ongoing refinement reinforces the message that transformation is an active process.
After go live, firms should critically assess whether employees' working lives have changed. Metrics such as go live dates and training completion rates measure inputs rather than actual changes within the organisation. Internal champions, often underutilised, can provide valuable insights into how the system is functioning on the ground, offering a more accurate picture than formal reporting can provide.
Structured check ins at strategic intervals are crucial for identifying issues before they escalate. Questions posed at 30 days can diagnose adoption challenges, while 90 day assessments can evaluate operational efficiencies. Ultimately, the key question at the six month mark is whether employees would resist reverting to old methods, not out of obligation but because the new system is demonstrably more effective.
Firms must avoid the pitfall of declaring go live a success and shifting focus to the next initiative without ensuring the first has been fully adopted. This can lead to multiple systems being operational but underutilised, resulting in change fatigue that may not become apparent until it escalates into a crisis.
The practical test for any new initiative is straightforward: what is the adoption rate of the last programme launched? If this information is not readily available or falls short of expectations, the foundation for the next initiative may not yet be solid. Launching a new go live on the back of an incomplete previous one can exacerbate existing issues rather than drive progress.
In the coming years, the leading firms in the legal industry will not be those that have launched the most initiatives but rather those that have successfully completed their transformations.