The missing link…

Law firms continue to install CRM technology under the belief it will enhance their cross-selling activities and improve client intelligence. But, once training is complete, adoption often remains sluggish. By Aleen Bayard

The professional-services sector has invested huge amounts of money in software programs to help identify and manage its client contacts. When first introduced, client-relationship management (CRM) products were the holy grail of the law-firm marketing department, as vendors promised an end to data redundancy and obsolete records, combined with built-in intelligence that identified all client-contact points to leverage a firm-wide relationship.

Software companies have blanketed the market with systems that enable the capture and organisation of client information to support practice-group efforts, client-team strategies and a variety of initiatives to cater to ‘VIP’ clients.

Lawyers, however, have uniformly resisted changing their communication habits to fully utilise the power of CRM systems and often, at best, think of CRM as an address book on steroids.

Despite the well-documented benefits of mining collective knowledge and sharing it to enhance client service, the take-up rate has left chief-marketing officers and IT managers frustrated and confused.

Students of change management, however, are pointing to the failure (or, at least, sluggish acceptance) of CRM as the ultimate case study in understanding the critical role strategic-change principles play in ensuring success in an initiative of this nature.

In many instances, when large-scale change is attempted within an organisation, the focus is on the product or outcomes, as opposed to the individuals who will be required to do the work. In developing strategies to get CRM back on track, the most basic change-management principles come into play. These hold great promise for law firms struggling to generate acceptance and adoption of the tools available to manage client relationships.

Firms need to promote CRM as a mission-critical practice for lawyers to optimise their client relationships within a secure and protected technological environment, which is error free and maintains some level of individual control (access rights).

Win their minds, then their hearts
While marketing often sells the benefits of CRM as ‘efficiency’ or ‘client sharing’, lawyers are more concerned about amassing billable hours and protecting ‘their own’ clients. In fact, some of the most compelling incentives promoted to the lawyers are actually disincentives within their context. Consider that:

Attorneys are rewarded for owning the client, not sharing access or information to their details. Client credit is still the primary compensation metric and it should be no surprise that lawyers are not so eager to expose their income streams to potentially unsolicited contacts, which could result in a dilution of their portion of client credit;
Exposing clients to potentially unsolicited contacts of inferior quality is risky. Particularly in regional or global firms, a technology that enables cross-office teaming is not always favoured by lawyers who may have had bad experiences with colleagues in other locations.

Stumbling blocks and solutions
Lack of critical mass is one of the biggest challenges in creating momentum. Since the power and effectiveness of CRM expands with the number of offices or practices it connects, it is important to choose an appropriate pilot.

Client teams offer a fast-track method to prove the value of sharing information. They have conquered many of the objections inherent in CRM usage, including: handling client-credit sharing; establishing protocols to share information; and, appointing a client manager to coordinate communication (including determining who gets CRM content – for example, invitations, newsletters and seminar announcements).

Change guru John Kotter emphasises the need for ‘early wins’ (which can then be promoted) as key to project traction and momentum. To a great extent, power in law firms stems from a lawyer’s unique or proprietary client contact. CRM systems are promoted based on the ability to share information throughout the firm. Given the legacy of many technological solutions, lawyers distrust this ‘channel’ from the outset. Throwing clients to the proverbial IT wolves is anathema to partners, so security and limited-access rights must be in place to gain their trust. It is important to convey individuals’ ability to control access at the outset of the change programme.

CRM training is based on an IT programmer’s perspective, not a lawyer’s mindset. Most courses are taught in a group setting, typically not at the practice group or client-team level, and instruct users on the proper keystrokes and contact sort-fields. There is no inclusion of client scenarios or case studies that engage the lawyer when they use the system. In such instances, the redesign of CRM training, both in terms of its context, content and delivery, is vital.

One of the chief roadblocks within the legal sector is the lack of a ‘command and control’ hierarchy imposed by a traditional, corporate structure. When a company invests in CRM, the chief-executive officer can enforce compliance. Law-firm partnerships tend to be managed by consensus. However, anything less than a full endorsement or edict from the management committee, and adoption can be significantly sabotaged. As part of the initial implementation strategy, the management committee or firm chair must understand the vital role they play in unequivocally stating the need for 100 per cent compliance.

The firm must be willing to establish business processes to align the brass rings of client credit, client-relationship development and firm succession to the lawyers’ desired behaviour. In other words, asking an individual to start using a new, potentially threatening, technology without the corresponding cultural and financial rewards is not a strong enough incentive and often provides an implicit conflict. Firms should consider the message they are sending through their:

Evaluation metrics for associates;
Reimbursement guidelines for client entertainment;
Processes to open new matters and establish client credit;
Compensation committee decisions;
Ownership of specific client lists;
Criterion to lead client teams or practice groups.

In every one of these sacred areas, a firm has an opportunity to leverage CRM usage as one of the conditions required for success.

Taking action
For those firms already in the process of trying to salvage credibility and acceptance of a CRM system, the role of the management committee is key. In most cases, the marketing professionals have little impact on changing the behaviour of the attorney population. Only through peer pressure and the addition of specific requirements, for example client credit being pursuant to the updating of client contact information in the CRM system, will usage increase.

During the planning process, the training and communication plan is the vehicle to gain headway. Firms should ensure that CRM is positioned within the context of the lawyers’ own needs and solutions. Create client scenarios and real simulations to showcase the value of the intelligence available through CRM.

For firms that are in launch mode, security and control are high on the list in terms of the threshold of lawyer acceptance. Make explicit how the information will be protected and promote the successes of knowledge sharing.

Aleen Bayard is founder of Cognitive Partners, a US consultancy focused on change management, strategy and business performance issues, where she specialises in professional services. She can be contacted at: marketzing@earthlink.net.