#address...) it's difficult to know which was the impetus for the other‚ and which casting (if indeed either) is the more legitimate

[detective-crescend]

break up with your girlfriend (i’m bored)

There is a game that Klavier Gavin sometimes likes to play.

‘Likes’, however, may not be the appropriate term.

It isn’t a nice game, or one that makes him feel like a particularly good and decent person. And yet, when he wins—which he almost certainly does, on all but two notable occasions—the rush of chemicals that his victory incites within his clearly damaged mind will cover up all but the most persistent cries of outrage from what remains of his decaying moral compass.

It is a private challenge, it is a weakness he has long since conceded to… it is played like this:

There are plenty of people in the world who would love Klavier Gavin simply for what he represents. Conversely, there are people who will despise him for those very same reasons.

When the small voice in the back of his mind begins to speak too loudly—the one that sounds so very familiar, calm and leveled while it interrogates his every action—when he, in turn, begins to doubt himself, Klavier will search out the nearest member of the latter group. The more this individual seemingly dislikes him, the better the effect. And, having identified someone who must dislike Klavier more than he dislikes himself, he will do whatever is necessary to change that person’s opinion.

Sometimes it is as simple as attention and kindness, gifts and persistence; sometimes it is through a display of vulnerability or chagrin that is only somewhat manufactured for the moment. Though Klavier’s motivation for doing so is horrifically selfish, the goal is to be perfectly genuine in his search for their affection. It needs to be; only once his target has offered up their adoration can he tolerate himself once more. If it is a false version of Klavier that they are idolizing, it only strengthens the voice’s position inside his own mind.

The point of this game is emotional intimacy, not physical. Klavier has never been in the game of intentionally breaking hearts. One of the cardinal rules that he has set for himself, then, is that his appointed convert must be maintained as a friend, not a lover. In actuality, the majority of the rules pertain to limits and boundaries—monetary, time, distance, and attitude—or to create clear definitions of what constitutes a win or a loss of the game. It is important, Klavier feels, to keep things consistent among matches and, therefore, fair.

But, although Klavier has flourished in this diversion since his now distant childhood, he had also never encountered a contender quite like Apollo Justice before.

It wasn’t that Apollo was particularly difficult to read or to predict what it might take in order to shift his perception—on the contrary, Klavier had known exactly what needed to be done to achieve his goal almost immediately upon meeting the man. Whether or not Klavier is capable of it, however, is where the debate hinges.

There are rules that will need to be broken, for one thing, along with a set of small, concealed truths that must be unearthed—things that Klavier had long since been in the habit of burying below several layers of his own psyche. As of this moment, there are only two that Klavier has managed to excavate and examine with any sense of composure.

The first, that Apollo has beaten him so thoroughly in Klavier’s own game that their exchanges have ceased to be a game at all. Instead, they have taken on the frantic and impetuous nature of an entirely different emotion. Klavier’s desire to win Apollo’s affection had ceased to be a simple desire; it now felt like a need, pulsing bright and warm from somewhere so deeply within him that he had long since stopped believing it was possible to feel this way at all.

The second truth—both far more recently understood and infinitely more frightening—is that the aforementioned need may, in fact, be love.

It is not as pleasant an emotion as he had once anticipated, more like gnawing hunger that rumbled when Apollo was absent and roared with an open maw when he was nearby. It made Klavier indecisive and introspective in an entirely different way than the voice in his head, made him overthink every word he spoke and every thing he did when Apollo was nearby. It made him impulsive and greedy, wont to push his luck at every opportunity he could possibly take.

And, as luck would have it, this emotion was ruining any chance he could have with Apollo in the process.

“I am performing at a local studio tomorrow,” Klavier is attempting to begin one afternoon, in the immediate aftermath of a trial he has just lost. Though he’d meant the words to sound suave and unintentionally cool, the force of Apollo’s indifferent gaze strangles the words into an awkwardly insistent rush. “Would you like to come, as my guest? You may bring Fräulein Wright as well.”

Before him, Apollo’s dark eyes narrow, his hands still in the process of packing up the strewn remainder of his courtroom notes. “What kind of performance?”

“It is for a streaming service, ja?” Klavier replies, grinning through the nerve induced flips his stomach has been performing since the moment he opened his mouth. “They invite artists to come for an interview and to cover a song of the audience’s choice. There is usually free food and drinks.”

“So no Gavinner’s music?” Apollo looks skeptical.

“Nein, I promise.”

Another moment of cautious consideration is given before Apollo eventually, reluctantly, nods. “Trucy’ll kill me if she finds out I said no. Text me the address and time.”

Of course, it isn’t until hours after the requested message had been sent that Klavier thinks to check the status of the polls online that will decide the theme of his performance. One glance is all it takes to know that his invitation could be nothing but an absolutely terrible idea.

The damage, however, had been done.

As such, Klavier wakes the next morning with his emotions an odd amalgam of dread and anticipation that carries through the remainder of his day. By his arrival at the indicated studio—far earlier than the time he had provided to Apollo due to the ever-necessary addition of hair and makeup—Klavier is certain he has thought of nothing else the entire day other than Apollo’s arrival.

“Trucy couldn’t come,” Apollo says later, looking exceedingly uncomfortable in clothes other than his courtroom ensemble. It is the first time since the Guilty as Charged concert that Klavier has seen him in anything so casual; he had forgotten that, in the absence of hair gel and when wearing something that is not a shocking scarlet in hue, Apollo looks good. Good enough that Klavier is far from the only one casting surreptitious looks as they walk together from the lobby to the studio.

Those small glances are enough to send his imagination into a tailspin that, consequently, causes his response to be just moments too late to sound entirely casual. “But you still came.”

“I already said I would,” Apollo replies, ignoring the delay with a dismissive shrug. “It would’ve been rude to bail at the last second. Anyway, Trucy made me promise I’d record your song. When is it, by the way?”

“Twenty minutes—I won’t keep you for too long, ja?”

The problem is, during a performance, Klavier is practically incapable of any sort of critical thought at all. Years of practice have led to a near Pavlovian response to the appearance of a camera in his face; at just the glint of a lense reflection, any doubts or worries he had previously been wrestling with will be delicately tucked away to make room for the public persona Klavier presents to the world.

The same thing happens, here. Within moments of the interview starting, Klavier forgets about his apprehension in having Apollo present for this performance. By the time he eventually starts to sing, he’s forgotten about Apollo sitting just beyond the camera in a plastic folding chair all together.

The song picked for him to sing is almost certainly a joke, intentionally selected due to his recent and rather outspoken declaration of bisexuality. But Klavier has never been one to back down from a challenge or to let anyone know they’ve gotten under his skin. His take on Ariana Grande’s morally bankrupt classic is stripped down and irrevocably smoky, just the sound of Klavier’s voice and an electric guitar with absolutely zero changes to the lyrics, as was expected.

Klavier is not singing to Apollo, precisely—as far as he is aware, Apollo does not have a girlfriend from which to break up with—but a song will always sound better with some sort of emotion attached to it. Klavier has long been in the habit of searching any lyrics that are not his own for a handhold that he can grab on to relate to; here, the idea of wanting someone unavailable, no matter the cause, is an easy enough choice.

And things go seamlessly for the majority of the song. It isn't until nearly two minutes in, just as Klavier is finishing the bridge, that his gaze slips past the camera he has just recently glanced up into, and finds Apollo’s eyes wide and locked upon his. Perhaps it is not entirely professional, to maintain uninterrupted eye contact with the opposing counsel as the lyrics “you can hit it in the morning like it’s yours” are murmured seductively into the microphone bent towards one’s face. The suspicion is confirmed when, thirty seconds later, the song’s end is met by an uproar of applause from everyone except Apollo, who stands and leaves the room altogether.

“Stop messing with me,” Apollo shouts in the parking lot when Klavier has finally caught up with him. “I don’t know what you’re trying to do, I don’t know what sort of advantage you think you’re playing at, but stop.”

[hopefulfestivaltastemaker]

February 14, 2021

My weekly roundup of things I am up to. Topics include the precautionary principle, housing politics, the role of eccentrics in industry, and Can’t Get You Out of My Head.

The Precautionary Principle

The precautionary principle is the “better safe than sorry” mindset of regulation, particularly environmental regulation. It holds that if there is a reasonable fear of significant harm from an activity, then the activity should be prevented.

This 1996 article by Frank Cross, generally critical of how the precautionary principle is applied in law, is fairly interesting. It’s a bit long at 79 pages, but it is very readable and I think worth it if this is a subject you find interesting.

Cross’ main argument is that the principle is not a reasonable standard by which to evaluate regulation, since there are harms both from failing to regulate when it is called for, and for regulating when it is not called for. He calls for a more balanced mindset.

A few points that I found particularly interesting:

- Cross points out that an increase of GDP (GNP back in his day) of $5-10 million is associated with the reduction of one premature death. This is not too far (with CPI adjustment applied) from the statistical value of a life of about $10 million that is often used today in the United States. We are therefore willing to pay for safety in the form of regulatory costs, but there should be a limit on what we are willing to pay.

- Citing some other studies, Cross asserts that about 40% of the decline in TFP observed since the 1970s can be attributed to environmental and occupational regulation. I would be very interested in knowing some more modern estimates.

Housing Politics

This week an Oregon Legislative committee will consider a bill, SB 2583, that would override the ability of municipalities to impose occupancy regulations on housing. There is an amendment that would allow regulation strictly on the basis of square footage, which I understand exists to allay concerns about fire codes.

Unlike the housing bill I commented on last time, this one seems to have more support. I counted four written testimonies in favor and two against. One of the testimonies against cited fire codes, an issue I hope the amendment adequately addresses. I haven’t weighed in yet. I’m not sure if I will, though I think I should because housing affordability has not been explicitly addressed by other testimonies.

We like the idea of more space per person, which is (ostensibly) the reason why occupancy regulations exist. But they take away a person’s ability to choose how much space they want to pay for, or even having the option of being able to afford to live in a city at all. This bill would restore that freedom. Another virtue is that lifting occupancy regulations is the fastest way to increase housing supply, as it does not require building anything right away.

Meanwhile, the Washington County Board of Commissioners held a work session this past week, where they kvetched about Oregon’s HB 2001 from 2019, a bill that would require significant upzonings in most cities. The commissioners asserted that local governments, rather than state governments, know land use better and are in a position to make better judgments on it. The former statement might be true, but the latter self-evidently is not.

Industries and Crazy People

Palladium Magazine had another interesting article earlier this month where they pointed out that most new inventions and industries come from eccentric people. The examples of Thomas Edison, John Burroughs, and Henry Ford as discussed, as are Howard Hughes and Steve Jobs. Contemporary examples include Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg, and of course Elon Musk.

The conflict between Tesla and the SEC is an instructive case. If you remember your history, Musk made some false statements on Twitter about Tesla’s finances back in 2018. The SEC investigated the case and quickly settled for basically a slap on the wrist. In a more sclerotic country, like France or Italy, the SEC could have use the incident as a pretext to shut Tesla down or put Musk out of the picture entirely. Although not discussed, I wouldn’t be surprised if similar dynamics were at work in the recent SpaceX / FAA spat.

It is important for a society to value nonconformists and let them operate freely. This is a major reason why a political culture that imposes a high degree of conformity is dangerous.

Can’t Get You Out of My Head

This is the title of the latest Adam Curtis documentary, which I watched yesterday in it’s entirely. The whole thing weighs in at about eight hours, so I probably would have been better off splitting it over two days, but it was interesting enough to keep me going.

Like some of Curtis’ other work, there are a huge number of seemingly unrelated topics, and it can be difficult to keep it all straight. Some threads, particularly that on climate change that was introduced in Part II, are not concluded to much satisfaction.

The main theme of the series is on individualistic versus collective visions by which a society may operate. Individualism, Curtis argues, has become an ideology centered around money and consumption and fails to bring satisfaction to people. Meanwhile, the series reviews a wide range of collectivist ideologies that have been attempted over the years--fascism, socialism, Islamism, identitarianism, and democracy--and reviews where and how they have failed.

In Curtis’ telling, the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, Russia, and China are aging, sclerotic societies that are casting about for a collectivist ideology that will move them forward. The series ends on a hopeful note, that maybe Biden’s recent election in the US marks a return to a more communitarian democratic society.

I would hope so too, but I don’t see much reason for optimism. It should be observed that nations, or whole civilizations, can exist for generations or even centuries in a dysfunctional state, long after one thinks they “should” have collapsed. If what ails the modern world is primarily cultural and is global in extent, then great power competition won’t be much of an impetus to get out.

As far as what is the way out, Curtis doesn’t give us much guidance, and I think this is intentional. However, it seems to me that Curtis is looking to some form of collectivist ideology as the way forward. Whereas figures such as Michael X, Jiang Qing, and Afeni Shakur did not bring about the change they should, maybe another form of collectivism will.

I am more inclined to think that the way forward is not a type of collectivism, but a new form on individualism. Today’s individualism revolves around consumption and does not appear to be conducive to building a civilization that is healthy in the long term. Perhaps we can move more toward a form of individualism that values production instead. It doesn’t help that individualism is not really defined in the series, and I don’t recall that the term collectivism is even used, so this might be grafting my own reaction upon the series.

Anyway, I’m glad I watched it, and there is a lot of food for thought here.

[femmesfollesnebraska]

Deborah Turnbull, writer

Deborah Turnbull shares with LFF about how she came to be a writer, her latest book, Trial by Scar, collaborations and more...

Where are you from? How did you get into creative work and what is your impetus for creating?

I'm from Brighton, UK. It's not my town of birth but it is my home of seventeen years. When I was a kid, as soon as I could read independently, I devoured every book I could get my hands on. By the time I was seven I had read every book in the school and they had to order books in especially for me. I already knew I wanted to be a writer but I assumed I would write novels. I had a wonderful english teacher for four years in secondary school, who I'm grateful to still be in touch with, and his enthusiasm for literature kept mine stoked. I started writing poems at this time and was taken by its unique power to arrest in so few words. Being of a loquacious nature, this is liberating in a way I can't explain.

When I was a practising Buddhist we were encouraged to use the practice to turn 'poison into medicine', so in my case difficult life experiences can be transfigured into something that is hopefully a force for connection — I do it for myself, and I hope that it acknowledges something in the reader, and maybe we both have a moment of reprieve and shared understanding. I have to write; my mental health is sometimes fragile, but the process of writing puts me into a state that feels deeply nourishing and sustaining.

Tell me about your current project and why it’s important to you. What do you hope people get out of your work?

I have written a short collection of poems called Trial by Scar, which is written from the transitional point in an experience where we can use the inevitable tough stuff of life, our wounds and scars, to move on. Again, it's the 'poison to medicine' line to walk. I'm hoping I have built into the work a reflection of hopefulness, without resolving everything too easily as in life. I hope it will be both confronting and nurturing. I am a big believer in the idea of leaning into discomfort, looking it full in the face and 'having it all out'. To me, that is the most sensual, frank and satisfying way to live and create.

Having been inspired by the open conversations going on in Death Cafes internationally, I have recently started writing poems about death and grief. Trial by Scar is like this work's opener. Death is the ultimate subject, to my mind. I find comfort in going directly to what I believe is the source of all fear. If you can face turn and face death, you can face anything, and I want to bring that to any readers I might entice with my insistent morbid curiosity.

Deborah Turnbull’s poetry in letterpress print

Does collaboration play a role in your work—whether with your community, artists or others? How so and how does this impact your work?

In the last year I have collaborated for the first time, with Brighton's art duo The Fortune Cats. I have contributed poetry and script ideas to different projects. They are deliberate antagonists and subverters of the social and political status quo, and it utterly delights me to meet with them regularly after writing alone in bed for years. Not much pleases me more than cackling about ideas that Theresa May et al would loathe. Seeing a huge gold fortune cat in the archways of Somerset House, as an avatar for capitalism, beckoning people from across the River Thames to spout some of my script as doctrine was a high point.

It's a healthy challenge to pool ideas, compromise or advocate for an idea, and then let things go. It's built a greater sense of objectivity into my work overall, to have their creative sensibilities and concerns as alternative guides for my own voice.

I have started discussing ideas with a musician who has an incredible voice, to meld spoken word and music that run with the theme of death. We like the idea of being a little theatrical with it. I want to bring it to a wider audience than those few that attend poetry events, and I feel the need for a more physical, performative experience.

Considering the political climate, how do you think the temperature is for the arts right now, what/how do you hope it may change or make a difference?

If art reflects the culture it's made in and fights back, this will be a time which produces raw, unbridled, courageous art. Art, so long as it's accessible, can bring us out of alienation, give us a medium through which to find an authentic voice and make our own ground to stand on. It is real power of coming into our own, as opposed to the endless seeking outside of oneself, hoarding as much as possible, which calls itself power but is vacuous and desperate. Art develops our internal worlds. I hope this political era will make artists of everyone who have till now been quiet, and those that need to siphon off their anger instead of muttering under their breath or lashing out. We can't know what art can do for us until we get amongst it, and we can't know to what extent we are unified until we view it.

Deborah Turnbull’s poetry in letterpress print

Artist Wanda Ewing, who curated and titled the original LFF exhibit, examined the perspective of femininity and race in her work, and spoke positively of feminism, saying “yes, it is still relevant” to have exhibits and forums for women in art; does feminism play a role in your work?

Many of my poems vouch from a feminine perspective. 'Foundling' for instance, which was recently chosen for the Eyewear Best New British and Irish Poets anthology, is about a young woman who is commodified by the music industry. It turns her youthfulness into an object for sale, ripe for fantasy projection. I was happy it was selected, as it affirmed the subject's relevance.  Feminism is ever-relevant but I think it is important to attend to what it means as a subject. I see lazy and fearful dismissal of feminism as 'man-hating', and that's a shame as people can be put off from the outset. The feminism that I represent in my work is of the wave that is loving and inclusive of men, and acknowledges how patriarchy hurts both men and women.

Ewing’s advice to aspiring artists was “you’ve got to develop the skill of when to listen and when not to;” and “Leave. Gain perspective.”  What is your favorite advice you have received or given?

I was given the advice to not dwell in either sentimentality or sensationalism when writing. Both tones take the reader along for a firework display but the content and meaning are obfuscated, and I feel cheated out of reality. Better to match the tone with accuracy, meet the meaning where it's at. Technical language, when researching for a poem, is poetry in itself. Etymology discloses how much is embodied within the confines of just one word, the history, culture and concerns of an occupation. I'm immediately cast into its world and can get a true sense of it. I think that we form this idea that poetry must sweep us into a romantic reverie, but give me that one word that depicts the object exactly and I've got accuracy. The reader can better find me there I think. It's like giving an address rather than a hand gesture to the middle distance and saying "somewhere over there". Also, to not be afraid to edit with a cool, discriminating eye. Done well it makes the work more potent, not less.

~

Les Femmes Folles is a volunteer organization founded in 2011 with the mission to support and promote women in all forms, styles and levels of art from around the world with the online journal, print annuals, exhibitions and events; originally inspired by artist Wanda Ewing and her curated exhibit by the name Les Femmes Folles (Wild Women). LFF was created and is curated by Sally Deskins.  LFF Books is a micro-feminist press that publishes 1-2 books per year by the creators of Les Femmes Folles including the award-winning Intimates & Fools (Laura Madeline Wiseman, 2014), The Hunger of the Cheeky Sisters: Ten Tales (Laura Madeline Wiseman/Lauren Rinaldi, 2015), BARED: contemporary art and writing on bras and breasts (2017, edited by Laura Madeline Wiseman) and Mes Predices (catalog of art/writing by Marie Peter Toltz, 2017). Other titles include Les Femmes Folles: The Women 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 available on blurb.com, including art, poetry and interview excerpts from women artists. See the latest call for work on the Submissions page!

[taleshalance4]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL from https://eliaandponto1.tumblr.com/post/182372647042

[eliaandponto1]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL

[itsworn]

This ‘71 ’Cuda Packs A Knock-Out Punch You Won’t See Coming!

Back in the day, the Chrysler factory guys took approximately two days from the time a body was panel-jigged ( or “gated-up”) from raw stampings until it rolled off the final line and out the door. At the time, they sent about one car off the assembly line every minute. Of course, they had everything they needed to build them at their fingertips, and did each task over and over. For somebody who desires something tuned up to a later era, this is not so easy a process, but Tom Gipe of Cypress, California, went the distance with his real FC7 In-Violet ’Cuda, which started as less than a roller.

“Actually, it was probably the worst kind of decision from a financial standpoint,” he says now. “It was nothing more than a shell with two data plates, a rust bucket from New Hampshire, but the opportunity was there to build it the way I wanted it without straying too far from factory options. It also allowed me do some things without worrying about messing up an original Hemi car.”

So, yes, this is a Hemi ’Cuda tribute, one of a fairly substantial group of cars that have been upped to elephant status since the production cycle on the model ended in the summer months of 1971, sealing the Hemi legacy. And it is a real hip code FC7/340 body, which is a nice starting point to get at least some of the armchair complainers off their game. Notwithstanding, it has been the building and rebuilding effort over the course of the past dozen years that makes Tom’s car special, especially the fact that it is powered by one of the final Hemi engines to come from Dick Landy Industries.

“My 1968 Charger was finished and had won a number of awards in 2005, and I wanted to get a 1970 E-Body that was either Plum Crazy or Panther Pink,” says Tom when asked how it began. “I mentioned this to Julius Steuer and he said he had just acquired a real 1971 In-violet ’Cuda. The first time I saw it was October of 2005 and I bought it immediately. I picked up the car up from him in May 2007, so that took about 20 months to do the car that first time.”

Dick Landy passed away earlier that same year. The engine had been one of the reasons Julius could not complete the car sooner, as the Landy crew had really gone the distance to source parts for a fresh 528ci Hemi build. In fact, DLI had already built the 572ci engine for the Charger that Tom owned, and they chose to pull the displacement down a little since the ’Cuda would have a four-speed. After months of chasing what had become a very scarce MP block (some things never change!), Dick located one in Indianapolis. This block first had to be sleeved as the casting had two thin cylinders, then DLI engine builders—brother Mike Landy and son Robert Landy—used Stage V heads with a marine-application manifold under the Shaker, a pair of extrude media honed repro cast-iron exhaust manifolds, a Crane mechanical roller cam, and JE 11.25:1 compression pistons. The results were impressive to say the least.

“After getting all the parts, everything went together pretty quickly,” Tom recalls. “I visited the shop when the engine was ready for its dyno test. It was fantastic listening to the big inch Hemi spin up to 6,500 rpm and make 694 HP. That was in early December 2006 and the engine was delivered the first of the year to the restoration shop, Restorations by Julius.”

“Then the bad news came that Dick had passed away on January 11 and that DLI was closing its doors. I realized that I was very lucky to know Dick—in a small way for him, but in a big way for me. So am I a snob when it comes to my DLI Hemi? Yes, I am, proudly. His accomplishments are so large in the Mopar world. My car is an ambassador of DLI’s history.”

And of all the things that would later get changed on this car, that basic engine has remained a constant. Nonetheless, Tom found as he began driving the ’Cuda more seriously that there were adaptations that he desired. Again, Julius Steuer at Restorations by Julius would get the nod for this. The first build-up had been solid, but now it was time for some upgrading, and the treatment started right at the bellhousing.

“So in 2010, I had Julius pull the four-speed overdrive transmission out and install a Tremec TKO. This was a great swap for me as that transmission shifted much more smoothly and the hydraulic clutch was linear and light. Plus, since it had more overdrive, the engine rpm is kept down when cruising.”

The rear end is a Strange S60, as the car (born with a 340) originally had a 3.91 gear in an 8 ¾-inch rear end. Tom felt the Strange unit and its Detroit Truetrac was the best upgrade toward Dana 60 strength, and after trying steeper 4.10 and 3.73 units, he settled on a 3.54 ring since the engine makes a ton of low-end torque. The car had factory Rally wheels on it at the time this was chosen, and that era’s aftermarket rear discs would not fit onto them. Instead, Strange installed a set of OE NOS drum brakes from a Ford truck. But a car is much more than its driveline, and challenging the street corners was where Tom decided he would continue his reworking.

“The impetus for doing so came from a time that I took an employee for a ride and when we went around a right street corner, the car tilted so much that she almost flew into my lap. Good for me, not so good for her!” he laughs. “Anyway, I felt that wasn’t safe, so first I ditched the Goodyear Polyglas tires and installed BFG T/A radials. That by itself made a big improvement.”

At Tom’s direction, Julius installed a variety of suspension pieces on the nose-heavy E-Bomb during the following months before the perfect combo was found. This proved to be Bilstein shocks, U.S. Car Tool frame connectors, and Firm Feel equipment consisting of sway bars front and rear, 1.00-inch torsion bars, and A-arms. “The ride feels right in all conditions and handles the corners very well. Of course, this is a seat-of-the-pants assessment, but that’s the kind of measurement that works in this situation.”

That all sounds like improvement, but there needed to be some “sound” improvement. This came about in part because the hobby continues to advance. In 2012, the car was disassembled and repainted with some additional body tweaks. The interior was redone using the latest plastic-formed panels, changing from the coded black-vinyl covers to the factory cloth salt-and-pepper versions. Tom wryly noted they are comfortable, look great, and create some grip for the human posterior. The Pistol Grip is not shrouded by a console and features walnut grips that are a constant reminder of Tom’s late father, also a Mopar man and an expert woodworker who loved to work in walnut. A ’70 Rim-Blo steering wheel is the only major dash upgrade. Even with all that, it was the rumble that Tom really wanted to address.

“I had a custom 3-inch stainless steel exhaust system installed with flow through mufflers initially, but it was so loud and hot in the car there was no way to have a conversation with anyone. I found myself wearing earplugs. Most guys may find this difficult to believe, but I enjoy listening to stories from my sweetheart while driving down the interstate. After I attempted to quiet it down by installing aftermarket sound deadener, which didn’t do enough for the noise but it solved the heat problem, I resorted to getting a stock exhaust system installed which makes it much quieter. The driving experience is much better even though the top end is probably affected.” The only sound now primarily comes from a stock-appearing AM/FM/Aux radio from Retro Radio Restorations.

Tom admits he willingly errs on the side of caution with driving this car, saying it is real fast but he has never pushed the engine to its limits on the open road. Likewise, it’s not built for drag racing either, guessing that in the right hands the Plymouth could be shifted to a 12-second time or better with the current rear gearing. A member of the South Bay Mopars, he attends the club’s monthly meetings in Torrance, CA, plus Van Nuys Spring Fling, the charity Mopars in May at California School for the Deaf in Riverside, and other events close to home. The Charger and a variety of other Mopars, both vintage and modern, share garage space with Tom’s ’Cuda.

“I’m very happy with the results and gratified that all the hard work has resulted in a car that I enjoy driving. It has been done to look stock, but it sits a little lower, has no vinyl roof or billboards, and cloth seats. I added the elastomeric bumpers to maximize the amount of purple, but the tags read this car came new with a shaker hood, color matching mirrors, road lights, and the color FC7. I suppose I could have gotten any ’Cuda and painted it In-violet, but I have this thing about keeping a car’s color original, so for me it was a must.

“This is considered my long-distance car since the engine runs very cool and it has boundless low-end grunt, and it gets a lot of attention because of its style and color,” says Tom. For those who live in SoCal, he adds, “if you want a rush of color, drive a purple Mopar through a neighborhood with blooming Jacaranda trees in the spring. The reflection of purple flowers on purple paint is retina-searing…”

And that is FC7, the way it ought to be…

THERE’S MORE! You can read all about Tom’s custom tuning of this big-inch Hemi on our website.

The 528ci Hemi in Tom Gipe’s ’Cuda was one of the last ones built by Dick Landy Industries before Landy passed away in January of 2007. Since then, Tom has made tuning the carburetors and ignition a research and development project, to the betterment of the breed.

The first thing one sees once the Shaker plate comes off is a far-from-stock pair of Holley 750s on a Stage V single-plane intake atop the DLI-built Hemi engine. This was one of several changes that Tom executed several years after finishing the car the first time.

Most Hemi tributes have this option added on, however, Tom’s car started life as a real 340 ’Cuda, and it is stamped for the N96 fresh-air Shaker right on the original trim tag.

Chin spoilers, body-color bumpers, road lamps, and that grille have become the iconic visage of America’s love affair with muscle. Looking near-stock outside but built for 21st century enjoyment, this embodies the long-gone era as well as the best of modern restoration techniques.

Like a black shark emerging from a sea of deep water, the warning is always there, quivering just above the horizon of the hood. It scares the other guys, and everybody enjoys seeing it torque-twist from behind the windshield.

Foregoing conventional wisdom, it was decided that the combination of 1974 Dart front brakes and the large drums from Strange out back could handle the need for slowing down without power assist. It has worked well. The smaller reservoir is for the hydraulic clutch.

A tribute to Julius Steuer’s efforts on keeping the car looking stock was this Glen Ray three-row Max Cooling core inside a conventional-looking radiator frame. It does a great job for the 694hp Hemi.

One upgrade to the interior was to the cloth seat material, which proved a little easier on the riders than standard vinyl. Note the 1970 steering wheel, one minor noticeable change from circa-1971 purity.

This is the OEM-looking Hurst Pistol Grip, now equipped with real walnut grips—a reminder of Tom’s late father, a seasoned woodworker. A Tremec 5-speed transmission supplied by SST is below it.

After using a 3-inch diameter aftermarket layout, Tom went back to the OEM exhaust system, which may not breathe as perfectly but made the car’s drivability much more enjoyable…and without needing earplugs.

Fast Facts

1971 Plymouth ’Cuda Tom Gipe; Cypress, CA

ENGINE Type: 528ci Gen II Hemi replacing the OE 340 Bore x stroke: 4.500 (bore) x 4.150 (stroke) Block: Mopar Performance siamesed-design block, block cleared for extra stroke, sleeve installation, bored and honed with torque plates by Dick Landy Industries. Rotating assembly: Callies crank, Mopar Performance I-beam rods, Crane roller timing chain, balanced Compression: 11.25 JE forged pistons Cylinder heads: Stage V Gen II Hemi, aluminum, ported/polished by DLI Camshaft: Crane mechanical roller SR-254/374-2S-12, .598-/.580-inch lift Valvetrain: Mopar Performance 2.25-/1.94-inch valves; Mopar Performance dual springs, Mopar Performance stainless steel rockers, custom length Comp pushrods Induction: Stage V single-plane inline 2×4 “Rat Buster” Fuel system: 2×4 Holley 750cfm Street Avenger carbs (0-80459 SA with choke and air horn removed) Exhaust: OEM replacement Hemi, repro exhaust manifolds (extrude media honed) Ignition: OE factory Chrysler distributor, MP chrome box Cooling: MP aluminum housing water pump, Glen Ray three-row MaxCooling radiator Fuel: 91-octane hi-test gasoline Output: 694 hp at 6,200 rpm and 657 lb-ft at 4,500 rpm Engine built by: DLI, Northridge California late 2006 by Mike and Robert Landy; additional tuning by Tom Gipe

DRIVETRAIN Transmission: SST Tremec TKO-600 5-speed kit, RAM clutch Driveshaft: Unitrax steel, custom Rearend: Strange S60 with Detroit Truetrac, 3.54 gear set

CHASSIS Front suspension: Firm Feel A-arms, control arms, torsion bars, 1-inch diameter front sway bar, Bilstein shocks Rear suspension: Hotchkis rear springs, Bilstein shocks Steering: factory Front brakes: manual single-piston disc, Dodge 1974 Dart Rear brakes: manual drums, OEM Ford truck for Strange housing mounts

WHEELS & TIRES Wheels: 15 x 7 Wheel Vintiques Rallye front, 15 x 8 Stockton Wheel rear Tires: BFG T/A radials P235/60R15, front; P275/50R15, rear

INTERIOR Seats: cloth and vinyl “salt and pepper” black-and-white colors Instruments: new woodgrain bezels from Performance Car Graphics Stereo: electronic stock-appearing AM/FM/Aux radio from Retro Radio Restorations Steering wheel: stock 1970 rim blow Shifter: Hurst Pistol Grip, custom grips, no console

EXTERIOR Color: FC7 In-Violet/Plum Crazy Bodywork & Paint: Fabian’s; Chatsworth, CA

The post This ‘71 ’Cuda Packs A Knock-Out Punch You Won’t See Coming! appeared first on Hot Rod Network.

from Hot Rod Network http://www.hotrod.com/articles/71-cuda-packs-knock-punch-wont-see-coming/ via IFTTT

[taleshalance4]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL from https://eliaandponto1.tumblr.com/post/182335478987

[eliaandponto1]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL

[taleshalance4]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL from https://eliaandponto1.tumblr.com/post/182324598037

[eliaandponto1]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL

[taleshalance4]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL from https://eliaandponto1.tumblr.com/post/182306241037

[eliaandponto1]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL

[taleshalance4]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2Dz5cWO from https://eliaandponto1.tumblr.com/post/182293179707

[eliaandponto1]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2Dz5cWO

[taleshalance4]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL from https://eliaandponto1.tumblr.com/post/182284708607

[eliaandponto1]

To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology

In today’s highly competitive market, law firms are under ever-increasing pressure to cut costs and boost efficiency. For many firms, this means turning to technology. When it comes to cost-saving technologies, however, is it better for firms to build their own solutions and applications in-house or turn to existing products?

Despite the wide range of software offerings from reputable third-party suppliers, some firms continue to keep some or all of their solutions in-house. According to the 2018 ILTA Technology Survey, this is particularly common in the area of document template management, with nearly a quarter (23 percent) of the survey participants still using a custom, in-house-developed macro for template automation.

While in-house solutions may offer the benefit of complete customization, opting to create solutions and applications internally casts a law firm in the role of a software company, which is often a cost-prohibitive proposition.

When making the decision to look inside or outside for technology solutions, law firms should analyze the benefits they hope to achieve from their solutions, as well as the firm’s internal technology capabilities.

The Upside of In-House Applications

Developing technology solutions in-house can certainly have its advantages. By far, the largest of those is that internally developed solutions are completely customized to your staff’s individual needs and perfectly suited for your firm. The firm can determine everything from the level of simplicity or complexity of the application to the technology platform on which the solution is developed. There is a strong argument to be made that no one can understand the needs of your firm better than your own internal developers.

One major impetus for developing solutions in-house is the notion that doing so will save money. Whether or not that is true, however, depends on the amount of time, resources and effort put into development. A handful of firms manage to develop highly sophisticated products, but typically only with hundreds of hours of work and a team of highly skilled individuals dedicated to the project. In contrast, most firms end up developing very basic solutions that lack any real automation, largely because they don’t have the resources to develop more sophisticated products. Still, others develop templates devoid of automation or valuable integration.

When thinking about developing solutions in-house as a cost-saving measure, it’s important to remember that you get what you pay for. Internal development may cost less in the short term, but if the product fails to add value or save time for the end user or lacks the necessary integrations to work properly within your larger systems, you won’t see benefits or increased efficiencies in the long term.

Before your firm decides to undertake the development of in-house solutions, it’s crucial to determine if you have the internal technological capabilities to create a product that will meet your needs today and keep doing so far into the future.

The Benefits of Looking to Outside Partners

Developing technology solutions in-house requires a firm to specialize in the practice of law and also software development. As your desktop applications are upgraded, you will need to pay constant attention to your solution to ensure it continues to be compatible, making adjustments as and when necessary. That level of undertaking, for each potential technology solution required, is expensive and time-consuming for any firm.

Outside software companies, in contrast, are invested in creating solutions that benefit a wide range of customers in the market and therefore have dozens of individuals focused on developing the best possible products. Outside providers have both customer service and development teams to support the product, and another major benefit is that you can always hold external providers accountable for development and upkeep of their software—and they offer round-the-clock support to ensure those happen.

Unlike law firms, software companies are highly motivated to grow and enhance products and solutions as technology continues to evolve. Law firms aren’t typically in the business of technology, so they’re less attuned to watching out for developments in the field. Moreover, because a product developed in-house only benefits one firm, there’s less motivation to constantly upgrade it to take advantage of the most recent advancements.

Take, for example, template management technology. This type of software has to integrate with several other desktop applications such as address books, document management, and contact or practice management systems. When a product is developed in-house, the firm must write each of those integrations from scratch, and if any of the other applications change, the integrations will need to be rewritten. Third-party providers, on the other hand, already have all the potential integrations written for popular applications, which means that when things change, there’s nothing additional to develop or purchase—your solution will continue to work as usual.

Another thing to consider is how dependent your firm becomes on the person or team developing a software solution in-house. If your developer(s) leave, are on vacation or are unavailable for any reason, you are stranded with no way of resolving any issues that arise. Consider also what will happen when your template developer retires. It may be tempting to hire another internal developer to take over and retain the nuances of the existing product, but bringing that new developer up to speed is a time-intensive proposition. In contrast, many firms in this scenario investigate their outside options, only to find that commercially available products offer integrations with their existing workflows that are scalable and configurable. These outside solutions can be configured without having to know how to write code and eliminate the need to rely on a single person for technical support and product maintenance.

The Takeaway

Simply put, software companies are in the business of developing software, while law firms are in the business of practicing law. When it comes to expertise, if it looks like your law firm is becoming more of a software company, something isn’t right.

If you are looking for technology that provides real improvements in efficiency, work processes and workflows for all end users across your firm, you are most likely to find it through a reputable third-party provider. It is the provider’s livelihood to become trusted experts and offer a level of support, maintenance, and upgrades that is difficult, if not impossible, to replicate internally.

The post To Develop or Not to Develop? Advice on Getting Ahead with Technology appeared first on Law Technology Today.

from http://bit.ly/2AXWNdL