Why I’d ban ‘Phase 2’ from practice management projects
Practice management system implementations are big projects. By the time you reach go-live, the priority is often quite rightly to get the essentials working: lawyers need to be able to do their jobs, Finance needs to be able to perform its core functions and the firm needs to keep operating.
Not everything will be perfect.
Perhaps a process works, but is a little clunky. A report gives people the information they need, but takes more clicks than they would like. Or a workaround has been put in place to get the system live, with the intention of improving it later.
And that’s when we hear the phrase I’d quite happily ban from practice management projects:
“We’ll do it in Phase 2.”
The problem with Phase 2
Phase 2 sounds like a plan. Often, it isn’t.
In reality, it can simply become a convenient place to put the things the project team doesn't have the bandwidth to address before go-live.
That is understandable. After perhaps 18 months working on a major implementation alongside their day jobs, people are tired. They are learning the new system, dealing with the inevitable issues that come with change and trying to return their focus to business as usual.
The appetite to move immediately into another phase of the project is understandably limited.
Other priorities emerge, resources and roles change, the product itself develops and, increasingly, technology such as AI changes what is possible. Before long, the list of things that were going to happen in Phase 2 is still sitting there while everyone has learned to live with the workarounds.
Or, perhaps more accurately, learned to complain about them.
Think continuous improvement instead
Rather than promising a Phase 2, I prefer firms to think in terms of continuous improvement.
At go-live, capture the things you know aren't perfect, but don't assume you already know exactly how or when they should be fixed.
Give the system time to bed in.
Some issues will need an immediate response because they are affecting business performance. Others may feel frustrating in the first few weeks but become less important as people get used to a different way of working.
And some will become more significant because what initially looked like one person's frustration turns out to be affecting an entire team.
That is why it can be useful to put these items into a backlog and deliberately revisit them once the firm has real experience of using the system.
At three months, the focus may still be on reactive issues that need addressing. At six months, you have a much better understanding of where the genuine pain points lie. Looking further ahead, at 12 or 18 months, there may be new releases, changing requirements, different resources or new technology to consider.
The list you wrote at go-live shouldn't necessarily be the list you implement six months later.
Go-live should be the start of improvement, not the end of the project
With the level of investment involved in a new practice management system, firms should expect it to continue evolving.
That doesn't mean keeping the implementation project running indefinitely. The aim should be to give the internal team sufficient knowledge to manage the system and its development themselves.
But it does mean creating a way to capture what could be better, revisiting it at the right point and making informed decisions about what is genuinely worth changing.
At 3Kites, we typically recommend revisiting lessons learned around three months after go-live. Some of those lessons may become actions for continuous improvement, which the firm can take forward itself or use as the basis for further planning and support.
So perhaps we don't need Phase 2 after all.
We just need to make sure that “we’ll come back to that” really does mean that.
If you’re looking at your next complex change project, do get in touch with Rachel Edmondson to understand how 3Kites’ project management team can provide your firm with appropriate support.
Rachel Edmondson, 07712 052130, Rachel.Edmondson@3kites.com
Comments