case study ‘Goodwill procter’

follow the guideline 

2 pages 

Goodwin Procter Knowledge Management System Case

The $611 million law firm’s eight offices used seven different applications to manage over 2 terabytes of data for Goodwin Procter’s more than 60,000 cases—close to 10 million documents. CIO Peter Lane wanted to integrate the data. Eventually, using Microsoft SharePoint (a Knowledge Management System), his team created the “Matter Page System” as a hub through which Goodwin Proctor attorneys could access business data and client information from their offices all over the world.

What’s more, with SharePoint implemented, the firm has been able to use this platform to share their notes and work in progress. It’s now possible for an attorney to easily find a colleague who can help because he/she has had experience with a similar case.

“Matter Pages” took a year to implement, but once it was installed/rolled out, it immediately changed how Goodwin Procter’s attorneys work. The transformation of the firm’s work processes earned it a 2008 CIO 100 Award.

Peter Lane, CIO, Goodwin Procter

A Better Way to Find Data

When Goodwin Procter attorneys assemble documents for a client’s case, the data comes from, among other systems, an Interwoven document management system and an Interaction CRM system and Lexis-Nexis, a legal research system.

When a client called with a question, finding the answer used to mean launching more than one application and looking up the data in different systems. Attorneys needed contact information, documents, billing information, and more. The old process, prior to SharePoint, sometimes took hours.

But all the information had two things in common says Andrew Kawa, Goodwin Procter’s development manager, who leads its system development efforts:

“Everything is based on the client number and the matter number.” (“Matter” is a term that describes all the facets of a case). The numbers provided the key to integrating the data through SharePoint. SharePoint is used to build a set of web pages within the Goodwin Procter intranet based on the selected matter number. Once a user selects a matter, the pages with the relevant documents are dynamically generated and accessed via a tabbed menu. Each tab represents integration with one of Goodwin Procter’s corporate applications.

Now, “Instead of having to launch the different systems from the desktop, or the web interface, or [open] the document, we were able to pull all of this information into a one-stop-shop view for the users in our company, thanks to SharePoint,” Kawa says.

The new SharePoint system increases efficiency for the attorneys because they can find previous “matters” they or others have worked on and gain extra information much more quickly than before. They spend less time researching and more time moving a case forward.

An Integration Challenge

Lane chose SharePoint because Goodwin Procter is a Microsoft shop. The firm uses Microsoft’s .Net framework to develop its custom software and build its web applications (using Microsoft’s ASP.Net web development platform). “It gave us the most amount of flexibility to leverage our existing investment in custom code and the .Net framework that we had already made, in addition to providing future development capabilities,” says Kawa.

Despite the investment in Microsoft platforms, one of the challenges Goodwin Procter faced was creating links/interfaces to pull information from different systems into SharePoint. The firm’s systems, including Interwoven and Lexis Nexis, used different ways to retrieve information from their databases. Goodwin Procter’s IT team had to figure out a way for the new system to retrieve data and display it in a common format.

“The challenge was to understand how each [system] accessed its data and then build a system that used the appropriate interfaces to access that data,” says Kawa. Then, Goodwin Procter had to figure out how to organize the condensed information and make it easily accessible through a web-based interface for the attorneys.

New Ways to Work Together

“Matter Pages’” initial success has Lane investigating new SharePoint features, such as wikis and blogs. He expects to deploy these new capabilities widely over the next few months.

For example, each matter has a wiki that is used to track notes, or other data that relates to it. These notes are open for editing by all users. Blogs tend to be used for discussions that are not case-specific.

Along with SharePoint upgrades, Goodwin Procter is also looking for increased functionality from standalone applications that would make it easier to integrate these applications through SharePoint. Interwoven, for example, has provided integration with SharePoint so that “Matter Pages” can display data organized as users are accustomed to seeing it within Interwoven, Kawa says.

“One of the IT goals is to take advantage of the new technology as it becomes available,” Lane adds.

With that goal in mind, says Lane, the “Matter Page System” won’t ever truly be completed. Currently, Kawa is looking to integrate Goodwin Procter’s patent and trademark information with data about their patent applications from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The integration would allow attorneys to retrieve real-time information on their pending patents and actions they need to take.

“I don’t think we will ever declare the project done or say we don’t have to put any more time or effort in.” he says.

1. Thoroughly research Goodwin Procter, a prestigious Boston law firm. Direct your efforts toward the firm’s operations and IT functions prior to the SharePoint implementation. Use the Internet and examine articles, blogs, websites, and marketing materials. Identify positive and negative features of the firm.

2. Become an expert (really just a well-educated consumer) on Microsoft SharePoint. Again, use the Internet to examine articles, blogs, websites, and marketing materials. Concentrate on successful utilization of the product, especially at other large law firms and financial institutions. Learn how the product is implemented and whether it is still a long, grueling process. Try to find examples of efficiencies and cost savings that the product has brought to the workplace in other firms.

3. After all this research, put yourselves into the role of the Knowledge Management Acquisition/Conversion Team for Goodwin Procter IT. Prepare a PowerPoint presentation that will convince top management to convert to a Microsoft SharePoint platform. Note that we will have in-class workshops to review and refine each group’s PowerPoint presentation before it is delivered. I will be coaching you throughout the process.

4. Once you have convinced top management to implement SharePoint, each group will prepare a Word Document report of its findings and recommendation. During in-class workshops, I will work with each group on format and content of the report.

CaseReport Writing Guidelines – Dr. Dean Saluti

No Cover Page: at the top of the page, left-hand corner, Name/Names; right-hand corner,

Course Number and below it, Date; skip a couple of lines, Name of the Case, bold, underlined,

centered

Background: skip a couple of lines from the Case Title, move to the left margin, and the heading

for the first section will be Background:, bold, underlined, colon. This section will have short

paragraphs, not indented, single spaced, starting below the section heading. With a long,

detailed HBP case, this section could be a page in length. A description of the company, its

products/services, and its history should be included in the beginning of this section. Some

outside research may be required, so don’t forget APA references. This section leads up to the

Issue (problem) that must be addressed in the case.

Issue: skip a couple of lines from the end of the Background section, move to the left margin,

and the heading for the next section will be Issue:, bold, underlined, colon. This is always only

one sentence, under the heading, ending with a question mark.

Alternatives: skip a couple of lines from the end of the Issue sentence, move to the left margin,

and the heading for the next section will be Alternatives:, bold, underlined, colon. Under the

heading, number and list reasonable, possible Alternatives that will resolve the Issue.

Alternatives should be expressed succinctly and can be just a few words or sentence fragments.

It is important not to include Alternatives that are not feasible.

Analysis of Alternatives: skip a couple of lines from the end of the Alternatives section, move to

the left margin, and the heading for the next section will be Analysis of Alternatives:, bold,

underlined, colon. Under the heading, cut and paste the first Alternative (number and text),

preceded by the Word “Alternative,” bold, underlined, followed by the word “- Suboptimal” or

“- Optimal,” also bold, underlined. Don’t forget the dash (-). Under the Alternative, in a few

short sentences, single spaced and not indented, describe why the specific Alternative is

“- Suboptimal” (not to be Recommended) or “- Optimal,” (to be Recommended). Repeat for

each Alternative to be analyzed and skip a line between Alternatives.

Recommendation: skip a couple of lines from the end of the Analysis of Alternatives section,

move to the left margin, and the heading for the next section will be Recommendation:; bold,

underlined, colon. Under the heading, begin with “This Report recommends:” and then list,

with bullet points, the Optimal/Recommended Alternative(s) in a few words or sentence

fragments.

Attachments: any Attachments should follow the body of the Report on separate pages. Each

Attachment (map, diagram, picture, etc.) should have a reference on the bottom of the

Attachment as to where it was taken from, should be labelled (e.g., Attachment 1), titled (e.g.,

Map of Corporate Office Locations Worldwide), and should be referred to in the body of the

Report (usually in either the Background or Analysis section).

References: This is the last page of the Report. Use APA guidelines.