This is the second post in a planned three-part series looking at ABA materials discussing Six Sigma. Hat tip to Rees Morrison and his excellent Law Department Management blog for bringing these articles to my attention. Here I'll discuss the second of two papers on Six Sigma presented at the ABA 2009 Litigation Section Annual Conference (Atlanta, GA): Six Sigma, the Discovery Process and the Corporate Legal Department, co-authored by Betsy P. Collins, Burr & Foreman; John H. Goselin II, ING Americas US Legal Services; Caroline B. Keller, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation; Joe Mann, Navigant Consulting, Inc.; and Andrea Tecce, Navigant Consulting, Inc.
I believe that you have to be a member of the ABA Litigation Section to access the document using the link above, but the paper is also available from the Georgia Chapter of the Association of Corporate Counsel Web site at: http://www.acc.com/chapters/georgia/upload/Six-Sigma-Discovery-and-Corporate-Legal.pdf.
Like Six Sigma, the Electronic Discovery Process and the Outside Law Firm, this paper starts by pointing out the popularity of Six Sigma in American corporations and that e-discovery is one area where law firms can win points with their corporate clients by implementing six sigma to increase quality and lower costs. The authors also highlight how new search and review technologies can aid the Six Sigma process and "allow fewer attorneys to review more documents faster and more effectively."
After a short introduction to the Six Sigma process and explaining the technical meaning of "six sigma," the authors turn their attention to the problems in the current system that make Six Sigma necessary. They highlight the following issues in e-discovery as it is generally conducted today:
- Large document reviews require "cheaper, less knowledgeable" attorneys.
- Generally, a second level review by more experienced attorneys is required as a quality assurance measure.
- Clients and their attorneys typically rely on (often poorly planned) keyword searches to reduce the corpus of documents to a sub-set of those that are most likely relevant.
Six Sigma principles can help by forcing those managing e-discovery to focus on what is causing mistakes and "brainstorm way to create repeatable improvements to the failed process."
Next, the authors turn their attention to two arguments in-house attorneys often make when resisting the adoption of Six Sigma processes in their legal work:
- Six Sigma is not applicable to legal work, and
- these processes can be improved without Six Sigma.
These objections are dismissed with a comment that "business people probably don't think they need Six Sigma either." They go on to argue that companies that have implemented Six Sigma see a positive impact on their bottom line.
I wish the authors would have provided a more direct response to the common lawyer objections they raised. While I agree that claims that legal work is an art not susceptible to measurement and process improvements are rubbish, I would like to see more discussion on why lawyers should adopt Six Sigma processes, rather than other methodologies for process improvement. The authors touch upon this indirectly when they discuss the discipline and process-improvement culture that implementing Six Sigma can bring to an organization. But Six Sigma enthusiasts need to make a stronger case for this before you'll see "Master Black Belts", "Black Belts", and "Green Belts" in most legal departments and law firms.
The case example the authors give does a good job providing the flavor of Six Sigma. They guide you through the process step-by-step, using typical e-discovery tasks as examples being measured and improved. This is very helpful for a lawyer new to Six-Sigma speak to understand what the process entails.
I also like how the authors incorporate discussion about new search and review technologies. They go into some detail explaining how these tools can assist with Six Sigma efforts (e.g., statistical sampling, creating more improved review processes with concept clustering) but also warning of the potential pitfalls (need to document your process and ensure it will be upheld in court).
One niggling concern that I have about Six Sigma as the authors present it is that the emphasis on constant improvement could lead to unproductive churn to continue to justify the Black Belts' existence. I understand the argument that such changes need to result in measurable improvements, if they do they are justified, but I can see how after an initial period of real improvement, there would be an incentive for black belts to game the system, focusing on those measurements that provide job security. "After all," the authors note, "the Six Sigma black belts are trying to drive change (that is what keeps them employed) and the easiest way to do that is to describe all the flaws in the current process to the sponsoring executive and the champion."
I have also not seen enough attention given to the costs and risks associated with frequent process change. Six Sigma provides a great tool set and can help inculcate a process-improvement culture. To keep that culture from degrading into a cult, however, I feel companies need to set it within a larger project and practice management framework. That said, I do agree that the Six Sigma process can benefit firms and law departments with a better understanding of the work they do, an awareness of those areas most prone to error and waste, and the development of standardized and defensible processes.
Overall, I was impressed with how much quality content the authors stuffed into eight pages. This article is worth keeping in your document library to forward to lawyers (not just in-house counsel) who would benefit from a concise introduction of Six Sigma and the benefits of applying it to e-discovery processes and technologies.
Become a Fan of LPM
