Reflection: Mind Mapping for Legal Process Improvement

Challenge     I work in the legal department of a global organization, and my group was tasked with streamlining  the collection of electronic evidence, for the purpose of responding in a faster and more legally  defensible manner to court demands and government inquiries. Since the nature and value of  various sources of electronic information are constantly changing, and we work under tight deadlines  with limited information, we often find ourselves having to make difficult decisions about which  technology or procedural solutions are appropriate in order to serve the needs of our clients.  Mitigating risk is also inherently important in any legal process, making this a “wicked” problem  appropriate for a Design Thinking approach, rather than a linear analytic method, because (1) the  problem was human-centered, and required an understanding of the various stakeholder groups  involved; (2) we did not have a clear understanding of the problem itself; (3) the level of uncertainty  was high and past data was unlikely to help us; and (4) there was relatively little existing data for us  to analyze (see Week 1, Lecture #7: Challenges Best-Suited for Design Thinking by Jeanne M.  Liedtka).     Selection    Given the lack of data and our diverse stakeholder group, which included litigators, records  managers, paralegals, technologists, operational analysts, and project managers, all owning  different pieces of a sequential puzzle, the tool we decided to deploy for this problem was Mind  Mapping. We chose this tool because we needed to better understand each stakeholder group’s  individual problems before choosing a particular solution, and we thought that gathering formal data  in addition to empirical data via interviews of a member of each group would help paint the picture of  the “What Is” phase, before trying to build consensus around the “What If” phase. This would provide  us with “Design Criteria”, or the conditions our solutions must satisfy in order to eventually solve our  customers’ problem (see Week 3, Lecture #4: Mind Mapping Tool by Michelle Smith).     Application    We began by interviewing members of each stakeholder group, collecting their inputs in Customer  Diaries about their experiences with the current collection process, in addition to gathering the  limited formal data to which we had access (i.e., a list of frequently-accessed information sources,  historical outcomes, known problems, and basic metrics including monthly request volume). Using  the “art gallery” approach we then displayed all of this information on a collaboration board in a web  conference room, and invited several members of each stakeholder group to peruse it, leaving  virtual sticky notes to record any learning that they thought would inform new ideas amongst the  group; for example, any information that they found most useful, or surprising, or potentially  impactful.    Following the “tour”, we gathered the stakeholders in a web conference and clustered all of the  sticky notes into themes, and from there we challenged the group to debate and agree upon “Insight  Statements” derived from each of those themes. These statements translated the group’s  observations of facts into actionable business intelligence on which eventual solutions could be  based. These would eventually become our “Design Criteria” for the next phase, answering the  question: “Knowing what we know now based on these insights, if anything were possible, what  criteria would our new design meet?” More than anything, these insights taught us what we could not  live without in a future state solution, and why.

Insights    Through extensive Q&A with at least one member of each stakeholder group present, as well as  using the “Five Whys” and the “So What” method, we were able to pull the business impacts out of  the facts and insights recorded by the stakeholders. For example, a lack of transparency around  controls related to data movement across borders caused a misunderstanding of legal risks related  to data collection in certain jurisdictions; a lack of understanding of the urgency of some requests vs.  others had created a “boy who cried wolf” scenario, leading to confusion about request priority; and  the lack of formal service level agreements (to which most stakeholder groups were accustomed)  made roles, responsibilities, timelines, and request scope unclear across these disparate groups.  The connections between this particular cluster of insights told us, therefore, that a formal  governance and stakeholder education program would need to be included in our Design Criteria as  part of a more holistic solution.     Additionally, outlier insights related to seemingly arcane records management inputs unexpectedly  pushed the group toward putting more emphasis on the upstream process of identifying data  sources correctly, in order to avoid waste and rework as a result of incorrect request inputs.    Approach    While the Mind Mapping approach was an effective tool, Storytelling could have been equally  effective for this exercise, given its propensity to “develop deeper empathy in the present, and create  more vivid images about the kind of new future, we're trying to create” (see Week 2, Lecture #1: The  Physics of Innovation by Cristina Abdallah). With such a diverse group of stakeholders involved in  various sequential points in a complex process, empathy for fellow participants as a result of a  clearer picture of each person’s experience could have helped bridge gaps in understanding,  improved the flow of information between parties, and ultimately helped the group achieve  consensus on the most impactful problems before deciding on eventual solutions.


Reflection : Mind Mapping for Legal Process Improvement Challenge I work in the legal department of a global organization , and my group was tasked with streamlining the collection of electronic evidence , for the purpose of responding in a faster and more legally defensible manner to court demands and government inquiries . Since the nature and value of various sources of electronic information are constantly changing , and we work under tight deadlines with limited information , we often find ourselves having to make difficult decisions about which technology or procedural solutions are appropriate in order to serve the needs of our clients . Mitigating risk is also inherently important in any legal process , making this a “ wicked ” problem appropriate for a Design Thinking approach , rather than a linear analytic method , because ( 1 ) the problem was human - centered , and required an understanding of the various stakeholder groups involved ; ( 2 ) we did not have a clear understanding of the problem itself ; ( 3 ) the level of uncertainty was high and past data was unlikely to help us ; and ( 4 ) there was relatively little existing data for us to analyze ( see Week 1 , Lecture # 7 : Challenges Best - Suited for Design Thinking by Jeanne M. Liedtka ) . Selection Given the lack of data and our diverse stakeholder group , which included litigators , records managers , paralegals , technologists , operational analysts , and project managers , all owning different pieces of a sequential puzzle , the tool we decided to deploy for this problem was Mind Mapping . We chose this tool because we needed to better understand each stakeholder group ’s individual problems before choosing a particular solution , and we thought that gathering formal data in addition to empirical data via interviews of a member of each group would help paint the picture of the “ What Is ” phase , before trying to build consensus around the “ What If ” phase . This would provide us with “ Design Criteria ” , or the conditions our solutions must satisfy in order to eventually solve our customers ’ problem ( see Week 3 , Lecture # 4 : Mind Mapping Tool by Michelle Smith ) . Application We began by interviewing members of each stakeholder group , collecting their inputs in Customer Diaries about their experiences with the current collection process , in addition to gathering the limited formal data to which we had access ( i.e. , a list of frequently - accessed information sources , historical outcomes , known problems , and basic metrics including monthly request volume ) . Using the “ art gallery ” approach we then displayed all of this information on a collaboration board in a web conference room , and invited several members of each stakeholder group to peruse it , leaving virtual sticky notes to record any learning that they thought would inform new ideas amongst the group ; for example , any information that they found most useful , or surprising , or potentially impactful . Following the “ tour ” , we gathered the stakeholders in a web conference and clustered all of the sticky notes into themes , and from there we challenged the group to debate and agree upon “ Insight Statements ” derived from each of those themes . These statements translated the group ’s observations of facts into actionable business intelligence on which eventual solutions could be based . These would eventually become our “ Design Criteria ” for the next phase , answering the question : “ Knowing what we know now based on these insights , if anything were possible , what criteria would our new design meet ? ” More than anything , these insights taught us what we could not live without in a future state solution , and why . Insights Through extensive Q&A with at least one member of each stakeholder group present , as well as using the “ Five Why s ” and the “ So What ” method , we were able to pull the business impacts out of the facts and insights recorded by the stakeholders . For example , a lack of transparency around controls related to data movement across borders caused a misunderstanding of legal risks related to data collection in certain jurisdictions ; a lack of understanding of the urgency of some requests vs. others had created a “ boy who cried wolf ” scenario , leading to confusion about request priority ; and the lack of formal service level agreements ( to which most stakeholder groups were accustomed ) made roles , responsibilities , timelines , and request scope unclear across these disparate groups . The connections between this particular cluster of insights told us , therefore , that a formal governance and stakeholder education program would need to be included in our Design Criteria as part of a more holistic solution . Additionally , outlier insights related to seemingly arcane records management inputs unexpectedly pushed the group toward putting more emphasis on the upstream process of identifying data sources correctly , in order to avoid waste and rework as a result of incorrect request inputs . Approach While the Mind Mapping approach was an effective tool , Storytelling could have been equally effective for this exercise , given its propensity to “ develop deeper empathy in the present , and create more vivid images about the kind of new future , we 're trying to create ” ( see Week 2 , Lecture # 1 : The Physics of Innovation by Cristina Abdallah ) . With such a diverse group of stakeholders involved in various sequential points in a complex process , empathy for fellow participants as a result of a clearer picture of each person ’s experience could have helped bridge gaps in understanding , improved the flow of information between parties , and ultimately helped the group achieve consensus on the most impactful problems before deciding on eventual solutions .