Which work should a professional team automate first? In this Mile High Makers conversation, Jeff Schell argues for examining the routine work that slows delivery while preserving the judgment that makes a professional's contribution useful.
Treat 80/20 as a planning idea
The percentages in the discussion are a way to think about the problem, not a measured productivity guarantee for every law firm or company. Different practice areas and workflows require different levels of review.
Jeff's patent example shows why the boundary matters. Organizing references may be a different task from evaluating the commercial scope of a patent strategy. The latter can require understanding engineering, marketing, competition, and the company's future plans together.
Evaluate a workflow before automating it
- Identify the output and who relies on it.
- Separate information organization from conclusions requiring professional judgment.
- Establish the source material the tool may use and the information it may access.
- Assign a person to check accuracy, context, and the final deliverable.
- Measure whether the change improves the work, not simply how quickly text appears.
Keep distinctive expertise in the process
A general-purpose tool can make many teams produce similar outputs. The conversation asks how professionals can instead use technology to make their own experience more useful.
For an innovative company, the corresponding question is practical: which decisions are routine enough to standardize, and which require a person who understands the business? Build that distinction into the workflow before expanding the tool's authority or access.
Related support from Schell IP
This article provides general information. It does not replace legal advice about a particular invention, company, or transaction.
