Fast Followers

Over the weekend, I participated in the 2009 Futures Conference presented by the College of Law Practice Management at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.  It was a good program with some excellent and provocative speakers.  Most sessions focused well on the topic at hand:  "What is going on in the business of practicing law and how will it change?"

Perhaps because I tend to approach things with the Monty Python view of things ( "And now, something completely different!!") I was most intrigued by a concept of "Fast Followers" put forth by Harry Trueheart, Chairman of international law firm, Nixon Peabody.

 

It's an idea that has been around for a while.  In essence, it suggests that it is smarter to avoid the pain and heartbreak of taking a totally unique concept to the world, and instead, choose the strategy of making someone else's innovation better, faster, cheaper and thereby taking advantage of their hard start-up work and learning to surpass them. Sort of like winning the auto race by "drafting" in the pull exerted by the front runner.

There have been strong opinions on both sides of this. You can read management consultant Jim McGee's explanation of the theory's flaw.  And you can read Constantinos Markides and Paul Geroski's 2004 book, Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets to learn all the ins and outs.

I like it, however, in the context of the business of practicing law.  In a world where anything without precedent can be viewed as toxic, the "Fast Follower" approach allows the determined innovator to say "YES, someone else HAS done this before!!" to calm the critics then move forward in a way that is frequently impossible in a law firm if it is a brand spanking new concept.

Something to think about, anyway

Over the weekend, I participated in the 2009 Futures Conference presented by the College of Law Practice Management at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.  It was a good program with some excellent and provocative speakers.  Most sessions focused well on the topic at hand:  "What is going on in the business of practicing law and how will it change?"

Perhaps because I tend to approach things with the Monty Python view of things ( "And now, something completely different!!") I was most intrigued by a concept of "Fast Followers" put forth by Harry Trueheart, Chairman of international law firm, Nixon Peabody.

 

It's an idea that has been around for a while.  In essence, it suggests that it is smarter to avoid the pain and heartbreak of taking a totally unique concept to the world, and instead, choose the strategy of making someone else's innovation better, faster, cheaper and thereby taking advantage of their hard start-up work and learning to surpass them. Sort of like winning the auto race by "drafting" in the pull exerted by the front runner.

There have been strong opinions on both sides of this. You can read management consultant Jim McGee's explanation of the theory's flaw.  And you can read Constantinos Markides and Paul Geroski's 2004 book, Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets to learn all the ins and outs.

I like it, however, in the context of the business of practicing law.  In a world where anything without precedent can be viewed as toxic, the "Fast Follower" approach allows the determined innovator to say "YES, someone else HAS done this before!!" to calm the critics then move forward in a way that is frequently impossible in a law firm if it is a brand spanking new concept.

Something to think about, anyway

Comments

[Julie A. Fleming]

In the world of ideas, it's often beneficial to be the follower rather than the leader. You learn from others mistakes and see what works, instead of being the one making all of the mistakes and trying strategies that don't work.

Often people who try too hard to be creative and do new things are actually recycling old ideas without realizing it. It pays to research what's been done and determine which strategies would work best for your purposes.

I certainly wouldn't advise against being a leader and trying new things, but I think you should do so with a full knowledge of what's come before and an educated guess as to what the results will be of your new efforts.