Question: DWF is a global provider of legal and business services. New technologies such as Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence

05 Mar 2023,4:04 PM

 

Case Study:

DWF is a global provider of legal and business services. New technologies such as Machine Learning/Artificial Intelligence are emerging (collectively called “LEGALTECH”). There are those within the legal sector who believe that LEGALTECH will lead to disruptive innovation of the legal profession and the structure of the legal services industry. There are those who are more sceptical. 

 

Question: 

Examine the main emerging technologies that are bundled under the term “LegalTech”. 

Select one technology which you think holds the most promise and explain the business basis for your choice.  

Examine whether that technology is likely to be disruptive to a company like DWF.

Make recommendations as to how DWF should respond.

 

 

*Tasks:

Answer the following question  (no more than 600 words in total)

Just include:

1. What acadmic literature you will draw on (from the course) - less focus

2. What secondary research you propose and key sources - main focus*

 

Pls put the reference in harvard style with links, no less than 5 references.

—————————————————————————————————————

 

Our choosen technology is “legal analytics”

 

—————————————————————————————————————

The following are some research can learn from, but please do not copy

 

50. Legal analytics. (predicting litigation outcome)

 

50. legal analytic (prediction) it is more lucrative to use predictive analytics in patent litigation than in other practice areas.”  Furthermore, this technology is still very new and unique - implementing this would create competitive advantage. Decision tree is a subset of this technology.

 

50. Legal analytics

 

1.1) How it works: Predicting litigation outcomes - legal analytics

 

Outcome Analytics allow users to quickly discover:

Findings: how the court ruled on specific issues and at what stage of litigation

Remedies: how the court ruled (including grant/denial rates) on various types of injunctive orders and claim-specific remedies (e.g., specific performance in contracts cases)

Damages: details about damages awards (who won, how much, and against which party) that are specific to each practice area, including approved class action settlement damages in antitrust cases and pain and suffering damages in torts cases; you can gain insights into how often a judge awards certain types of damages, such as attorneys fees or punitive damages

Case Resolutions: how often claimants win, defendants win, cases settle, or cases resolve procedurally; you can determine at what stages relevant cases were resolved, e.g., how often claimants win on summary judgment or whether this court has ruled on a judgment as a matter of law

State Court Rulings and Resolutions: whether plaintiffs or defendants win more often in front of their judge; you can view all cases with bench or jury trials where the opposing counsel appeared, in our expanding number of state courts

 

Examples: Lex Machina and Solomonic.

 

1.2) Advantages:

On P.14, there is also an interesting opportunity of legal analytic (prediction) that “Patent law also involves more high- value cases than many other areas of law and, thus, it is more lucrative to use predictive analytics in patent litigation than in other practice areas.”  Furthermore, this technology is still very new and unique - implementing this would create competitive advantage

Reduce the lawyers’ repetitive tasks

Reduce the risk to lose

increase the chance for the most beneficial situation of whether the clients should settle the case.

 

1.3) Disadvantages:

The outcome is uncertain due to the fact that it is a prediction which may lack some factors required in the analysis.

Currently excel at limited regulation areas, such as patent laws, not a well rounded AI.

High-cost adoption

Expert judgements are still required to ensure the precision of the prediction.

In the case that the clients are right but the prediction indicates the opposite result that they will lose, there will be problems with the direction of advisory whether they should settle or go on. Will it ruin the ethics of the law firms if they convince their ‘right’ clients to settle?

 

 

Reading on this topic:

• Amit, R. & Zott, C. (2010). Business model innovation: Creating value in times of change. Working Paper WP870, IESE Business School.
• Bock, A. J., Opsahl, T., George, G. & Gann, D. M. (2012). The effects of culture and structure on strategic flexibility during business model innovation. Journal of Management Studies, 49(2), p. 279-305.
• Chesbrough, H and Rosenbloom, RS (2002) “The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology spin-off companies”, Industrial & Corporate Change, 11 (3): 529-555.

 

• Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it's not just about technology anymore. Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), p. 12-17.
• Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2), p. 354-363.
• Conforto, E. C., Rebentisch, E. & Amaral, D. (2016). Learning the art of business improvisation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(3), p. 8.
• Osterwalder, A. & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries, game changers, and challengers. NJ Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
• Ovans, A. (2015). What is a business model. Harvard Business Review, 23.
• Sund, K. J., Bogers, M., Fernandez, J. A. V. & Foss, N. J. (2016). Managing organizational tensions during business model exploration. MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(4).
• Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2), p. 172-194.
• Zott, C., Amit, R. & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), p. 1019-1042.

 

 

Read the case study “EMI and the CT Scanner (B)”

 

Reading on this topic:

• Geroski, PA and Markides, CC (2005). Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate Markets. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester (especially Chapter 4: Colonists and Consolidators and Chapter 5: From Colonization to Consolidation)
• Teece, D (1986). “Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy”, Research Policy, 15: 285-305

 

 

Preparation before the class:

 

• Read the case “We’ve got rhythm! Medtronic Corporation’s cardiac pacemaker business” and consider the following questions:        

 

• • How do you think Mike Stevens was perceived by his staff? Who do you think liked him & who may have resented him? 
  • Was Mike Stevens an innovation leader? Why?             

 

Reading on this topic:

 

• Chapter 2 (“What’s special about innovation leaders?”) in Jean-Philippe DESCHAMPS (2008) Innovation Leaders: How Senior Executives Stimulate, Steer and Sustain Innovation, Chichester: John Wiley.

• Chapters 6-10 in Jean-Philippe DESCHAMPS (2008) Innovation Leaders: How Senior Executives Stimulate, Steer and Sustain Innovation, Chichester: John Wiley.
• Chapter 4 (“Innovation strategy”) in Dodgson, M, Gann, D and Salter, A (2008) The Management of Technological Innovation: Strategy and Practice, Oxford University Press: Oxford.
• De Jong, JPJ and Den Hartog, DN (2007) “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”, European Journal of Innovation Management, 10 (1): 41-64.
• Dutton, JE and Ashford, SJ (1993) “Selling issues to top management”, Academy of Management Review, 18 (3): 397-428.
• Kanter, RM (1982) “The middle manager as innovator”, Harvard Business Review, 60 (4), July-August: 95-105.
• Nadler, D and Tushman, M (1990) “Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership and organizational change”, California Management Review, 32 (2): 77-97.
• Yukl, G (2006)) Leadership in Organizations, 6^th Edition.

 

 

Preparation before the class:

• Read     McGinnis, JO and Pearce, RG (2014), The Great Disruption: How Machine Intelligence Will Transform the Role of Lawyers in the Delivery of Legal Services, 82 Fordham Law Review. 3041 (2014).

Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol82/iss6/16

 

 

Reading on this topic:

• Susskind, R and Susskind, D (2015) The Future of the Professions: How Technology Will Transform the Work of Human Experts, Oxford University Press: Oxford  (especially Chapter 2)
• Remus, D and Levy, FS., Can Robots Be Lawyers? Computers, Lawyers, and the Practice of Law (November 27, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2701092 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2701092
• Frey, CB and Osborne, MA (2013) The Future of Employment: How Susceptible are Jobs to Computerisation? Available at https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Employment.pdf

 

 

 

Preparation before the class:

 

Read the case study Fujifilm: a second foundation

 

Reading on this topic:

• Christensen, CM, Anthony, SD and Roth, EA (2004). Seeing What’s Next, Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, MA (especially Chapter 1: The Signals of Change; Chapter 2: Competitive Battles; and Chapter 3: Strategic Choices).
• Anthony, SD, Eyring, M and Gibson, L (2006) “Mapping your innovation strategy”, Harvard Business Review, May: 104-113.
• Bower, JL and Christensen, CM (1995) “Disruptive technologies - catching the wave”, Harvard Business Review, 73 (1), Jan-Feb: pp.43-53.
• Utterback, JM (1996) Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, MA (especially Chapter 2: “Dominant designs and the survival of firms” and Chapter 7: “Invasion of a stable business by radical innovation”
• Christensen, CM (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma, HarperCollins.

 

Some critical reflections on disruptive innovation:

• Adner, R (2002) “When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition”, Strategic Management Journal, 23: 667-688.
• Danneels, E (2004) “Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21: 246-258.
• Govindarajan, V and Kopalle, PK (2006) “The usefulness of measuring disruptiveness of innovations ex post in making ex ante predictions”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23: 12-18.

 

 

Preparation before the class:

 

Research graphene starting with http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/

 

 

 

Reading on this topic:

• Jolly, V.K., 1997. Commercializing new technologies: getting from mind to market. Harvard Business Press.
• Rogers, E.M., 2010. Diffusion of Innovations. Simon and Schuster.

• Teece, D (1986). “Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy”, Research Policy, 15: 285-305

• Chapter 4 (“Innovation strategy”) and Chapter 9 (“Delivering value from innovation”) in Dodgson, M, Gann, D and Salter, A (2008) The Management of Technological Innovation: Strategy and Practice, Oxford University Press: Oxford

 

 

Preparation before the class:

 

Read about 365 Response at https://365response.org/   

 

Read the executive summary of The Scale-Up Report on UK Economic Growth

https://www.scaleupinstitute.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/scaleup-report_2014.pdf

 

 

Reading on this topic:

• Chapter 3 (Building the innovative organization) and Chapter 8 (building the innovation case) in Tidd,J and Bessant, J (2013) Managing Innovation, Fifth Edition, John Wiley & Sons: Chichester
• Greiner, L. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1998/05/evolution-and-revolution-as-organizations-grow
• Hambrick, D. and Crozier, L. (1985). Stumblers and stars in the management of rapid growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(1), pp.31-45.
• Kazanjian, R. (1988). Relation of dominant problems to stages of growth in technology-based new ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2), pp.257-279.
• Kazanjian, R. and Drazin, R. (1990). A stage-contingent model of design and growth for technology based new ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(3), pp.137-150.
• Lewis, V. L. and Churchill, N. C. (1983). The Five Stages of Small Business Growth. Harvard Business Review, 61(3), pp. 30-50.
• Macpherson, A. (2005). Learning how to grow: resolving the crisis of knowing. Technovation, 25(10), pp.1129-1140.
• Parker, S., Storey, D. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010). What happens to gazelles? The importance of dynamic management strategy. Small Business Economics, 35(2), pp.203-226.

 

 

Preparation before the class:

Read the case study “Tata Nano: The People’s Car” and consider the following questions:

• What are the main features of frugal innovation?
• What can Western companies learn from the Tata Nano?
• What opportunities does frugal innovation present to emerging economy companies?

 

Reading on this topic:

• Agnihotri, A (2015) “Low cost innovation in emerging markets”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23 (5): 399-411.
• Govindarajan, V and Ramamurti, R (2011) “Reverse innovation, emerging markets and global strategy”, Global Strategy Journal, 1 (3-4): 191-205
• Immelt, JR, Govindarajan, V and Trimble, C (2009) “How GE is disrupting itself”, Harvard Business Review, October: 87 (10): pp.56-65.
• The Economist “Special Report on Innovation in Emerging Markets”, 17^th April 2010 and especially “The world turned upside down”; “First break all the rules”; and “New masters of management”. This is available at: http://www.economist.com/node/15879369
• Wagstyl, S (2011) “Innovation: replicators no more”, Financial Times, 5 January 2011. This available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97a67340-1904-11e0-9c12-00144feab49a.html#axzz1D0NsKuqb
• Zeschky, M, Widenmayer, B and Gassmann, O (2011) “Frugal innovation in emerging markets”, Research Technology Management, 54 (4): 38-45

 

 

On marketing to “the Bottom of the Pyramid”:

 

• Prahalad, CK and Hammond, A (2002) “Serving the world’s poor, profitability”, Harvard Business Review, September: 48-57.
• Karnani, A (2007) “The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid”, California Management Review, 49 (4): 90-111.

 

 

Preparation before the class:

Read the case study: ICI’s China Research Centre

 

 

 

Reading on this topic:

• Gerybadze, A. and Guido, R. (1999), “Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations”, Research Policy, 28, pp. 251-274.
• Howells, J. (2000) “International coordination of technology flows and knowledge activity in innovation” International Journal of Technology Management 19 (7-8), 806-819.
• Birkinshaw, J. (2002), “Managing internal R&D networks in global firms – What sort of knowledge is required?”, Long Range Planning 35, pp. 245-267.
• Gassmann, O and von Zedwitz, M (1999) “New concepts and trends in international R&D organization”, Research Policy, 28, pp.231-250.
• Patel, P. (1995) “Localised production of technology for global markets” Cambridge Journal of Economics 19, 141-153.
• Dunning, J. H. (1994) “Multinational enterprises and the globalization of innovatory capacity” Research Policy 23, 67-88.
• Argyres, N.S. and Silverman, B. (2004), “R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technological knowledge”, Strategic Management Journal 25, pp. 929-958.
• Malik, K. (2004), ‘Intra-Firm Technological Knowledge Transfer: A Capabilities Perspective’, Int. J. Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 470-480.