Technically Legal - Big Design 2016

Kelly Moran, Projekt202 @Kel_Moran

Using Research to Identify Features for Attorney Software

TECHNICALLY LEGAL

OUR STORY TODAY

Problem

H.E.R.O.E.S. (Humble Experience Researchers Or

Experience Strategists)

Adventure (Fieldwork)

Science (Lab Studies)

Resolution

The ProblemA predicted budget shortfall

Several AssumptionsThe “old way”

of filing court documents

manually is time consuming

Several AssumptionsFiling

electronically is easier and faster

Several Assumptions

Legal personnel are primarily

unhappy with the product because

they lack technology experience

Okay… and MAYBE our

interface could use a little TLC

The H.E.R.O.E.S.(Humble Experience Researchers Or Experience Strategists)

KELLY MORANPRINCIPAL EXPERIENCE RESEARCHER

RYAN BREAULTUX DESIGNER

JESSIE WEBSTERRESEARCH INTERN

To understand the people we are building experiences for

Why do we do research?

Our proven methodology is driven by a deep understanding of people, creating a focused path for innovation and true market leadership.

Data

Experience Driven Application Design & Development

75%-95% of new product launches

FAIL

“We haven’t done the research yet”

The AdventureResearch saves the day (again)

PHASE 1: FieldworkIn-context

observation complemented by

semi-structured interviews

PHASE 1: Fieldwork

Population:

Small-medium sized law firms

Attorneys

Paralegals

Legal Secretaries

“Never theorize before you have data. Invariably you end up twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts.”

- Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle)

Obtain INFORMED CONSENT

Who did we speak with?

Who did we speak with?K E Y F I N D I N G

A mixed data set allowed us insight into multiple areas

of the filing and law practice. This provided us with a

multifaceted perspective on the needs of lawyers and

their staff alike.

Attorney

Paralegal

Legal Secretary

Other

We need more focus…VA R I AT I O N I N AT TO R N E Y S

Observing a broad scope at a shallow depth provided us

with a wide-angle lens of the domain, but prevents us from

extracting the type of focused insights that lead to highly

targeted solutions

Family Law

Transactional

Defense

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

UI needed improvements

Some users lack experience

Other users were quite adept

Other assumptions were unsubstantiated

DETAILED FINDINGS

Manual filing was not a waste of time as assumed.

The Attorney (P2)

“Maybe someday I’ll get to the point where I’m paperless… That just scares the hell out of me.”

“I’m just a tactile person…I can't go paperless.”

The Paralegal (P1)

The Legal Secretary

“I try not to keep everything in the paper file” but “Old school old habit; can’t let go of it”

(P9)

Submitting electronically is not faster.

REPORTED FLOW: Paper-based

1. Gather all materials

2. Drive to courthouse

3. Stand in line

4. Wait for clerk to review, approve, and make a copy

5. Received approved docs

6. Drive back to office

ASSUMED FLOW: eFile

1. Log in

2. Submit documents online

3. Resume previous work

ACTUAL FLOW: eFile

1. Convert all my paper files into soft copy

2. Find where “the scanner put them”

3. Check that it did it right

4. Log in

5. Check off all the right boxes

6. Attach files

7. Submit

ACTUAL FLOW: eFile

::: STILL NOT THE END OF IT :::

ACTUAL FLOW: eFile

STILL HAVE TO:

8. Wait for response

9. Call the court and ask what went wrong

Identifying eFiling Pain Points

Leve

l of O

bse

rved

Diffi

cult

y

Process in eFiling

Sign into

eFile

Find Case

Attach

File

Select File

Type

Select Paym

ent

Submit

Receive

Em

ail

Less

Diffi

cult

Mor

e D

ifficu

lt

“Sometimes you’re under pressure and you’ve gotta file and it’s gotta

happen”

P1


Leve

l of O

bse

rved

Diffi

cult

y

Process in eFiling

Sign into

eFile

Find Case

Attach

File

Select File

Type

Select Paym

ent

Submit

Receive

Em

ail

Less

Diffi

cult

Mor

e D

ifficu

lt

“Pulldowns and drop downs are not conditioned enough for the casual filer…

it’s not like chatting with the courts”

P8


Leve

l of O

bse

rved

Diffi

cult

y

Process in eFiling

Sign into

eFile

Find Case

Attach

File

Select File

Type

Select Paym

ent

Submit

Receive

Em

ail

Less

Diffi

cult

Mor

e D

ifficu

lt

“Just play with it see what it wants” P6


Leve

l of O

bse

rved

Diffi

cult

y

Process in eFiling

Sign into

eFile

Find Case

Attach

File

Select File

Type

Select Paym

ent

Submit

Receive

Em

ail

Less

Diffi

cult

Mor

e D

ifficu

lt

The loss of human interaction was seen as a hinderance.

-“There’s some civility lost.” -“Charm your way in…”

Relationships & law have always been intertwined.

Technology & law have not.

A GOOD LAWYER KNOWS THE LAW.

PRO TIP:

A GREAT LAWYER KNOWS THE

JUDGE.

PRO TIP:

BRIDGING THE GAPWe need to move attorneys

and their staff away from the feeling that paper is

the only way to track and organize their work,

and that face-to-face is the only way to build connection.

BRIDGING THE GAP

eFile and other servicesneed to be:

Transparent

Easily organized to match internal processes

The ScienceLab studies - where the truth sets us all free

PHASE 2: The KANO Method

What’s a Kano?

The Babysitter PhenomenonPeople quickly become overwhelmed and frustrated when presented with too many options, features or tasks.

ASSUMPTION: More features = better software

Starting with a list of dozens of possible

features

Some are identified as necessary for sales

purposes or to hold up against competitors

This still leaves too many features to know what to put

the most effort into, or when

Developed by Japanese quality management

consultant and customer loyalty expert Noriaki Kano,

in the 1970’s and 80’s

The KANO Method

Distinguishes between essential and

differentiating attributes

The KANO Method


Just asking “Do you like this?” isn’t enough

In a Kano Method study each feature uses a pair of questions to determine the feature category type and its coefficients

How the experience would be with this feature

Functional Dysfunctional

How the experience would be without this feature

Asking functional and dysfunctional questions allows us to plot features on an evaluation matrix.

Product Requirement/Feature 1. Like 2. Expect 3. Neutral 4. Tolerate 5. Dislike

1. Like Q A A A O 2. Expect R I I I M 3. Neutral R I I I M

4. Tolerate R I I I M 5. Dislike R R R R Q

Func

tiona

l

Dysfunctional

Applying KANO

The team identified a number of solutions

Applying KANO

The firm selected 15 features to test

Applying KANO

The designer created mockups

Applying KANOKano method testing

was blended with qualitative interviewing

for 3 days of user testing

Session Specifics One-on-one sessions lasting 40-60 minutes

previewed 15 unique concepts

Session Specifics The concepts were logically grouped and

ordered, simulating sequential steps

taken within the eFiling system

Session SpecificsThe Kano Method

for Feature Categorization

provided the bulk of the session structure,

but significant amounts of qualitative data

supplement the key findings


Discussion format

For this study we arranged questions in groups of three…

Ask how the participant feels if a feature is present

Ask how the participant feels if that feature was not present

Ask how the feature would influence the participant’s decision to purchase the software

How would you feel if your car got 200 miles to the gallon?

I like It

I expect it

I am neutral

I can tolerate it

I dislike it

Functional Example:

How would you feel if your car DID NOT get 200 miles to the gallon?

Dysfunctional Example:

I like It

I expect it

I am neutral

I can tolerate it

I dislike it

How does this feature impact your decision to buy this product?

Pay moreI’d pay more for a service with this feature

Choose over anotherI’d choose a service with this feature over a same-priced service

Rather notI’d rather use a service without this feature

No impactThis feature doesn’t impact my decision

We created basic mockups to better help participants visualize the questions and features.

*A Note About Kano Mockups

Exact design and functionality was not important here. The goal was to provide a visual aid to better communicate proposed features.

*A Note About Kano Mockups

Slight bias toward female with all

of the support staff being female, and a slight majority of attorneys

being male.Male

K E Y F I N D I N G

Demographics

13 Female

7 Male

Gender

Age was fairly evenly distributed

between the mid-twenties and mid-fifties.

K E Y F I N D I N G

Demographics

Male

9 35-44

7 25-34

Age

4 45-54

There was a strict 50/50 split

between practicing attorneys and support staff.

K E Y F I N D I N G

Demographics

6 Paralegals

10 AttorneysPosition

4 Legal

Secretaries

Demographics

The firm sizes were almost equally distributed between small (solo and small) and large (medium and

large).

K E Y F I N D I N G

Firm Size

8 Solo

3 Small

4 Medium

5 Large

[Dashboard] “I love it! Would it go to my phone?

I rely heavily on my phone?”

[Status Tracking] “That was the coolest”

Three features performed strongly any way they were analyzed

Multi-Database Search

Category: Strong Attractive

-0.10 0.95

Percentage Willing to Pay More for Feature

85%

“Top 3” Mentions: 8

“[It] would be worth $100 a month just for the ability to search cross county.”

- P4

P U L L Q U OT E

Dashboard

Category: Rising Attractive

-0.25 0.90


80%


“That’s perfect. I love it.” - P19

P U L L Q U OT E S

“Would it go to my phone?…I rely heavily

on my phone.” - P19

Case Indexing

Category: Strong Attractive

-0.10 0.95


90%


“The way it is right now is terrible.” - P20

P U L L Q U OT E S

“That was the coolest”

- P19

“When’s this coming out!?”

- P18

Findings & Recommendations

Results of the Kano study were shared

in a workshop allowing stakeholders to combine

user feedback and preferences with

organizational abilities

Findings & Recommendations

This led naturally to a detailed product roadmap

Feature cards displayed the Kano data in simple format

Cards were mapped by organizational ability and then placed in the roadmap

PHASE I: January 1, 2016

The six features slated for January 1 of 2016 will create a

product offering that lays the foundation for a full

product suite. Increasing efficiency will be a major benefit

to users in this first release. Transparency and

information management will also be common themes.

05 W E A K LY AT T R A C T I V E

Should be easy to hide/ignore by the experienced user.

Preferably an action is required to see definitions.

UNMET NEEDS: Efficiency, Clarity

Definitions of Filing Codes

01 S T R O N G LY AT T R A C T I V E

UNMET NEED: Conveinence

Multi-Database Search


UNMET NEEDS: Vigilance, Peace of Mind

Set Alerts

10 R I S I N G AT T R A C T I V E

UNMET NEEDS: Financial Records, Efficiency

Monthly Summary

While Kano participants had a difficult time

understanding the value of this feature,

competitors offer it as a "Strategic Intelligence"

tool. Tyler also has this feature already built.

For these reasons it will be included in the Jan

'16 release, although it is highly recommended

that Tyler initiate an effort to better

understand how this feature might be

positioned and utilized.

13 I N D I F F E R E N T

UNMET NEEDS: Competitive Advantage

Market Research

Services will be offered on a subscription basis.

projekt202 recommends a tiered or packaged

approach with a month-to-month payment option.

14 O N E - D I M E N S I O N A L

UNMET NEED: Unlimited Use

Subscription


UNMET NEEDS: Accountability, Comfort, Transparency

Status Tracking

This first version of the Dashboard will be limited

to eFile data, but will acclimate users to the

concept of using a dashboard.

11.1

R I S I N G AT T R A C T I V E

UNMET NEEDS: Alignment, Information Visibility

Dashboard V1


UNMET NEEDS: Tactile Feel, Personalization, Organization

Case Indexing


UNMET NEEDS: Research, Time, Convenience

Court Recordings

Team discussions determined that the

"Notifications" feature might best be implemented

as part of the Dashboard, rather than as a

separate, attention demaninding alert appearing

un-prompted on the screen.

07 I N D I F F E R E N TUNMET NEED: Immediacy

Notifications

PHASE II: Q2

Transparency will be the dominant theme of Q2. Tyler

will also release features that will help alleviate the

strain and anxiety many users feel from the move away

from paper. New organizational systems and document

tracking will simulate the tactile and visible nature of

paper processes.

Should be implemented in a way that does

not hinder the experienced user.

04 B A S I C A T T R A C T I V EUNMET NEED: Error Prevention

Smart Suggestions

.2

This enhanced Dashboard will include

court-related data such as scheduled hearings.

11 R I S I N G A T T R A C T I V EUNMET NEEDS: Alignment, Information Visibility

Dashboard V2

There was no clear benefit to the study

participants in paying court fees at the end of

the month. ** However, it is anticipated that

there may be some perceieved value in paying

other costs (such as the cost to set an alert) on a

monthly basis. This could be wrapped into a

subscription fee, or could potentially be a fee for

service. Additional information gathered in late

2015/early 2016 would guide implementation.

09 R E V E R S E **UNMET NEEDS: Parity with Competition

Consolidated Monthly Billing

PHASE III: Q4

The three features estimated for a 4th quarter release

either require an intense development effort, siginficant

organizational preparation, or further research. From

reaching parity with competition to a phase two, these

features act in a support role for features previously

developed and released by Tyler for Attorney Services.

02B A S I C A T T R A C T I V E

UNMET NEED: Time

Motion Templates

03 R I S I N G A T T R A C T I V E

UNMET NEED: Time

Step-by-Step Walkthrough

PHASE IV: TBD

Motion Templates and the Step-by-Step walkthrough

must be developed together to best meet the needs of

the user and to most efficiently utilize Tyler's

development capacity. Both features are highly

dependant on external work to research current

market standards. Uncertainties regarding execution

of such a feature push this beyond the forseeable part

of a roadmap.

< < C U S T O M E R A C Q U I S I T I O N TA C T I C S Analytics and tactics are defined and aligned to a phased launch > >

Q3 2015

Identify and Define Roles of:

Customer Journey Mapping

Determine Story Arc

Message Map Creation

Go to Market Plan

PreLaunch

Q4 2015

D E C I S I O N M A K E R & I N F L U E N C E R

Define the benefit (ie. the problem and the solution) for each audience

Phase engagement plan for either the eFile tool or outside the eFile tool

How/when do they realize they need you?

Features and benefits, both short and medium form

Product Roadmap

The ResolutionHow much did we win? Let us count the ways…

New appreciation for end-user input

Increased consideration of experience as a design factor

The work was presented internally at Tyler in September 2015

It was previewed to users at the 2016 Odyssey User

Conference

and…

Kelly Moran, Projekt202 @Kel_Moran slideshare.net/KellyMoran

Using Research to Identify Features for Attorney Software

TECHNICALLY LEGAL

FRIDAY 9/9

Big Data + Human Data

Aliza Gold VP of Experience Strategy & Insights

3 – 4 p.m.

Technically Legal: Using Research to Identify Features Kelly Moran Principal Experience Researcher

FRIDAY 9/91– 2 p.m.

SATURDAY 9/101– 2 p.m.

SATURDAY 9/102– 3 p.m.

UX = ROI: It’s Not Just a Myth

Jeremy Johnson VP of Customer Experience

The UX of Your Day Job: How to Remove Organizational Friction

Charlie Trotter Sr. UX Designer

@

Technically Legal - Big Design 2016

Design

Transcript of Technically Legal - Big Design 2016