We sent our Grads to Design School and this is what we learnt (Part 2)

In November, last year, we sent all of our Graduates and first year lawyers to a 2-day design thinking workshop as part of an Innovation Challenge. The Challenge required them to “solve” 8 issues faced by the firm using design thinking methods.  Following the workshop, they were organised into teams, allocated one of the 8 issues and asked to design an innovative process or product to help the firm overcome that issue. The participants had full access to all the firm’s business units (ie Business Development, People and Culture and IT) and were also supported by a partner mentor. 90 days later they presented their ideas “Shark Tank”-style to the Maddocks Innovation Strategic Group to see which of those ideas would be supported by the firm for further development.

As I reported in my earlier article (We sent our Grads to Design School and this is what we learnt (Part 1)), the participants found that the design thinking workshops were invaluable in helping them “think outside the box”, reporting that (even after only short periods of working in a traditional law firm environment) they found creative thinking more difficult and taxing than they expected. However, despite their lack of familiarity with innovation, by using “design empathy” they were able to come up with new ideas and solutions for their assigned problems. In addition, the design thinking methodology allowed them to question and challenge each other’s ideas and the creative design toolkit helped them develop and refine those initial ideas. In this article, we examine some of the lessons that we learnt as the participants developed and delivered on their ideas in the Maddocks Innovation Challenge.

Design thinking works

The design thinking process helped the participants in their analysis of their allocated problems and the development of their solutions. They found that it got their ‘creative juices’ flowing and also helped them to identify the needs and wants of separate parts of the business and clients. However, as time passed, they found themselves drifting from the tools and techniques provided to them at the externally run workshops. Apparently, the conservative law firm mindset will reassert itself over time if the design thinking process isn’t refreshed.

Apparently, the conservative law firm mindset will reassert itself over time if the design thinking process isn’t refreshed.

Having senior mentors helped

All of the teams found that the assigned partner mentor helped them in developing their ideas by providing a different perspective, good feedback and guidance. The groups that got the most out of their mentors engaged with their mentors very early in the Challenge. The fact that the mentors were partners also meant that they were able to help the groups to access resources (whether people, or information) that the teams might otherwise have struggled to obtain. 

On the flip side, the mentoring role could have been improved by choosing mentors that were more accessible and available and ensuring the mentors knew what they were meant to be doing. Some teams found out from their mentors quite late in the Challenge that the firm already had a product or a process that in some ways competed with their idea. Unsurprisingly, these teams reported that it would have been better to have made this discovery sooner.

The Innovation Challenge excited and engaged other parts of the firm

In developing their ideas, they all needed assistance from different departments, including Business Development and Marketing, Library, IT and Finance. Fortunately, the participants reported that employees that they approached for assistance were more than helpful and very generous with their time and ideas. The participants valued the different perspectives offered on their problems and how the problems (and the proposed solution) affected the respective departments, which allowed the teams to better understand everyone’s needs and how they could incorporate them into their final proposal. It seems that interest in innovation and in solving the firm’s problems isn’t limited to our lawyers.

It seems that interest in innovation and in solving the firm’s problems isn’t limited to our lawyers. 

However, not everyone had the same level of engagement

While some participants were very enthused by the Challenge, including the training and the process, some were not. In teams where the enthusiasm levels were mixed, the participants were challenged in delivering on their solution. These problems were amplified by the demands of billable work being given priority to the Challenge, not just by the participants, but also by less enthusiastic partners. Like most things in life, it’s better to select participants based on skills and level of interest.

Making time for innovation was hard

Somewhat related to the previous learning, the teams found that scheduling regular meetings with the entire innovation group was difficult and that this was compounded by the mix of first years and Graduates within each team and participants being drawn from other practice areas. While they found the different levels of team members to have other benefits (such as networking and diversity of thought), the different demands of their roles, as well as the different demands, expectations and workflows between teams made regular meetings very challenging. This often resulted in inefficient catch up meetings, or team members doubling up on meetings to try and catch up the missing team members. The key lesson here is that you need to make time for innovation and creativity.

And yet too much time is also a bad thing

Almost overwhelmingly, the participants reported that the 90 days allowed for them to develop their ideas was too long. The long timeframes meant that they lost energy and momentum and day to day work started to intrude on the creative process. Having said that, many of the participants found the additional preparation time over the Christmas and New Year break (traditionally quieter times in most law firms) meant they enjoyed considerable freedom in developing their ideas. Ultimately, most participants thought that the design thinking training would have resonated with them more if the project timeframe had been significantly condensed. In short, it’s important to have enough time to develop ideas, but thy still needed the pressure of a deadline to keep them focussed.

There were other unexpected hurdles

The biggest hurdle in terms of the participants developing new and innovative ideas was that they found that they didn’t have a good understanding about what else was already going on within the firm. Once the participants started making inquiries about their problems and proposed solutions, they found a lot of innovations, software roll outs and new processes and procedures being developed within the firm that weren’t being shared or publicised. This lack of communication and knowledge sharing also meant that the teams found out late that we already had suitable (but unused or underutilised) tools that met their requirements. It seems that strong knowledge sharing practices are an integral part of developing an effective innovation culture.

The participants didn't really understand how resources were allocated within the firm and how diverting limited resources from one area of the firm for their solution might potentially impact on others.

And also unexpected benefits

Many of the teams struggled to figure out the realistic budgets that they were able to work with. Consequently, some teams pitched ideas that were too grand (and therefore resource-intensive) whereas others pitched their ideas too small. And by “budgets”, I don’t simply mean money, but also the people and other physical resources that might be needed to deliver on their solutions. The participants didnt really understand how resources were allocated within the firm and how diverting limited resources from one area of the firm for their solution might potentially impact on others. Interestingly, many of the participants commented that the Challenge helped them learn a lot more about the firm’s business and how it worked.

Conclusion

During this process, we learnt as much about ourselves as a firm, as we did about supporting innovation and creating an innovation culture. The participants also gained a lot of new skills and knowledge about Maddocks. These unexpected benefits from the Innovation Challenge reinforce my view that these types of initiatives are really good for the firm – and that is even before we consider the ideas that were presented and those that Maddocks has chosen to support. For any business considering embarking on a similar project, I would highly recommend it.

Stay tuned for Part 3 of this article for further analysis of the results of the Maddocks Innovation Challenge.