September 2020
A report compiled by Spiranti, Meridian West and
Earlsferry Advisory, and presented with support from
The Professional Law Institute at King’s College London
The State of Innovation in
Professional Services Firms
2
Contents
Authors … Page 3
Organisations … Page 5
Foreword … Page 7
Executive Summary … Page 8
Section One: The Methodology … Page 11
The 6 Pillar Model … Page 13
The Maturity Curve … Page 14
Section Two: Leadership … Page 15
Section Three: Investment … Page 18
Section Four: Innovation Processes … Page 21
Section Five: Technology … Page 22
Section Six: Collaboration … Page 24
Section Seven: People … Page 25
Section Eight: Conclusion of the Benchmarking Process … Page 27
Successful Innovators and What They Do … Page 29
Further Reading … Page 30
Appendix 2: Extracts taken from the Professional Services
Leadership Handbook … Page 31
3
Authors
Simon Drane, founder of Earlsferry Advisory
Simon has held numerous positions within the professional
services sector over the last 25 years, at a FTSE 100 legal
information solution provider; a legal technology consultancy; a
law firm; an accounting firm; and a legal membership
organisation. He has qualifications in law and tax, and deep
experience in commercial product strategy. Simon has board
level experience of both executive and non-executive roles, and
as CEO of a technology start-up. He has a strong track record in creating innovative
product strategies resulting in multiple new multi-million-pound high growth lines of
business.
Simon led the new investments product strategy area at LexisNexis, and created and
launched many of the next generation content and workflow product offerings for
lawyers. At the Law Society Simon ran the commercial arm of the organisation and
restructured a set of commercial investments through taking board seats. He also
implemented a new commercial strategy including a significant shift in focus to legal
technology innovation including the launch of a legal tech-focused Barclays EagleLab
accelerator.
Simon has also held senior knowledge management roles in both law and accounting
firms. He established Earlsferry advisory towards the end of 2018 to help people with
their product strategies, whether they are technology businesses, professional
services firms or investors into these spaces.
Ben Kent, founder of Spiranti and Meridian West
Ben started his career as a corporate lawyer at Freshfields. He set up
Meridian West in 2001 and has spent the last two decades advising
professional services firms on how to design and implement client
focused strategies. His clients include the Financial Times, Kemp Little,
Linklaters, Farrer & Co., Hogan Lovells, Allen & Overy, DLA Piper and
Addleshaw Goddard.
Ben publishes widely and is regularly asked to present at seminars and at conferences
on various aspects of the client-focused firm, innovation within the professional
services sector, and the changing needs of buyers of professional services.
5
Organisations
Spiranti
Spiranti is a community of partners, clients, innovators,
technologists, business developers, university professors,
disruptors and experts from outside the professional
services sector. We share practical insights and ideas on how to innovate. We discuss
issues honestly and openly in a safe and exciting environment to discover new ways
of shaping the way we all do business. Spiranti shares knowledge, challenges
perceptions and creates ideas.
Earlsferry Advisory
Helping organisations to create winning product strategies
that drive commercial growth in the rapidly evolving
professional services sector. Working with technology
businesses at varying stages of their evolution from start-
ups to established technology providers. Helping professional services firms as they
engage more in providing productised services for their clients. Helping those
investing in technology businesses to make the right investment choices. Working
across these areas in an advisory capacity drawing on wide-ranging experience in the
legal and accounting sectors.
Meridian West
Meridian West helps professional firms develop and implement
client-focused strategies. We work with firms to collect robust
evidence and insight through to making strategic decisions and
delivering tangible results. We combine three capabilities – insight,
strategy, change – into an integrated programme of work, providing
targeted support where it is needed most.
• Insight: Gathering insight about your firm’s clients, markets and industry issues.
We compile client experience and feedback, client journey mapping, competitor
analysis and thought leadership.
• Strategy: Developing client-focused strategies to help your firm to innovate and
grow. This involves business development strategy, brand positioning,
innovation strategy and new proposition development.
6
• Change: Implementing changes that make client-focus a reality in your firm.
This involves coaching, key client management, process mapping, skills
development and more.
The Professional Law Institute at King’s College London
The Professional Law Institute (PLI) at King’s College London
provides a focal point for practice-based education, research and
civic engagement, as well as strengthening connections to
practitioners and stakeholder institutions in the heart of legal
London. The PLI team leads The Dickson Poon School of Law’s
strategy on the development of new professional education courses and brings
together a host of connected activities including: the King’s Legal Clinic; Professional
Skills modules; industry events; and future professional education programmes. It also
supports mooting, the work of the Careers & Employability team, and practice-based
research.
Professional Services Marketing Group
The Professional Services Marketing Group (PSMG) is an
international membership organisation for marketers in the
professional services. Founded in 1989, they are an
independent and forward-thinking partnership focused on
educating, training, and empowering all those in a marketing and business
development role within our sector. Their underlying objective is to provide a
dynamic environment where knowledge and expertise are developed and shared to
ensure the highest standard of marketing is maintained throughout the industry.
7
Foreword
We benchmarked over 80 firms to understand the approach to innovation across
professional services.
The findings cover areas such as the technologies people are using, the innovation
approaches being adopted, the barriers encountered, budget levels, and the outcomes
that firms are achieving. The findings have since been shared with the leadership
teams of numerous law and accountancy firms, to gain additional insight into what our
findings mean in practice.
Our data model identified six essential elements necessary for driving
successful innovation. The six elements can now be used as a tool to provide
firms with the ability to review their performance against each key area:
leadership, investment, innovation process, technology, collaboration and
people.
We hope the insights from our leading experts presented in this report, alongside the
data compiled for our respondents, will provide a valuable insight into the innovation
landscape within the professional services.
Our hope is that readers will see patterns and practices that resonate with their own
experiences and will be inspired utilise the tools presented in this report to measure
innovative practices within their own organisations.
“From my experience firms that have
really embraced innovation have achieved
impressive revenue growth. Technology
can remove a lot of mundane tasks and
provide exciting ways to analyse
information and add value to clients.”
- Ben Kent
I think the innovation disconnect between
goals and actions could manifest in an
‘authenticity’ challenge if firms don’t act
quickly. Clients and employees are
increasingly seeing an incongruence between
rhetoric and outcomes.”
- Simon Drane
8
Executive Summary
The innovation benchmark report seeks to understand whether firms are building the
culture and infrastructure for sustained innovation. It explores areas such as the
technologies people are using, the innovation approaches being adopted, the barriers
encountered, budget levels and the outcomes that firms are achieving.
In this report we review the six essential elements needed to drive innovation
successfully and identify the highlights for each area from the survey. Our data model
from the survey means that individual firms will be able to review their performance
against each of the essential areas of leadership, investment, innovation process,
technology, collaboration and people.
The most positive outcome has been over half of
respondents saying that innovation has made
employees’ lives easier, which ties to the overall
trend that much of the innovation within firms has
tended to be more around an internal focus.
However, the overall picture is that many firms are
still feeling their way and do not have a structured approach to driving innovation
focused around the client. Although around two thirds of firms feel that their leaders
provide a mandate for change, in around half (47%) of firms there is no structured
process to drive innovation. This is perhaps in contrast to the changing demands from
clients.
Despite the fact that consumption patterns are changing in professional services, with
a drive towards greater productisation, firms are not yet spending at a level to deliver
this change. The benchmark revealed that on average firms are currently spending
only 2% of turnover on innovation, despite 39% of firms stating that the reason they
are innovating is to improve the quality of the service they offer.
"43% of professional services buyers would now prefer a technology-led solution, even
if this would mean less face-time with advisers." Source Business Buyers Barometer
Although in many areas firms
are getting results, only 16%
have seen significant revenue
increases.
The net result of not having the right processes, investment and culture means that
most firms are focusing on incremental innovation at a time when clients are
expecting more
9
At a roundtable where we launched the report, firms present discussed the reasons
for the low levels of investment, which often centre on the challenges of the partnership
structure when it comes to long-term capital investment. It can often be hard to
persuade partners to have their near-term profits impacted to benefit the partnership
10 years down the line when they may not still be a partner. Almost a third of firms
surveyed felt that their short-term view of investment decisions held back their
innovation efforts.
Firms are also being held back by the innovation techniques that they are using, with
62% of firms relying primarily on idea generation from staff, with far smaller
percentages using techniques such as agile/lean, design thinking and incubators. In
addition, owing to the lack of formal processes in the majority of firms, another key
barrier cited is poor implementation and change management capabilities.
In addition to the challenges of time constraints,
another area the group discussed over breakfast
was the statistic showing that only 20% of firms
have a culture of taking risks, failing fast and trying
again. There is a clear gap currently between
inviting busy staff to submit ideas and with a cultural
perception that failure will not be accepted.
In discussion around what is really holding back the
firms' innovation agenda it is interesting that 33% of
people surveyed felt that it was due to the perception
that there was no burning platform yet. It is highly
likely that this perception, coupled with the lack of
process, lack of investment, cultural challenges of
people being "too busy" and a “not prepared to fail”
attitude, is leading to the low percentage that are
seeing revenue benefits from their innovation efforts.
Firms are however making real progress in adopting a more collaborative mindset.
When asked about collaboration techniques, 64% said that they have collaborated
"The question to any firm is
how much of your revenues
each year are you prepared
to put at risk for
innovation?” Survey
respondent
“It is best to start with a blank sheet of paper on what I’m trying to achieve rather
than trying to retrofit my current processes into something that the client might buy."
"Firms are often unwilling to invest because in effect they have a 100 percent dividend
policy. You are asking the leaders of the firm to take a hit on their own money for the
benefit of the firm after they have left." Survey respondent
79% of firms have a culture
that encourages the sharing
of ideas ... but 86% say that
staff are too busy to spend
time on innovation
10
with clients to co-develop new approaches, 54% have collaborated with technology
companies and 31% with universities.
On the use of technology to drive innovation, there were varying perspectives, with
the most common being areas like data visualisation or dashboard software, self-
service portals and tools for clients, and document automation. The least used
currently were chat bots for self-service advice, and predictive analytics tools to
identify risks and outcomes.
However, much of what we set out in this report is dependent on where firms are on
the innovation maturity curve we have created. The majority of firms are sitting in a
trend-following position at a time when client demands are changing rapidly. This
should give many a reason to consider their innovation approach.
We conclude the report with examples of what successful innovators are
doing and what should be avoided. They are avoiding innovating in silos,
taking a perfectionist approach, just buying the latest technology, and
ignoring incentives.
Those seeing success are:
1. Creating a long-term vision for transformation, providing relentless and
enthusiastic leadership, adopting a culture of perseverance and
embracing failure;
2. Starting with the pain points not the technology, using design thinking
and other innovation techniques, and collaborating with clients;
3. Creating sufficient budget to drive innovation but applying it through a
proper innovation process.
“The question is whether you have the structure or mechanisms to leverage the
investment in technology? Or is it just another tool?" Survey respondent
11
Section 1: The Methodology
The benchmarking survey was undertaken to understand perspectives on innovation
across a mixed range of professional services (Chart 1) and from different job roles
(Chart 2). Among the 113 respondents, a variety of core professional service areas
were represented with a weighting towards law firms.
Across organisational size, we captured a comprehensive distribution of organisations
with turnover ranging from less than £10 million to over £1 billion. In regards to job
roles, respondents were predominately working in marketing/business development,
innovation and information technology or held senior leadership, partner / director
roles.
Research Design and Sampling
Spiranti used tried and tested research methods in collaboration with Meridian West
to create the benchmarking survey approach. The quantitative research was
conducted online and over 100 respondents from 80 organisations filled out the
questionnaire. In addition, 24 in-depth interviews were conducted with GCs,
technologists, managing partners and heads of innovation at professional services
firms. These in-depth interviews give the necessary individual perspectives on the
practicalities of implementing innovation strategies and provided candid feedback on
common pitfalls.
61%
Law
25%
Accountancy
6%
Consultancy
2%
Real Estate
2%
Technology
12
Chart 1. Chart 2.
61%
25%
6%
2%
2%
3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sector
Sectors represented in the
Benchmarking process
Other
Technology
Real Estate
Consultancy/Advisory
Accountancy
Law
25%
20%
22%
13%
5%
5%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Job Role
Job roles represented in the
Benchmarking process
Business Support
Other
IT
Innovation
Partner/Director
Senior Leadership
Marketing/Business
Development
13
The Six Pillar Model
From the results of the research, several essential elements of innovation became
clear, leading us to create an innovation model based on six pillars (Figure 1.). These
six pillars are the foundation of building a sustainable innovation strategy within an
organisation.
The first component that came out of the research, was forward-thinking leadership.
Without this pillar the following will not be effective. Forward-thinking leadership must
be supported by meaningful investment levels as well as innovation processes and
technology to enable delivery. It is also fundamental that delivery is achieved through
effective collaboration both internally and with clients. Finally, none of these will
achieve successful outcomes if the firm does not have the right people in place.
Figure 1.
14
The Maturity Curve
We assessed each firm in our survey in each area of the Six Pillar Model. Using
aggregated respondents scores in each of the six pillars, we were able to segment
firms into five groups (Figure 2) reflective of their innovation maturity. The groups
range from the high scoring Digital Pioneers to the lower scoring Sceptics, who do not
yet have an innovation strategy.
Interestingly, very few (6%) firms were deemed to be Sceptics, and only very few (7%)
came out as Digital Pioneers. The majority of firms landed in the middle of the scale,
although there was a skew towards firms being at the start of their innovation journeys
– the Trend Followers.
We noted the Digital Pioneers tended to be larger firms, particularly those who
specialise in the insurance and banking sectors. These firms are generally big players
in the market and are in industries that are undergoing modernisation and
transformation – which also have the ability to put pressure on their panel firms to
innovate.
We were able to provide respondents with their comparative overall score indicating
the status of their innovation journey against the maturity segments. This framework
provides organisations with the impetus and know-how to enable them to move
successfully along the maturity curve.
Figure 2.
6%
57%
16%
14%
7%
Blending digitised
service delivery
with expert
insights, Digital
Pioneers are
seeing significant
revenue increases.
The Digital Pioneers
Integrators have
established the
infrastructure for
sustained
innovation. They
are see significant
benefits from
innovation.
However, their
overall business
model remains
unchanged.
The Integrators
Often driven by
visionary
individuals these
firms have ring-
fenced a budget
for innovation.
They have
successfully
launched new
services.
The Enthusiasts
Trend followers
are beginning to
introduce
innovation
techniques and
technologies. The
focus is on internal
processes and
investment is low.
The Trend Followers
Do not have an
innovation
strategy. Senior
partners are
sceptical.
The Sceptics
15
Section 2. Leadership
The first essential element we identified from the findings was leadership. Leadership
is a vital component of any innovation strategy and underpins the Six Pillar Model,
without it the following components are less effective.
The majority of firms surveyed felt that their leaders provided a mandate for innovation
and change, with only 14% believing they did not. Perhaps surprisingly, 46% stated
that they had either a head of innovation at partner level or equivalent, with the slightly
lower figure of 39% having documented their innovation strategy. The majority
surveyed (62%) also stated that their innovation efforts were centrally driven but
around a fifth of people stated that this was not the case. Further details are set out in
Charts 3. & 4. below.
When asked “Which of the following steps has your firm taken as part of its
innovation?”
• 46 % said that there was an assigned Head of Innovation at Partner level or
equivalent.
• 39% said that their firm has a documented innovation strategy.
When asked what the primary barriers to innovation are in their firm:
• 26% said that there is resistance from senior staff or partners.
• 33% said that there is no burning platform – the business is doing fine.
16
Chart 3.
Chart 4.
18%
44%
24%
11%
3%
Your leaders provide a mandate for innovation and change
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
9%
43%
27%
19%
2%
Innovation efforts are centrally driven
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
17
Our analysis
These findings raise the question; why might some firms make room for innovation
activities while others do not and what are the factors that affect the adoption of
innovative practices? We can look to the survey results for some first-hand
perspectives on these matters.
About a third of the respondents to the benchmarking survey felt that there was a
perception in their workplace that there is no burning platform present, meaning there
is a lack of urgency and drive to evolve practices. In relation to this, a quarter of
respondents cited resistance from senior staff/partners as a barrier to implementing
innovation. We know that if innovation is to occur, leadership needs to be an active
part of the drive forward. There should be a top-down approach where the innovation
agenda permeates down through the organisation, so staff feel a sense of urgency
and are inspired towards the firm’s objectives.
Below are some direct quotes from survey respondents to help illustrate that change
needs to be driven by strong leadership.
This means that having the right leadership is essential. However, the next most
critical aspect is for leadership to make the right decisions on where to focus their
innovation efforts.
“Enabling culture change must be credibly led from the top.”
“Make [innovation goals] front and centre.”
“Get senior leader endorsement by showing that clients expect and want innovation.”
“Measure and reward innovation, while accepting that some things will work and
others won’t – an unfamiliar point of view for lawyers.”
“Lead from SP [senior partners] and MP [managing partners]; fund development
without fear of failure; promote successes.”
18
Section 3. Investment
We found that firms’ innovation efforts are often constrained by lack of budget and
have limited effective KPIs to measure success. Below are quotes for respondents
that reflect these findings.
Investment of money
We found many firms do not have a budget carved out for innovation projects, and
those that do tend to have only a very small budget earmarked. The research revealed
that currently firms are spending only 2% of turnover on innovation, despite 39% of
firms stating their desire to improve the quality of their service through innovation.
The evidence shows that firms should at least be prioritising funds for experimentation.
Many innovation efforts are killed off in the early stages as these budgets are
insufficient.
There is however the perception that creating a budget for innovation means re-
distributing other departments budgets such as technology budgets. Since Information
Technology (IT) can be seen as closely related to innovation, firms may think that
innovative practices are already being funded through IT budgets. However, IT
services/support and innovation are fundamentally different in their objectives, and
firm leadership must understand this to see the benefit of investment in innovation.
Innovation budgets must be clearly defined, designated and ring-fenced to avoid
spend being used elsewhere within the business. Importantly, as innovation is
inherently experimental, the firm needs to be comfortable with funds being used for
ideas and projects that may not bring about immediate benefits.
We identified that low levels of investment can also be a result of a firm’s partnership
structure, as there is a difficult balance between partners sacrificing near-term profits
vs investing in longer term partnership benefits. Many benefits of innovation are only
“Firms are often unwilling to invest because in effect they have a 100% dividend
policy. You are asking leaders of the firm to take a hit on their own money for the
benefit of the firm after they have left.”
“The question to any firm is how much of your revenues each year are you prepared to
put at risk for innovation?”
19
evident after long term investment, and therefore buy-in from leadership or partners
who are focused on short-term returns can be a challenge. Almost a third of firms
surveyed felt that their short-term view of investment decisions held back their longer-
term innovation objectives.
It is worth noting that as technology advances over time, the cost of newer tech often
decreases. This can lead to firms having the options to innovate at lower costs than
ever before.
Investment of time
We know Innovation requires the investment of time as well as of money. For example,
lawyers need to be heavily involved in design themselves. Evidence shows that
success is more likely when lawyers are allotted a certain percentage of time in their
week toward innovation projects although these hours are unlikely be billable.
Additionally, most innovation (for example document automation or training on AI
powered document review) requires quite significant up-front investment of
professionals’ time to configure, implement and then to train the system.
There will also be time needed to train staff on new processes and how to use new
systems. So, whilst innovations can deliver significant time savings there is a
significant time cost needed initial which can be a barrier.
KPIs
It is also important to consider “how do you measure success”? Our results showed
that only 28% were using KPIs to measure innovation (Chart 5.), far below what is
needed for a successful innovation strategy. We would recommend the following KPIs
in relation to:
• cost savings (i.e. less hours taken to complete tasks);
• improved client satisfaction;
• speed at which you can deliver outputs;
• Some technologies can also improve risk management, for example
contract automation allows relatively junior staff to draft quite complex
contracts with fewer chances of error.
“You should always have a measurable outcome. You’ve got to be out to
measure so you know what success looks like.”
20
Chart 5.
51%
38%
28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
DEDICATED INNOVATION BUDGET
STAFF HAVE NON-BILLABLE TIME SET ASIDE FOR
INNOVATION PROJECTS
USING KPIS TO MEASURE INNOVATION
Which of the following steps has your firm taken as a
part of its innovation?
(87 responses)
21
Section 4. Innovation
Process
Until 10 years ago only a handful of professional service firms had an “innovation
process” as opposed to sectors such as life sciences, IT or even financial services.
Historically, professional service firms lacked an understanding of the techniques
needed to generate ideas, identify the best and take them to market successfully.
Whilst those working in professional service firms are highly intelligent problem
solvers, they lacked the tools to grow and implement new idea quickly and effectively.
This is changing. We can see that firms are beginning to adopt innovation techniques
with 6 out of 10 now using ideas initiated with clients. There is also a significant
proportion (32%) using design sprints, a technique some would usually associate with
West Coast tech companies.
However, firms should think further about the innovation techniques that they are
using, as 62% of firms rely primarily on idea generation from staff, with far smaller
percentages using techniques such as agile/lean, design thinking (32%) and allotting
dedicated space (18%).
Chart 6.
A phased approach to innovation is needed. See Appendix 2 for an outlined approach.
18%
32%
62%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
A ROOM OR SPACE IN YOUR BUILDING DEDICATED TO
INNOVATION
DESIGN THINKING/DESIGN SPRINTS
IDEAS INITIATIVES TO GATHER INSPIRATION FROM STAFF
Which of the following techniques is your firm using
today?
(99 responses)
22
Section 5. Technology
There may be a perception that professional firms are more advanced in their AI
technology journey than they actually are. The reality is that these more advanced
tools (for example automation or predictive analytics) are only used by a minority of
firms. Where technology is being used it is often in pockets. It is surprising that
some technologies, such as document automation (for example Contract Express
and Clarilis) have been around for years yet have limited uptake.
We have identified a number of potential reasons for this:
• The professional services tech eco-system is still relatively fragmented and
immature. There are lots of small players making it hard for firms to pick the
right solution for their needs. Additionally, solutions can be directed at individual
pain points but may not integrate well into existing systems / processes.
• Professionals have limited time to spend getting up to speed on how to use new
technologies.
• Professionals do not fully appreciate the need for change - there is no burning
platform. Many firms have performed well in the last few years and margins are
good, so they perceive little need for change.
Based on our findings, we predict that there will be much more rapid tech adoption
from 2021 onwards. In particular, circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic
may now provide the impetus needed for real change. This is driven by the following
factors:
• Firms will use technology as a differentiator to win work;
• Technology enables firms to cut staff but still handle volumes of work;
• Homeworking has familiarised the professionals with new technologies.
“Don’t just buy the latest amazing tech. More benefit will be achieved by sorting out
your processes and investing in “foundation” technology such as practice and contract
management systems.”
23
Chart 7.
38%
8%
13%
19%
8%
9%
7%
8%
19%
26%
60%
52%
17%
38%
23%
38%
25%
36%
17%
17%
28%
34%
31%
31%
19%
31%
9%
11%
47%
19%
39%
23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
OTHER
AUTOMATED DOCUMENT PRODUCTION OR CONTRACT
MANAGEMENT
CHAT-BOTS FOR SELF-SERVICE ADVICE
PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS TO IDENTIFY RISKS AND
OUTCOMES
DATA VISUALISATION OR DASHBOARD SOFTWARE
TOOLS WHICH AUTOMATED PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SELF-SERVICE PORTALS AND TOOLS FOR CLIENTS
AI BASED DATA OR DOCUMENT REVIEW TOOLS
Is your firm using or piloting any of the following
technologies?
(98 responses)
Using extensively In pilot Not using Don't know
24
Section 6. Collaboration
Good ideas come from collaboration. More recently professional service firms have
embraced this concept and are now collaborating with tech companies (54%) and
universities (31%). Some have even set up incubators, for example, Slaughter & May,
Allen & Overy and Mishcon de Reya. These incubators are proving to be successful,
and add value to both the start-ups and the sponsoring firm.
In terms of collaboration with clients, we found professional service firms are doing
this (64%) to co-develop new approaches. However these results should be taken
within context. While interviewing client organisations there was a common complaint
that professional service firms were not offering the level of collaboration and idea
sharing that is expected. We expect this to change. For example, we noted that big
banks are trying to ensure their professional advisers share ideas with them by
mandating it as part of the requirement of being on their panel.
Chart 8.
64%
54%
31%
18%
18%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
COLLABORATION WITH CLIENTS TO CO-DEVELOP NEW
APPROACHES
COLLABORATION WITH TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES TO CO-
DEVELOP NEW APPROACHES
COLLABORATION WITH UNIVERSITIES TO CO-DEVELOP NEW
APPROACHES
INCUBATOR TO SUPPORT START-UPS
A ROOM/SPACE IN YOUR BUILDINGS DEDICATED TO
INNOVATION
Which of the following techniques is your firm using
today?
(99 responses)
25
Section 7. People
As noted previously the people in an organisation are the key drivers for change,
however they can also be the biggest barrier to change. We found that the biggest
barrier to innovation is that professionals feel they are too busy (63%). Other people-
related barriers included skills gaps (47%) and risk averse culture (34%).
There is a noticeable skills gap – professionals such as accountants and lawyers
generally do not have expertise in tech. On the other hand, it is very hard to hire
technologists who also understand the intricacies of professional services. There is
high demand for hybrid specialists who have the technical abilities across different
specialisms. We will continue to see emergence of professionals who not only have
deep technical skills but also a broad range of business and technology capabilities.
Skills development must be done in conjunction with a culture change. Organisations
must value innovation and this should be reflected in their hiring practices, reward
culture and appetite for risk. This is by no means a quick fix, but it is essential.
Our research showed us that only 23% of firms have a culture of taking risks, failing
fast and trying again. It is common for firms to invite staff to submit ideas, but for a
firm’s culture to discourage failure in new projects.
The consensus from survey participants is that it is important to start with the culture
not the technology.
“Involve everyone in the company”
“Develop the culture and the ideas will follow”
79% of firms have a culture that encourages the sharing of ideas ... but 63% say that
staff are too busy to spend time on innovation
26
Chart 9.
Chart 10.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Resistance from clients
Lack of ideas
Restricted by regulation
Resistance from senior staff/partners
No burning platform, the business is doing fine
Not knowing which technology/approach to use
Short-term view of investment decisions
Risk averse culture
Poor implementation and change management
No formal innovation processes
Skill gaps
Budget constraints
Staff are too busy to spend time on innovation
Your peers - Barriers to innovation
(97 responses)
Your peers - Barriers to innovation
23%
49%
21%
5%
2%
You have a culture which encourages the sharing of ideas
(106 responses)
Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree
27
Section 8. The Conclusion of
the Benchmarking Process
Overall, we can see that many firms are still in the early stages of their innovation
journeys (although very few are sceptics) and often lack a structured approach to
driving innovation. This is reflected by the fact that although many firms feel that their
leaders provide a mandate for change, a significant proportion still have no
structured process to deliver innovation.
When asked what is really holding back the firms' innovation agenda, many
respondents noted the lack of a ‘burning platform’. However, this is just one
component impeding change. The lack of clarity around process, limited investment
and lack of short-term returns are all leading barriers to successful innovation.
Additionally, many firms often lack a culture of innovation.
However, firms are making progress and have built the foundations for more
innovation. In particular, there has been a real uptake in collaboration.
Chart 11. indicates the extent of the current success. They are launching new
products, making employees lives easier and enhancing brand. When asked about
initiatives they are most proud of, respondents gave numerous examples of work that
has been done toward innovation (see below).
“It is best start with a blank sheet of paper on what I’m trying to achieve rather than
trying to retrofit my current processes into something that the client might buy."
– Survey respondent
“The question is whether you have the structure or mechanisms to leverage the
investment in technology? Or is it just another tool?"
– Survey respondent
28
Chart 11.
69%
56%
49%
38%
36%
34%
18%
LAUNCHED A
NEW PRODUCT
OR SERVICES
MADE
EMPLOYEES
LIVES EASIER
ENHANCED
BRAND
PERCEPTION FOR
BEING
INNOVATIVE
IMPROVED
ABILITY TO
ATTRACT TOP
TALENT
SIGNIFICANT
EFFICIENCY
GAINS
IMPROVED
CLIENT
SATISFACTION
SCORES
SIGNIFICANT
REVENUE
INCREASE
In the last 2 years, what have you acheived as a direct
result of innovation?
When asked “What innovation are you most proud of?” respondents provided a
number of examples of exciting ways in which their firms are innovating:
“Utilising technology to optimise pricing.”
“Online collaboration space.”
“support / partnerships with start-ups for client benefit e.g. new products.”
“An internally developed data analytics tool.”
“The development of a management consultancy arm as a complementary service
alongside our core legal service offering.”
“Opportunities management system, case management system offering workflows
and client portal.”
“Mobile data collection.”
“Working with Liverpool Uni to create abstract dialectic frameworks”
29
Successful Innovators and What They
Do
After receiving the valuable input from leading experts and through our benchmarking
process, we have summarised our findings into a list of essential measures that firms
looking to make changes through innovation should enact:
Create a long-term vision for transformation
Start with the pain points not the technology
“Start with developing a culture of innovation (human level) before
turning to technology.”
Develop a culture where it is okay to try and then
fail
“Measure and reward innovation, while accepting that some things will
work and others won't -an unfamiliar point of view for lawyers.”
Persevere
“Involve everyone, at all levels, in the journey and remember that it's a
marathon not a sprint.”
Create a budget for incremental innovation
“Small increments are as important if not more important than
transformational change.”
Use design thinking and innovation techniques
Provide relentless, enthusiastic leadership
Involve your clients
30
Appendix 1 - Further Reading
• Professional Services Leadership Handbook - www.meridianwest.co.uk/books
• Spiranti www.spiranti.com
• Kemp IT law - www.kempitlaw.com/hot_topic/digital-transformation
• Allen & Overy - How to lead innovation in the in-house legal function-
www.allenovery.com/en-gb/global/news-and-insights/legal-innovation
• Legal Geek website - www.legalgeek.co/read
• Artificial Lawyer website - www.artificiallawyer.com/about
31
Appendix 2 - Extract taken from the
Professional Services Leadership
Handbook
Phase 0 - Innovation Strategy Formulation
Before starting any innovation project, it is crucial to plan your approach. You need to
think through how your approach to innovation links with your overall strategic vision
as articulated in the previous chapter. This means getting the right balance of
incremental and radical innovation, and putting in place the appropriate financial and
people resources to sustain any innovation project.
Phase 1 - Ideation
Once your innovation strategy has been set and your team put in place the next task
is to create a pipeline of ideas. This is commonly referred to as the ‘ideation phase’.
Innovations don’t arise from lucky accidents. Innovative people and businesses make
lots of mistakes and go down many blind alleys. In reality their success comes from
having the discipline to take ideas, screen the good from the bad, and commercialise
them quickly and profitably. This disciplined approach vastly increases the chances of
success.
Phase 2 - Prioritise
Once innovation ideas have been generated the next step is to prioritise the good from
the bad and the indifferent. Typically ideas should be pitched by an innovation team
to a panel of senior managers who will evaluate them and choose which ones to take
forward to the next stage of development. Here, professional services firms have a lot
to learn from other industries which typically take more disciplined approaches to
evaluating innovation potential, including formal decision-gate moments when
innovation ideas are evaluated and risk-profiled by the business.
Phase 3 – Prototype
Once the business case has been formulated the next phase is to mock-up the service
offering as a prototype. People tend to think of prototypes as only applicable to
physical products, but the principles can also be applied to new services, and this is
particularly appropriate for professional services firms where clients tend to buy on
track record, relationships and proven successes.
Phase 4 - Test
Before any idea is launched you need to force your team to externalise and test their
ideas to provide an honest appraisal of its likely success. Just testing innovative ideas
with warm contacts is insufficient; they will often give you overly positive feedback.
32
In our experience client interviews or focus groups represent an efficient way of testing
new services prior to launch. Contrary to what some in your firm may think, clients are
often honoured to be asked to be involved in such important initiatives, especially if
they feel that their ideas will have a direct impact on how the firm will deliver services
to them in future.
Sarah Ducker of Irwin Mitchell is a fan of this kind of client research: “We recognise it
is sensible to invest some money up front by doing quantitative and qualitative
research to make sure our innovation ideas have legs before we spend more money
scaling and launching them. We would always go to potential clients to ask to pilot an
idea with them.”
Phase 5 - Scale
Many innovations die from lack of interest and sustained investment - we call this the
‘valley of death’. New ideas are exciting at the beginning. People flock to offer ideas,
brainstorm and make plans, but quite soon interest lags as the hard work of rollout
continues. Many firms suffer from too many initiatives that don’t quite take off.
Sustained investment is required to take good ideas and scale them up successfully.
But leaders also need to know when to pull the plug.
1
