So you're going digital, get all your instructions online from the business, maybe even roll out a front door or a CLM. Nice. The form is easy, right? Find all the gotchas in one document. For easier reading, we have also included a downloadable PDF file below.
There comes a time in every legal team’s development when they decide that requests for assistance must be sent via an online system. It’s a natural progression from using an existing document or email template, or it may be a jump from allowing the business to email their favourite lawyer. It could be part of rolling out a contract lifecycle management (CLM) platform or part of a legal front door that covers more than contracts.
Whatever the background, creating an intake form is not as simple as it may appear.
Forms are terrific. You can ensure that you get exactly the information you need (they act as a checklist), you can validate answers (helping make sure data is correct), and you can take control, finally, in how you receive instructions.
But there is a problem.
Not one of your business users wakes up in the morning eager to start filling in forms. You are also forcing the user to think about what they need. This is uncomfortable; the old hand waving was a lot easier. You are making your team’s lives easier, you are making the overall process better, you may even apply for an award (although this is getting stale, even for legal innovation awards), but you will be annoying your internal clients.
Huge effort is required to create a usable form. You should make that effort, but the result can still only be a less annoyed user. You can make it as pain-free as possible, but it will never be a pleasure. And no one will truly understand or appreciate your efforts. Accept that as your destiny.
With these motivating thoughts in mind, how do you create a good intake form?
You should agonise over your questions:
You should agonise over the field types and other form elements that you use:
You have no idea what your users will find confusing. However much time you spend perfecting your form, as soon as it is in the wild you will have stumped users. The only solution is to do extensive user testing, and not just with your lawyers. Get typical users to fill in the form and just watch them (using shared screens if necessary). Watch where they get stuck and ask them to talk through what they are doing as they do it.
You will uncover issue after issue, so assume that you are going to run an iterative process until a new user (so you need multiple test subjects) can fly through it (and see below for ongoing changes).
Given the points above, you need to be careful that the systems you are considering have all the features you need. This is the first of the major gotchas, because many systems out there are missing some of these:
There are other features and topics that you should consider:
We talked about system features above, but we have seen contracting improvement grind to a halt for other reasons. This is the stuff that your consultants may not warn you about:
It is a common misconception that creating an intake form is a project that comes to an end. This is not how the world works. First, however much you test the form, issues will come up. Second, there is always room for improvement. You should be running a continuous improvement process that is always exploring new and better ways for this stage, and all the other stages, in your contracting process. Third, your organisation will change. Often.
You therefore need to consider how you can keep improving the form. If you’ve hired someone to set it up, will they be available to make changes in the future? Have you budgeted for ongoing support? Will you be able to get changes made in days not weeks (or even months, if at all)?
If it’s being done internally, will the person who set it up always be available to make changes? Can someone else help?
How do you find opportunities for improvement? This comes down to how you respond to failure. When the form isn’t completed correctly, do you blame the user, fall back on mandatory training courses, or dig deeper into what is going on and figure out how the form can be improved? Points which might trigger your inner detective:
Perhaps also talk to the users who are getting it right? How could it be made even easier for them? Stay curious!
If you have an existing supplier who updates the current form, you may not realise how many tweaks and improvements they are making. If you prevent them from being able to make improvements, you remove their ability to experiment and improve things for you. Consider how changes will be made in the future. How will improvements get raised, how will they get prioritised? How do you encourage everyone to be curious?
Yes, we harbour strong feelings about this point.
Having clean data nicely passed between systems seems like a terrific goal. But consider this: if two systems have to change when you improve your form, then you have exponential complexity and cost in making changes. You will potentially need two sets of developers to make a change (who have to coordinate). Two sets of stakeholders to give approval (who have to have aligned priorities). Cascading issues from underlying data structures, and so on. Integrated systems (and monolithic systems such as CLM) can stop continuous improvement in its tracks.
Consider how you can minimise the need for tightly-coupled systems. If it’s really just about making sure that a unique identifier is consistently used, consider whether it is such a problem to double-key? The pursuit of perfectly integrated data can come with significant costs. In an age of APIs, there are ways to manage data flows that maintain flexibility and assume that change will be constant, but they need to be designed in from the get go.
Everything can be improved; try to avoid stasis.
You might be wondering what your next steps should be. Let us guide you with three easy options: