Again, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. Of course, the good should not then be confused with the perfect. I recognize the audit's limitations:
The audit is inefficient.
Ironically, for a test of technology-based efficiencies, the audit is markedly analog. What could be more pre-digital (not to mention uncomfortable) than in-person, one-on-one audit? The audit, as currently constituted, is time consuming and logistically challenging. Ideally, the audit would be a web-based, adaptive test with a training component. That is, the associates an appropriate sample size would actually learn what they are doing wrong and be instructed on a better approach. Moreover, the firm would be provided precise feedback on where their training is falling short.
The audit is idiosyncratic.
The audit is something I put together by myself in my spare time. The audit lacks the refinement, consistency, and comprehensiveness of a truly finished product. The audit is the kind of crude but effective prototype that often emerges from the garages and basements of passionate hobbyists. The audit also evinces the amateurism of its author. The audit reflects the problems I have personally confronted and the solutions I have uncovered.
I was trained as a litigator. I have only worked at one firm and one company. There are many, many problems I have either not encountered or not recognized as such. Nor am I confident that my solutions are optimal.
I am proud of the audit in the abstract, but I take minimal pride in authorship. I would very much welcome feedback, suggestions, collaboration, and constructive criticism.
The audit is arbitrary.
I developed the audit, but it does not have a scoring system. I haven't identified a bright line between passing and failing. I can't make direct apples-to-apples comparisons between firms. In short, the audit does not yet embody the process-driven ideal that it demands from law firms.
The audit has a shelf life.