If you enjoyed this TV show about the legal sector and forensic evidence then why not browse more videos on Inside Finance.
The attitude to risk form those in high risk environments is to exercise caution as Michael Pagliari explains in this TV show.
I actually have a few clients that have done exactly that and I’ve actually found that there I’m on the more cautious of our clients. So their business risk, if you like, is very high and they’re well aware of it and the last thing they want to do is suffer losses under their financial asset portfolio, so I’ve tended to find those people the most cautious of all the clients that I manage money for. Investment does involve risk. The value of investments can go down as well as up. This video contains information believed to be reliable but no guarantee is given. See Video for full disclaimer.Keep visiting Inside Finance for more great videos on attitudes to risk and similar subjects.
Keep an eye on Inside Finance if you are interested in social digital technology. There will be more TV shows from knowledgeable business insiders like Nigel Huddleston.
Inside Finance TV will continue to follow the impact of the digital generation entering the world of work.
If you enjoyed this video and want to hear more about investing in technology infrastructure, please browse more TV shows on Inside Finance.
One of the things with data is what we use with it, both as Google, but also as a provider or a supplier of holidays, content hotels.
That one of the key things with data is to make sure that it’s permission based, so that you’re using information the way that the user allows you to use.
And that means that the onus is on you to make sure that if you’re using that data then it’s useful to the consumer so that you’re using it in a way that’s going to be helpful to them.
So if you’re checking into a hotel or about to arrive at a hotel and maybe they’re kind of following you from the airport and can see through mobile that you’re on their way. As long as you give permission.
They know that you’re ready to check-in, that they know what room type that you prefer, they know what you like in your room in terms of flowers or drinks in the bar, all of those things are potentially useful, but only with the user’s permission.
But again, early stages there, there’s lots of exciting things going on in using user information.
I think it’s very early stages in this big data field. I would say we’re probably two out of ten in terms of where we can go with this.
And who knows where it’s going to go, you know, it’s almost as if it’s the early stages of the dot com era again in terms of the power of big data.
Ralph Jenson talks about various economies through which we’ve transitioned, it’s a very general, very broad framework but it’s really good to help us understand our current context, ‘cause leadership is always context-specific. So, very quickly, he talks about the hunter-gatherer era, it was an economy in which there was competitive advantage that was forged through a sense of focus.
The interesting thing in the story is that technology is the disruption, so technology changes the rules of the game. In this particular case the technology that did that, the plough, the ability to harness animals, so we moved into the agrarian society. From there we moved into the industrial era. So each of these are economies in which we look at what created a competitive advantage.
The industrial era is interesting because competitive advantage in this particular set of circumstances was created through business efficiencies, that’s where the science of management was birthed. Frederick Taylor and others – if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. So the legacy of that era remains today.
I still meet companies and leaders who think that their competitive advantage will be forged through greater business efficiency. Business efficiency is a hygiene factor now. So, we moved from then to what was called the information-based economy, where it was how we utilised data and from there we moved into the connection economy.
There are more videos discussing the digital connection economy on Inside Finance.
Disruptive technologies that can completely change the way an industry works may be developed by another industry all together. Keith Coats Discusses:
Disruption in business is probably not going to come from within your own industry, and the danger of benchmarking is that we mark ourselves and our progress against those who are running the same race. So you would have expected Yellow Pages to be at the forefront of search engines – Google didn’t come from Yellow Pages.
There’s a large bank in Africa who rolled out an entire African strategy who, by benchmarking themselves against fellow competitors, that’s all they looked at. They went into Africa to discover that the biggest competitor to banking came from cell phone technology, or mobile technology, people transacting through their mobile devices, that changes the rules of the game.
So, the principle is this, is if we’re only looking within our industry, at people running in the same race as us, the chances are we’re not going to see the disruption. And smart organisations today are looking far enough and wide enough outside of their windows to … and asking the right questions to see the disruption that will change the rules of the game.
And our message to big companies who are leaders in their own particular sphere is don’t wait to be disrupted, be the disruption in your own industry, change the rules of the game. And if you don’t and you become complacent and you focus on business efficiencies, there will come a time when somebody will disrupt your industry and it’s going to come from outside.
We will have more videos about disruptive technologies on Inside Finance, where you can also watch more from Keith Coats.
The disclosure rules have been in for quite some time. And it’s my understanding, although I’m not a lawyer, it’s my understanding that they were brought in so that the days of ambushing your opponent on the steps of the court after months and months, sometimes years of preparation for a trial and say, you know, “Ha ha, you didn’t know about this document.”
Which really undermines their whole case, e-disclosure was brought in and disclosure as well was brought in to stop that from happening so that both parties understand fully the strengths and weaknesses and certainly in terms of the documents before they get to the long process of preparing for a trial.
It may well be, for example, if the other party knew of the existence of certain documents that a settlement would have been the preferred route as opposed to spending an awful lot of time on expensive advice and procedures to get to the point where they, in effect they give in as they would have done a year ago.
When parties are involved in litigation, each party has an obligation to disclose the documents of relevance to the case. And whether those documents are good for their side or bad, and so with each firm of any size now, having huge amounts of information it’s important to be able to easily digest that information and sift it for relevance to a particular matter.
It’s gone an incredible distance.
There are two types of reviews really, one is a traditional linear review where the lawyers and the clients will look at the documents and read the documents themselves and use their own eyes and understanding to make a categorisation of a particular email etc.
And they will sift those down by using keywords and date range parameters and so forth.
The big steps now are that computers are making those decisions for them, sometimes more successfully than others.
For e-disclosure but predominantly emails, the reason for that is it’s now obviously by far the preferred method of communication for the written media.
And attached to emails are documents, so you might have contracts, spreadsheets, image files maybe.
But usually those are just the two types of information, emails forms the largest and then you have a review of what we call loose documents.
So these will be documents that themselves aren’t attached to an email or in any sort of structure of that nature.
The big thing that people are talking about now is technology assisted review, where the PCs … sorry, the disclosure systems are able to make a judgement on a categorisation of a document based on the categorisations that have been made before. How it works is this. You will have a population of say, for argument’s sake, 100,000 documents, and a lawyer will review the first 1,000 and then the system will say, based on your choices of those first 1,000 documents, I think if you were to carry on, the remaining 99,000, you would categorise in this way
And so then the lawyer will look at those and say, “Well it was right in this document, it was wrong in that document and I would have made that document this.” So by now you’ve looked at 2,000 documents and the system says, “Okay, well, you know, thanks for helping me out, based on that I now predict that you would make the choices for the remainder, the 98,000.” And so you finally get to a stage where having reviewed only a few thousand documents, you can have confidence that whilst it won’t be perfect, if 98% of the choices that the computer’s made, you agree with, you may well be able to say to the other side, “We’ll stick with those categorisations that it’s done.” It’s being talked about a lot.
It’s still very new but it’s potentially a way to save thousands and thousands of pounds in the review phase.
Well, the problem with this technology is one of trust, because in order to … for both parties to agree they both have to understand how the system’s come about to make those choices. And they … ideally what will happen is both parties will be using the same system. And they will both agree to use technology assisted review and therefore both sides will have confidence that the system is working fine [0:14:52.3]. It’s not that usual for both parties to have the same type of system. So your technology assisted review might be different to mine and I’m going to think that it’s actually inferior to mine. And therefore I don’t want you to rely on your results but I’m happy to rely on mine, getting the two sides to agree is the trick.