It’s not just Cimplifi saying it, Gartner says that many first-time CLM implementations fail. Here’s why and what you can do about it.
In their post titled Why Many First-time CLM Implementations Fail (available here), Cimplifi opens with that stat from Gartner that nearly 50% of initial contract lifecycle management (CLM) implementations will fall short of expectations. There are at least ten core challenges in CLM implementations, here are two of them:
Strategic Misalignment: Without a coherent strategy and well-defined objectives, CLM initiatives can meander without delivering tangible outcomes. Clear goals that resonate with broader business objectives are essential. Change management must be aligned with the needs of end-users. This alignment fosters an accelerated adoption path, and a higher level of proficiency amongst the users leading to more effective use of programmatic contract solutions, and ultimately the value driven by CLM.
Insufficient Client Insight: A profound understanding of the client journey is critical. Failures often stem from clients not being prepared for a CLM project, leading to initiatives that miss the mark in enhancing the client experience. Engaging a group of key stakeholders early and continuously can provide the granularity needed for effective solutioning, while also building a unified effort towards understanding and meeting needs.
So, what are the other eight core challenges in CLM implementations that are why many first-time CLM implementations fail? And how does Cimplifi address CLM challenges, ensuring your CLM and contract analytics initiatives not only succeed but excel? Find out here, it’s only one click! And check out the first two parts of their CLM blog series here and here! 🙂
Related Posts
So, what do you think? How are you ensuring a successful CLM implementation? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Image created using GPT-4’s Image Creator Powered by DALL-E, using the term “robot reading a contract while riding an exercise bicycle”. Get it – it’s a lifecycle! 😀
Disclosure: Cimplifi is an Educational Partner and sponsor of eDiscovery Today
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.
Discover more from eDiscovery Today by Doug Austin
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Doug-
It appears to me that many of the pitfalls cited in the featured Cimplifi blog and the corrective suggestions apply to law firms that are seeking technological solutions to workflow. Fitting AI tools to a complex workflow with many moving parts and different characters sometimes in different offices with varied styles and client bases seems to require the same type of structured approach, implementation, and follow through. Your thoughts?
Couldn’t agree more, Judge Artigliere. The technology is only as good as the workflows it supports. A (non-contract) case in point is eDiscovery review. You still have the same planning steps, the same need for coordination with reviewers, the same need to QC the results. The workflows may adjust somewhat to maximize the benefits of the AI tools, but they’re still needed to ensure the end result is achieved. Gen AI is no more of an easy button than TAR was.