Nextpoint is better bells and fewer whistles, in the words of our brilliant communications maestro Mike Beumer. But how should people who are evaluating our product interpret this, and what does it mean if Nextpoint’s web application is going to deliver what you need out of your legal technology?
I’ve noticed two divergent approaches to answering the question of what is the right technology. The first is a values based approach, top down, that starts with asking critical questions that attempt to answer the big questions about the technology to be deployed on a project.
The second is a features-based tactical approach, bottom-up that really drives the big decision from smaller evaluations, of features, formats, specific technology platforms, what is already sitting around and so on, attempting to induce the right solution from a bunch of smaller questions.
This is a no-brainer. The best approach starts with the following question.
Does this piece of technology fit my values?
Now that seems like a loaded question, how can technology represent values? Isn’t it just abstract coding language, impartially programmed to perform tasks?
The short answer is no. Technology is made – designed, developed, and consumed – by people. And the type of technology people use reflects their values. By values I mean what is important to them.
It’s an interesting word – values. It has a multitude of meanings all which apply.
Personal value – am I better off with this technology than I am without it
Ethical value – does this technology reflect my beliefs about individual and group behavior
Monetary value – how does this technology allow me to either generate more income or reduce expenses?
Numerical value – How much value is delivered for how much I spent on it, either in time or money? Is there enough of this technology or too much? What volume of this technology do I need and can use it how I need it?
This is the right way to approach a technology decision, not by looking at comparison charts or rfps.