LEARNING LAUNCH 

 Challenge and selection 

 The future of technology in the legal industry is bright , promising to streamline , enhance and   disrupt existing legal processes . I work for an innovative corporate law firm that wants to use   legal tech start - ups ’ products to make our lawyers more effective . As a starting point , we   scanned the UK legal tech market , observing approximately 400 start - ups , and shortlisting 14 to   work with . We would like to ideally partner with these start - ups to use their products . 

 However , due to the differences in nature between a corporate and start - up , engagement must   be approached carefully . As a corporate law firm we want to use the products offered by legal   tech start - ups to drive innovation in our practice , but we want to do so in a way that increases the   likelihood of success . 

 I used the learning launch tool – a small experiment that tests your new idea in the real   marketplace – to design small experiment to test each of the 14 start - ups ’ ideas within our law   firm . I chose this because we wanted to test quickly and cheaply through experimentation that   partnering with start - ups to drive innovation was a smart move . 

 I scoped and structured the “ proof of concepts ” , in order to test whether and how the start - ups   products could add value to our law firm . The proof of concepts would run for 2 months – the   purpose would be to use a short period of time to test that the start - up ’s product could be used in   our law practice successfully , and would therefore be a good idea to partner with the start - up   over the longer term . 

 Application 

 I created three buckets of assumptions to test ( desirability , viability , feasibility ) that would have to   bet met for us to work with the start - ups and use their products beyond an initial proof of concept .   Desirability first had to be met , then viability , and finally feasibility . The desirability assumptions   aimed to test whether our lawyers had sufficient demand for the product . The viability   assumptions aimed to test whether working with the start - up made commercial sense and   whether it would bring a commercially positive return . The feasibility assumptions aimed to test   whether our lawyers could work with the start - up . The incremental approach ensured that first the   product had a purpose for the user ( a lawyer ) , before progressing to commercial sense . 

 Each assumption bucket had 2 - 3 assumptions to test per start - up . Each assumption had a metric   that would validate or invalidate the assumption . For example , if the revenue generated ( by   lawyer time saved and therefore diverted to revenue - generating activities ) exceeded the cost of   investment to pay for and use the start - up product , the viability assumption would be validated . 

 A difficulty I had to overcome was choosing suitable metrics for each assumption . It was difficult   to measure desirability objectively , so for those that required a subjective evaluation , I chose a   numerical subjective ranking to gauge the demand for each start - up ’s product . For example , a   lawyer would have to respond on a scale of 1 to 10 how much they saw a need for the product in   their day to day job because it solved a problem that they recognise they have ( 1 being ‘ do not   see a need ’ and 10 being ‘ definitely see a need ’ ) . 

 Another difficulty was that some start - ups were earlier stage and therefore had relatively   undeveloped products that were n’t ready for use yet . In this case I kept the buckets of   assumptions to test broad , and they are to be refined at a later date . 

 Insight and approach 

 Using the learning launch tool allowed me to use a logical approach to assess whether it was   worth our law firm partnering with a given legal tech start - up . Ensuring that desirability was tested   first made sure that the user was at the centre . 

 I had to build a business case to put forward to leadership , to get sign off to go ahead with the   proof of concept – scoping and structuring the proof of concept using a design thinking technique   made my business case watertight and made it flow better . I had considered all the assumptions   I wanted to test , how I wanted to test them , all within a short two month time period and within   budget . 

 Using the learning launch tool opened my eyes to the potential of ensuring through assumptions- based testing that 1 ) somebody wants it , 2 ) we can create and deliver it , and 3 ) doing so has the   potential to produce the outcomes we want . 

 In the future , I would combine the learning launch tool with an ideation sprint to understand the   specific challenges that lawyers face that might be solved with legal tech start - ups . This would   have made the selection of our 14 start - ups even stronger . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: 
PHONE_NUM: 
STREET_ADDRESS: 
URL_PERSONAL: 
USERNAME: 

### Task: You are a PII (Personal Identity Information) Detection. Given a essays written by students, you have to identify ONLY the following:
NAME_STUDENT - The full or partial name of a student that is not necessarily the author of the essay. This excludes instructors, authors, and other person names.
EMAIL - A student’s email address.
USERNAME - A student's username on any platform.
ID_NUM - A number or sequence of characters that could be used to identify a student, such as a student ID or a social security number.
PHONE_NUM - A phone number associated with a student.
URL_PERSONAL - A URL that might be used to identify a student.
STREET_ADDRESS - A full or partial street address that is associated with the student, such as their home address.
### Input: LEARNING LAUNCH 

 Challenge and selection 

 The future of technology in the legal industry is bright , promising to streamline , enhance and   disrupt existing legal processes . I work for an innovative corporate law firm that wants to use   legal tech start - ups ’ products to make our lawyers more effective . As a starting point , we   scanned the UK legal tech market , observing approximately 400 start - ups , and shortlisting 14 to   work with . We would like to ideally partner with these start - ups to use their products . 

 However , due to the differences in nature between a corporate and start - up , engagement must   be approached carefully . As a corporate law firm we want to use the products offered by legal   tech start - ups to drive innovation in our practice , but we want to do so in a way that increases the   likelihood of success . 

 I used the learning launch tool – a small experiment that tests your new idea in the real   marketplace – to design small experiment to test each of the 14 start - ups ’ ideas within our law   firm . I chose this because we wanted to test quickly and cheaply through experimentation that   partnering with start - ups to drive innovation was a smart move . 

 I scoped and structured the “ proof of concepts ” , in order to test whether and how the start - ups   products could add value to our law firm . The proof of concepts would run for 2 months – the   purpose would be to use a short period of time to test that the start - up ’s product could be used in   our law practice successfully , and would therefore be a good idea to partner with the start - up   over the longer term . 

 Application 

 I created three buckets of assumptions to test ( desirability , viability , feasibility ) that would have to   bet met for us to work with the start - ups and use their products beyond an initial proof of concept .   Desirability first had to be met , then viability , and finally feasibility . The desirability assumptions   aimed to test whether our lawyers had sufficient demand for the product . The viability   assumptions aimed to test whether working with the start - up made commercial sense and   whether it would bring a commercially positive return . The feasibility assumptions aimed to test   whether our lawyers could work with the start - up . The incremental approach ensured that first the   product had a purpose for the user ( a lawyer ) , before progressing to commercial sense . 

 Each assumption bucket had 2 - 3 assumptions to test per start - up . Each assumption had a metric   that would validate or invalidate the assumption . For example , if the revenue generated ( by   lawyer time saved and therefore diverted to revenue - generating activities ) exceeded the cost of   investment to pay for and use the start - up product , the viability assumption would be validated . 

 A difficulty I had to overcome was choosing suitable metrics for each assumption . It was difficult   to measure desirability objectively , so for those that required a subjective evaluation , I chose a   numerical subjective ranking to gauge the demand for each start - up ’s product . For example , a   lawyer would have to respond on a scale of 1 to 10 how much they saw a need for the product in   their day to day job because it solved a problem that they recognise they have ( 1 being ‘ do not   see a need ’ and 10 being ‘ definitely see a need ’ ) . 

 Another difficulty was that some start - ups were earlier stage and therefore had relatively   undeveloped products that were n’t ready for use yet . In this case I kept the buckets of   assumptions to test broad , and they are to be refined at a later date . 

 Insight and approach 

 Using the learning launch tool allowed me to use a logical approach to assess whether it was   worth our law firm partnering with a given legal tech start - up . Ensuring that desirability was tested   first made sure that the user was at the centre . 

 I had to build a business case to put forward to leadership , to get sign off to go ahead with the   proof of concept – scoping and structuring the proof of concept using a design thinking technique   made my business case watertight and made it flow better . I had considered all the assumptions   I wanted to test , how I wanted to test them , all within a short two month time period and within   budget . 

 Using the learning launch tool opened my eyes to the potential of ensuring through assumptions- based testing that 1 ) somebody wants it , 2 ) we can create and deliver it , and 3 ) doing so has the   potential to produce the outcomes we want . 

 In the future , I would combine the learning launch tool with an ideation sprint to understand the   specific challenges that lawyers face that might be solved with legal tech start - ups . This would   have made the selection of our 14 start - ups even stronger .
### Output: 