Rationalising a Fragmented Legal Tech Stack with EPF - A use case of epic proportions.

Problem: A large international law firm (with major offices across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia) found its legal technology portfolio had become bloated and fragmented. Over time, different practice groups and regional offices purchased their own tools to meet immediate needs – resulting in over 30 software applications being in use firm-wide. There were multiple platforms serving the same function: for instance, three different contract analysis tools across offices (one team used Kira, another Luminance, and another a home-grown solution), several knowledge management systems, overlapping research databases (subscriptions to Westlaw, Lexis, vLex, etc.), and various workflow or project management tools.

This sprawl led to inefficiencies: lawyers had to learn different systems depending on which team or location they worked with, support and maintenance were costly, and volume licensing discounts were not maximised. The CIO also suspected that many tools were underutilised or redundant, wasting budget. The firm wanted to cut unnecessary IT spend and consolidate on best-in-class tools but needed a data-driven way to do it that wouldn’t hamper operations.

EPF V3.2’s REVIEW and ASSESS stages were used, leveraging the Technology Business Management (TBM) framework to analyse and optimise the IT spend with a focus on business value.

EPF began by creating a comprehensive inventory and cost map of the firm’s technology, following TBM principles. Technology Business Management (TBM) is a discipline and framework that provides a standard taxonomy and approach to link IT costs to business value. Using TBM’s taxonomy, EPF classified each application and service by its category (e.g., Collaboration, Practice Management, Document Management, Research, etc.) and by the business capability it supports (e.g., “Contract Drafting,” “Litigation support”, “Knowledge sharing”). We gathered financial data on each tool: annual licensing fees, infrastructure costs, number of users, and which departments were using it. This process was akin to creating a “Bill of IT” for the firm – a detailed bill showing how much was being spent on each IT service, much like an invoice that could be shown to business unit leaders. The TBM approach emphasises transparency, and indeed, once EPF compiled the data, the firm was able to see, often for the first time in one view, exactly how much was spent on, say, contract tools in total across the firm, or how the costs of legal research databases compared to their usage.

EPF also evaluated utilisation metrics where available; for instance, we looked at login statistics or query counts for research tools, the number of matters managed in each project management system, etc., to gauge how heavily each was used. Benchmarks were applied where possible (EPF drew on industry benchmarks or vendor data for utilisation rates, costs per user, etc., where the firm’s own data was lacking). Throughout this review, EPF engaged both the IT department and the lawyers/end-users, not only to collect data but to understand qualitatively why certain tools were chosen or preferred. This phase was important to contextualise the numbers (e.g., a niche tool might have few users, but those users find it mission-critical for a certain practice area).

The output of the Review stage was a set of data-driven insights and visualisations: a heat map showing areas of tool redundancy, charts of cost per active user by tool, and lists of tools ranked by total spend. One striking finding, for example, was that the firm had duplicate subscriptions in several categories: the firm paid for three e-signature platforms across different offices, when consolidating to one could achieve the same business outcome at a lower cost. Another finding was that some expensive tools had very low adoption – for instance, a sophisticated matter management system was being used by only one practice group (others stuck to email and Excel), raising the question of whether to invest in roll-out or to drop it. By employing TBM’s standardised cost categorisation, EPF could present these findings in the language of both IT and finance, making it clear where money was not optimally spent. Essentially, the firm’s IT spend was transformed from a “black box” of disparate expenses into a transparent, fact-based view that could be interrogated.

EPF Assess Stage – Rationalisation Roadmap & Business Case:

With the data in hand, EPF moved to the Assess stage, focusing on identifying opportunities for cost optimisation without sacrificing capability. Using TBM’s value lens, we aimed to shift resources from redundant “run the business” expenses to higher-value uses. Key assessments and recommendations included:

• Tool Consolidation: EPF identified categories where multiple tools did the same job. For each, we recommended the best candidate (based on functionality, user feedback, and cost-effectiveness) to become the standard. For example, if three contract review AI tools were in use and one had the highest accuracy and was already deployed in more offices, that one might be chosen as the global standard while the other two are retired. This promised not only licence fee savings but also streamlined training and support. Cutting down from three tools to one in a category might reduce that category’s cost by, say, 40% due to economies of scale and elimination of duplicates. EPF showed that consolidating overlapping systems could allow negotiating better enterprise deals with vendors (leveraging the firm’s full user base for volume discounts).

• Eliminating Under-Used Tools: EPF recommended decommissioning software that showed low usage and provided marginal value. For instance, the firm had a legacy knowledge management platform that few lawyers actually used (perhaps due to a newer system in place); its maintenance could be dropped. Another example: if two high-cost legal research databases were both being maintained, but analysis showed one was hardly ever accessed (maybe because lawyers preferred the other), the firm could cancel the underused one. EPF’s data revealed such opportunities clearly – e.g., if a tool cost £100k/year but was used by only 5 attorneys occasionally, that cost per active user was exorbitant and likely unjustifiable. Removing or scaling down these would contribute to significant cost savings (e.g., 8% of the IT budget annually saved) while having little negative impact on operations. This aligns with TBM goals of 3-5% budget optimisation through informed decision-making – EPF’s plan actually targeted even higher savings by tackling obvious redundancies.

• Optimise “Run” vs “Change” Spend: A TBM insight is differentiating spend that is for “running the business” (keeping the lights on) versus “changing the business” (innovation). EPF found that an overwhelming majority of IT spend was on maintaining these myriad tools (“run”), leaving little for new projects or upgrades (“change”). By cutting down the run costs through rationalisation, the firm could free funds to reinvest in strategic technology. EPF’s proposal explicitly highlighted that savings from consolidation should be partly reallocated to innovation – for instance, implementing a new AI-driven knowledge search that the firm had been considering or upgrading cybersecurity – rather than simply cut from the budget. This framing helped leadership see the exercise not as just cost-cutting but as value reallocation to higher-impact tech. It resonates with the TBM concept that optimising the run budget can fuel growth and innovation.

• Chargeback/Showback for Accountability: EPF also recommended introducing a “showback” mechanism internally – essentially, using the Bill of IT data to show each practice group leader how much IT cost is attributed to their group (in terms of software usage, support, etc.). This transparency (a TBM best practice) would drive more accountability and prudent use of resources. When lawyers see that “Tool X costs €200 per user per month and only half the team is using it”, they have an incentive to either use it fully or agree to drop it. In time, the firm could even implement chargeback (allocating IT costs to P&Ls of departments), but initially showback was sufficient to change behaviour. National Grid’s TBM case, for example, showed how a drillable Bill of IT changed conversations to be fact-based – EPF aimed for a similar cultural shift in the firm, from “I want this shiny tool” to “is this tool worth its cost to us?”

Using all these inputs, EPF delivered a Rationalisation Roadmap—a phased plan over e.g., 12–18 months to execute the changes. The plan prioritised quick wins, such as cutting a tool with minimal disruption, in the first 3-6 months, and more complex consolidations, such as data migration or user retraining, in later phases. Each recommendation came with a brief business case and impact analysis. For example: “Retire Tool A and migrate its users to Tool B – expected annual saving €50k, one-time migration cost €10k, no loss in functionality. Risks: need to train users of Tool A on Tool B; mitigation: training sessions scheduled, pilot migration in one office first.” By providing this level of detail, EPF ensured the firm’s management had confidence in moving forward. We also highlighted the total expected savings – e.g., if fully implemented, the roadmap might cut 40% of the applications and save around 8-10% of the IT budget annually (say, €1M out of €12M), which could then be reinvested or contribute to the firm’s bottom line. Notably, TBM benchmarks often cite around 5% optimisation, but law firms with extreme fragmentation can achieve higher; EPF’s data backed up these projections (for instance, by eliminating duplicate vendor contracts and unused licences, a large chunk (£1.2m) was saved).

Implementation and Risks: Evangelize didn’t just hand over the plan – we also advised on implementation tactics, recognising the change management challenges here. Law firms can be change-averse, and some senior partners might have personal preferences for certain tools. To mitigate this, EPF proposed forming a Technology Steering Committee that included influential partners from each practice area to oversee the rationalisation. This committee was presented with the TBM data, making the case that rationalisation was in everyone’s interest (because savings could fund things that benefit all, and a simplified toolkit would make lawyers’ lives easier). By involving them, EPF helped turn potential detractors into decision-makers in the process, increasing buy-in. Communication was key – users of tools to be phased out were informed well in advance, with explanations of why and how the firm would transition to the new standard tools. Adequate training and support were planned for those transitions to minimise frustration (for example, if a certain office’s folks had to switch research platforms, training sessions and cheat sheets were provided).

Data migration risk was addressed for any systems being retired: EPF worked with IT to ensure that any data (documents, know-how, etc.) in a decommissioned system would be archived or moved to the surviving system so nothing was lost. In some cases, we found that overlapping systems actually duplicated data (e.g., two knowledge bases might have much of the same content), so consolidation also improved knowledge sharing by ending silos.

Outcomes: As the firm executed the roadmap, benefits quickly materialised. Within the first year, we suggested they cut roughly one-third of the applications, including completely eliminating 5 systems and consolidating 4 others into 2. The annual IT spend was proposed to drop by 8.4% as projected (for example, through cancelled contracts and better negotiated deals for the consolidated tools) – resources that the firm re-budgeted partly into new strategic projects (one notable reinvestment was the development of a legal AI chatbot for internal use, which previously had no budget). The CFO and CIO, armed with TBM reports, could now have valuable conversations with practice heads: instead of just saying “we need to cut IT costs”, they could say “we’re spending €X on these overlapping tools for your group; let’s direct some of that €X into a tool that actually brings more value to you.” This shift to fact-based discussion improved alignment between IT and the lawyers, a classic outcome of TBM transparency.

For the lawyers and staff, after the initial adjustment period, there were noticeable improvements. The digital workplace became simpler – fewer logins and systems to juggle, a more consistent user experience across offices. For example, all lawyers now used the same document automation tool, so internal training sessions and tips could be shared firm-wide, and best practices developed. The “cognitive overload” of learning multiple software was reduced, which lawyers appreciated. New joiners found onboarding easier as well (previously, joining one office vs another might mean learning a totally different tech stack).

Morale in the IT department improved too: supporting 30+ applications meant being stretched thin, but after consolidation, the firm realised they could focus on deeply supporting the chosen core systems and proactively improving them, rather than firefighting across many platforms. The IT team also established a TBM Office function (even if informal) to continuously monitor technology value. The firm continued producing quarterly Bill of IT reports for management, sustaining the transparency. This ongoing practice prevents “tool creep” from recurring – any new software requests are now evaluated in light of the whole firm picture to avoid slipping back into silos. Essentially, the firm’s culture around tech investment became more disciplined, with a common language of cost and value introduced by TBM (e.g., partners became aware of the concept of cost per user and started asking, “do we really need this if we already have something similar?” which was a big mindset shift).

In summary, through EPF’s Review and Assess using TBM, the firm achieved a leaner, more cost-effective IT landscape without losing functionality. In fact, by consolidating, the firm often chose the best tool in each category, so many users gained improved functionality (like switching from a less capable tool to the firm-wide standard that was better). The financial savings were tangible and redirected to innovation, directly supporting the firm’s competitive edge (like investing in AI and knowledge platforms). The case demonstrates that applying a structured IT management framework (TBM) in a law firm can translate technology spend into business terms and drive meaningful change. What was once an opaque sprawl of IT expenses became a well-understood portfolio of services delivering value. This rationalisation not only saved money but also enhanced the firm’s agility – with a simplified stack, the firm could more easily upgrade or replace components in the future and roll out firm-wide solutions. Ultimately, the firm’s lawyers can work more efficiently with less IT friction, and management has confidence that their tech investments are aligned to actual needs and are under control, which is a significant strategic benefit in the evolving legal market.