Knowledge management in law firms in Botswana: Some lessons for small law firms

Introduction

In today’s knowledge economy where there is greater reliance on intellectual capabilities than physical inputs and natural resources in the production of services, knowledge rather than physical and financial resources is crucial for the profitability of small firms often referred to as small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Most knowledge management (KM) initiatives in law firms seem to have focused solely on large firms (Curve Consulting Survey Report, 2003; Du Plessis and Du Toit, 2005; Gottschalk et al., 2005; Kofoed, 2002; Lamont, 2002; Leibowitz, 2002; Nathanson and Levision, 2002; Parsons, 2002; Rusanow, 2007). In a study of KM in Virginia law firms, it was found that most of these firms were waiting to see how the large firms fared before adopting KM (Gonzalez, 2002). The argument that large firms are logical users of KM systems and have more knowledge assets and intangibles to be managed, while small firms pay less attention to KM is no longer valid. Knowledge is becoming an essential survival weapon in both large and small firms. Furthermore, in the knowledge economy these firms continue to play a major role in generating gross income for the economy and in enhancing economic development.

This paper aims to increase understanding of the importance of KM in small firms in general and small law firms in particular. It suggests ways of enhancing KM in these firms. The paper is divided into eight sections. Following this introduction, the next section provides the context of the study. The third section provides an overview of KM. The fourth section examines the peculiarities of KM in small firms. The fifth section outlines the methodology of the study. The sixth section examines the findings and discussions. The seventh section presents some lessons for enhancing KM in small law firms based on a study in Botswana and ends with some concluding remarks.

Law firms in Botswana

Law firms in Botswana are small professional service firms, ranging from two to a dozen partners and having fewer than 100 employees (Fombad, 2002). Generally, the sizes of law firms range widely from sole practitioners (lawyers practising alone) to small firms consisting of two to 50 lawyers to midsize firms of 50 to 200 lawyers and to very large professional firms having more than 1000 lawyers. Within the context of law firms, Shoenberger-Mayer (1995) identifies the following four organizational modes for legal practice: the mega-firm having more than 1000 lawyers, medium size firms with 10 to 200 lawyers, small firms with two to 10 lawyers and sole practitioners.

Law firms in Botswana are organized around sole proprietorship, partnerships and professional assistants. In a sole proprietorship, a single lawyer is responsible for all the profit, loss and liability of the firm. A partnership on the other hand is the relationship that exists between two or more persons carrying on business in common with a view to profit (Mozley and Whiteley, 1998). It is an arrangement in which the winner forgoes immediate returns to the value of their knowledge in order to reap the gains of property rights in the long term (Baden-Fuller and Bateson, 1991; Rebitzer and Taylor, 1999). This has to be distinguished from professional assistants who are lawyers working in law firms without partnership status but rather earn a salary or commission from working in the firm. Law firms in Botswana also employ paralegals (law librarians and legal assistance), clerical and administrative staff to whom they delegate activities.

Overview of knowledge, knowledge management and strategic planning of knowledge management

The concept of knowledge management has been around as long as one can remember with various concepts linked to it. Discussions in this section focus on the concept of knowledge, KM perspectives and strategic planning of KM.

Knowledge management

Like knowledge, there is no universally accepted definition of KM. The definition varies according to perspective, discipline, author and context. Again, like knowledge, the different perspectives of KM reflect the complexity of the concept and the potential for definitional ambiguity. There are five perspectives of KM that provide the basis for understanding the different definitions and viewpoints of KM in this article. These are the information technology perspective, the social or people track perspective, the individual perspective, the organizational perspective and the business perspective.

The information technology perspective considers knowledge as objects that can be identified and handled in an information system (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Carayannis, 1999; Earl, 1996; Hunter et al., 2002; Sinotte, 2004; Sveiby, 1996). This perspective tends to oversimplify the concept of KM by considering knowledge management as the use of technology to manage information.

From the social perspective, KM is considered as a social and learning process that focuses on groups of people and social relationships and is influenced by organizational structures, team work and culture (Malhotra, 1998; Sinotte, 2004; Wenger, 2003).

The individual perspective views KM as a continuous interplay between tacit and explicit knowledge in the organization (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It emphasizes the importance of individual and organizational growth and learning

The organizational perspective considers KM as a series of integrated organizational initiatives which include strategy, structure, culture, and style of management and knowledge systems built and implemented by multidisciplinary teams (Beijerse, 1999; Sinotte, 2004). It also considers knowledge management as the process of creating, storing and retrieving, transferring and applying knowledge.

The business perspective builds on the knowledge-based view and the resource-based view of the firm (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Skyrme 1997; Teece, 1998). The knowledge-based view identifies knowledge as the primary rationale for the firm. It has long been recognized that economic prosperity rests upon knowledge and its useful application. The knowledge-based view posits that the product and services produced by tangible resources depend on how they are combined and applied which is the function of the firm’s know-how. The resource-based view of the firm on the other hand considers knowledge as a corporate organizational resource, intellectual capital, manageable asset, skills, capabilities, stock flows and competencies that constitute a basis for competitive advantage (Coase, 1937; Grant, 1996; Spender, 1996; Sveiby, 1999; Teece, 1998).

This paper considers an integrated definition of KM presented in Figure 1. The integrated definition considers KM as the name given to the set of systematic and disciplined actions that an organization can take to obtain the greatest value from the knowledge available to it. It is about the management of people, processes and systems through which knowledge can be shared. It involves creating an environment where knowledge, creativity and innovation are valued, facilitating communication between people in different locations, creating an organization that encourages ideas, rewards success, while allowing people to fail and learn from failure. It also entails leveraging organizations’ knowledge for competitive advantage.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

An integrated definition of knowledge management.

Peculiarities of knowledge management in SMEs

The resources and distinct characteristics of small firms present several unique challenges for KM. It has been noted that resource scarcity in terms of finance, time, capital, human resources, equipment and the communication culture inhibit KM in small firms (Egbu et al., 2005; Lim and Klobas, 2000; Sparrow, 2001; Yewwong, and Aspinwall, 2004). Given the lack of resources, these firms are often weak in terms of financing, planning, training and the use and exploitation of advanced information technology (Egbu and Botterill, 2002). They often lack time to identify and use important external sources of scientific and technological expertise (Egbu et al., 2005). Most of these organizations cannot afford to commit themselves to the expensive consultancy services used by larger firms, such as hiring dedicated information professionals or staff. Another problem that may confront small firms is the low degree of employee specialization in their jobs (Yusof and Aspinwall, 2000). These firms cannot afford or are sometimes unwilling to commit resources to conduct research and acquire knowledge from environmental scanning. They also cannot afford time for trial and error activities since their investments are largely targeted on their core operational processes (Lim and Klobas, 2000; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). For these reasons, these firms lack the capacity to maintain a knowledge repository of the same depth and breadth as large organizations (Egbu et al., 2005; Lim and Klobas, 2000).

Besides financial resources, the lack of human resources is another stumbling block to implementing KM in small law firms. Staffing constraints mean that the appointment of multiple new roles and positions is less practical since these firms may lack highly educated and experienced employees or expert professionals to initiate such a programme (Egbu et al., 2005; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). Small firms tend to have mainly generalists performing a variety of tasks who may be termed, according to the old adage, ‘Jack of all trades and a master of none’. Generally, low specialization tends to result in lack of a thorough comprehension of a specific task.

There are several distinct characteristics peculiar to SMEs that present unique challenges for KM. For example, the owners and partners are often managers of small firms. They oversee the decision-making process in every aspect of their business and are frequently constrained by time to take care of every aspect (Egbu et al., 2005; Lim and Klobas 2001; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). This is unlike large firms, where top management has more time to think and be involved in KM because some of its roles and responsibilities can be distributed to lower level managers. There is little wonder that most owner-managers lack a proper understanding of KM and its potential, and are often slow in adopting formal and systematic KM practices. McAdam and Reid (2001) suggest that KM does not feature highly as an important agenda in most SMEs. Another reason why the owner-manager’s personality can become a main obstacle in the accomplishment of KM in small firms is that they have a strong dominance in the firm. An owner-manager who is dictatorial can be problematic when implementing new initiatives (Egbu and Botterill, 2002; Matlay, 2000; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). Yewwong and Aspinwall (2004) point out that an owner-manager with a personality that hoards knowledge, controls every aspect of his/her business, and punishes mistakes may impede the building of a knowledge friendly environment. Sparrow (2001) opines that owner-managers may tend to limit the sharing of knowledge for fear of losing control. They may resist providing knowledge by deliberately avoiding training and development opportunities for employees in certain areas pertinent to their own personal expertise. The experience and judgement of owner-managers may play an important role in the process of using knowledge. For example, many managers started at the bottom and have worked upwards the hard way, usually through learning-by-doing, and so believe strongly in their own experience and opinion (Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). As a result, they will usually depend on their personal experience, opinion and ‘own world view’ when it comes to making key decisions and utilizing knowledge.

One other distinct characteristic of small firms that is likely to inhibit the implementation of formal KM systems and programmes is that most of the activities and operations in small firms are governed by informal rules and procedures (Egbu and Botterill, 2002; Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997). For example, knowledge tends to be passed on without any associated records or documentation and a very small percentage of small firms use an intranet to share knowledge. Yewwong and Aspinwall, (2004) observed that the lack of formal procedures may hinder the efficient working of KM systems when implemented. Also, employees may be reluctant to capture and store their knowledge formally because knowledge-sharing programmes may be conducted haphazardly.

Another distinct characteristic in small firms is that the knowledge identification, capture, mapping, dissemination and knowledge creation processes are not well thought out or embedded in daily practices. Egbu et al. (2005) observe that elements of KM in small construction firms are practised in an ad hoc fashion. McAdam and Reid (2001) noted that the creation of new knowledge in SMEs is less advanced than in larger firms. In addition, small firms possess considerable weaknesses in their KM storage process. The documentation of key knowledge is rare and it is normally not properly stored in a readily retrievable format due to their less formal working systems and procedures (Egbu et al., 2005).

Notwithstanding the above limitations of KM in SMEs, several arguments have been put forward as to why small firms can benefit from it. One of these is that managing the knowledge assets and intangibles in small firms is vital because it provides a way for them to leverage most, if not all, of the benefits of KM (Lim and Klobas, 2000; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004).

Also, in contrast to the bureaucratic structure in large firms, the structure in small firms tends to be less hierarchical with fewer levels of bureaucracy in the vertical that puts them at an advantage over large firms when it comes to implementing KM (Lim and Klobas, 2000; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). Functional integration both horizontally and vertically makes it easy for small firms to facilitate initiatives for change across the organization. Egbu et al. (2005) noted that SMEs have efficient and informal communication networks. They also point out that they have shorter and direct communication lines thus allowing for a faster discourse on KM issues within the organization.

In addition, a unified and fluid culture with fewer interest groups and a corporate mind-set that emphasizes the company as a single entity rather than a department is more salient in smaller firms (Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997). Arguably, it will be easier to achieve cultural change in the small business environment due to its organic and fluid culture. The communication culture in small firms is conducive to sharing knowledge because it is verbal, face to face informal and ‘in the corridor’ (Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004).

It is also important to note that small firms have an advantage when it comes to implementing new initiatives because they have simple systems and less red tape in place (Ghobadian and Gallear, 1997; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). Their systems are, in the main, people-dominated and their processes are often more flexible and adaptable to the changes taking place around them. The fact that small firms comprise fewer employees than their larger counterparts certainly gives them a distinct advantage. Yewwong and Aspinwall (2004) observed that in small firms, employees normally know each other more intimately and have face-to-face contact with one another, and it is thus easier to get all the employees together to initiate and implement a change. This is unlike larger firms that often have to cope with complex systems and processes, which make them more rigid and slower when it comes to abandoning them.

In addition, small firms are in a better position in terms of acquiring customers’ knowledge because their managers and employees tend to have close and direct contact with customers and other organizations (Egbu et al. 2005; Yewwong and Aspinwall, 2004). In fact, some managers and employees may even know the customers socially and personally. Yewwong and Aspinwall (2004) assert that a close contact between firm and customers will enable a more direct and faster knowledge flow. They suggest that it will allow them to obtain information such as competitors’ actions and behaviour, market trends and other developments. In contrast, large firms tend to have indirect contact with customers as they mostly rely on large-scale surveys and consulting firms to provide them with relevant customer knowledge.

The considerable amount of tacit knowledge generated in SMEs remains the most important form of knowledge for organizational success (Egbu et al., 2005; Lim and Klobas, 2000). Yewwong and Aspinwall (2004) feel that it is simpler for small firms to organize tacit knowledge (profiling employees or setting up a corporate listing of employees who are knowledgeable in a particular area), because they have fewer employees and most of them know each other and have a better idea of the level of expertise and know-how of their colleagues, and who to consult if they need certain information.

The very fact that SMEs are highly susceptible to the loss of employees’ knowledge underscores the need for organizational sustainability in small firms and the importance of capturing individual knowledge. Small Business Service (2004) statistics reveal that only 64% of businesses registered in 1998 were still going three years after registration. The implication is that 36% perished after three years for a variety of reasons amongst which are: business ceased to be lucrative, the death or retirement of the proprietor, and changes in the personal motivation and aspirations of the owner. Lim and Klobas (2000) also suggest that SMEs are highly susceptible to the loss of employees seeking better compensation packages and higher prestige associated with larger firms.

A survey of KM in small firms in Italy by Evangelista et al. (2010) identified intellectual capital and cultural barriers as major obstacles to KM. They suggest that innovation, operational management and market features are key elements in enhancing KM in these firms. A comparative study by McAdam and Reid (2001) on the perception of KM in both large organizations and SMEs revealed that while understanding and implementation of it was developing in large organizations, SMEs suffered from certain drawbacks. They point out that SMEs have a mechanistic view and a limited vocabulary of knowledge and less systematic approaches for embodying and sharing knowledge. Furthermore, they posit that the perceived benefits of KM are targeted towards the market rather than towards the improvement of internal efficiency.

In a case study of three small businesses operating in Singapore and Australia, Lim and Klobas (2000) investigated the extent to which six factors drawn from the theory and practice of KM can be applied in small organizations. These factors are: balance between need and cost of knowledge acquisition; the extent to which knowledge originates in the external environment; internal knowledge processing; internal knowledge storage; use and deployment of knowledge within the organization; and attention to human resources. They concluded that differences were apparent in the value placed by small and large organizations on systematic KM practices, especially in the adoption of computer-based knowledge storage systems. Hence, they felt that the greatest need for small businesses was to build an effective knowledge repository.

A longitudinal case study of organizational learning in the small business sector of the United Kingdom economy by Matlay (2000) revealed that the frequency of formal learning in these firms increased in direct proportion to their size. Learning was incidental and occurred sporadically throughout routine tasks. KM in terms of acquiring, transferring and using learning-based new information did not feature high on the agenda of most of the small businesses. The case study by Egbu et al. (2005) presents and discusses the challenges and benefits of KM for sustainable competitiveness in SMEs based on analysis of a knowledge intensive construction company using semi-structured interviews. The paper concludes that managing knowledge assets in SMEs is an integrated and complex social process which has culture, people, finance, technology and organizational structures at its core.

Sparrow’s (2001) qualitative study explored KM features of SMEs and underscored the need to recognize the different ‘mental models’ of individuals and to share their personal understanding in the development of KM processes. He also notes that the development of a knowledge-based system in smaller businesses should be based on the fundamental understanding of its role and basic principles.

From the above discussions it can be observed that studies on KM in SMEs have focused on case studies, longitudinal and qualitative studies in America, Europe and Asia. There is very little research on KM in small law firms in Africa. Furthermore, hardly any article has adopted a qualitative and quantitative approach to understanding KM in SMEs. This study adopts a triangulated approach to provide some lessons on enhancing KM in small firms. Triangulation is the combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon. The effectiveness of triangulation rests on the premise that the weakness in a single method would be compensated for by the counter-balancing strength of the other (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991; Yin, 1994).

Methodology of the study

The methodology for this study was three-fold. First there was the literature review on KM and its usage in SMEs; second, open- and closed-ended questionnaires; and third, semi-structured interviews. Combined methodological approaches are not uncommon in KM studies. Gottschalk in his studies on KM in the law firms adopted a quantitative research approach (Gottschalk, 1999, 2000, 2002; Khandelwal and Gottschalk, 2003). Similarly, Okunye and Karsten (2001) in a study of information technology infrastructure and KM in Sub-Saharan Africa adopted a quantitative approach. Also, Du Plessis and Du Toit (2005) conducted a quantitative survey of KM in South African law firms using questionnaires as a method of data collection.

The purpose of the research questionnaire was to identify the organizational characteristic of the firm and investigate the factors that may inhibit KM in the law firms. Of the 217 questionnaires distributed to all firms in Botswana, 140 completed questionnaires were returned, giving a return rate of 64.5%.

Beccera-Fernadez et al. (2004) call for a blending of both quantitative and qualitative research approaches in KM in order to get the most complete picture. The quantitative data from the questionnaire was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 15.0. In order to complement the findings from the quantitative data, and obtain in-depth information about the experiences of lawyers in KM activities, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 lawyers who were selected from different law firms in Gaborone. The qualitative data from open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews were carefully recorded, analysed and utilized.

Findings and discussions

This section provides the findings on the organizational characteristics of the firm and the barriers to KM in law firms in Botswana. With regards to the organizational characteristic of the firm, lawyers were asked to indicate the total number of lawyers in the participants’ firms. The results are presented in Figure 2. It is clear from Figure 2 that law firms in Botswana are small firms of which 39.3% are sole proprietors, 35.0% have two lawyers, 16.4% have three lawyers, 7.9% have four lawyers, 0.7% have five lawyers and another 0.7% have nine lawyers. The mean number of lawyers in these firms is two. It emerged from the interview that law firms in Botswana continue to remain small with an average of two partners due to the fact that every lawyer wants to become a partner rather than just working as a professional assistant because partners get a share of the profit rather than just a fixed salary. As a result, there is constant splitting up from firms by lawyers to start off as sole proprietors or to form small partnerships

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Organizational characteristics of the firm.

What are the barriers to knowledge management in the law firms?

The different possible barriers to KM in small firms identified in the literature were listed and ranked into the usual five-point coded scale. The participants were asked to tick the category of the column that best described their degree of agreement or disagreement with the factors that inhibit knowledge sharing in their firm. An ‘other’ option category was provided for participants. The responses for ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ are considered as ‘agree’ or ‘positive’, while the results of ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ are considered as ‘disagree’ or ‘negative’ The results are presented in Table 1. The findings confirm that ideals and characteristics of SMEs such as technology, resources, the size of the firms, management style, structure and culture have a bearing on the willingness of these firms to implement KM.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Barriers to KM in law firms in Botswana (N=140).

	1 Strongly agree %	2 Agree %	3 Neutral %	4 Disagree %	5 Strongly disagree %	Non response %
Lawyers’ view of knowledge as a source of power	5.7	15.0	23.6	31.4	22.1	2.1
The perception that KM is an additional workload	12.9	23.6	42.9	17.1	1.4	2.1
The feeling that it puts pressure on billable hours	14.3	20.7	40.0	20.7		4.3
The feeling that the firm size is too small	23.6	22.9	26.4	22.9	–	4.3
Limited financial resources	21.4	33.6	40.0	5.0	–	–
Inadequate technological infrastructure	24.3	42.9	27.8	5.0	–	–
The inability of the firm’s leadership to enforce KM	11.4	23.6	53.6	7.1	–	4.3

From the above table, and the findings from the interviews, the major barriers to KM in small law firms in Botswana are technological infrastructure (67.2%) and limited financial resources (55.0%), the size of the firm (46.5%), leadership, the perception that KM is an additional work load and the culture of the law firm.

Technological infrastructure was considered as a major obstacle to KM in these law firms. This may either be because small law firms consider these technologies to be very expensive or because they are still at the initial stages in the adoption of information and communication technologies (ICTs) for KM. The ICTs mostly used in law firms in Botswana are telephones, computers, personal networked computers, email, Internet, case management systems and legal information systems (Fombad et al., 2009). The reality is that KM is not all about technology.

The limited financial resources may be an indication that these firms lack the necessary financial resources required to invest in ICT for KM. Interviewees confirmed that the cost of investing in information technologies was too high. In general terms, it can be very expensive to purchase and implement some of the typical law firm technologies for KM such as automated document management systems, document, content and practice management systems, advanced technologies like intranets and portals, and other knowledge-sharing initiatives.

The findings also show that the size of the firm is an inhibiting factor to KM (46.5%). Studies of KM in SMEs have also shown that small firms do not usually consider it as a priority and that the size of a firm is related to the willingness of the firm to devote personnel and money to new technologies (Campbell, 2002; Curve Consulting Survey Report, 2001; Nathanson and Levison, 2002).

All the interviewees acknowledged the lack of initiative and the negative perception of the value of KM on the part of management and managing partners as a major barrier to KM, although participants in the questionnaires did not consider this as a major factor. Interviewees commented that managing partners or leadership did not take any initiative in KM nor did they seem to appreciate its benefit. An interviewee pointed out that ‘management had not assigned anyone to take care of knowledge management’. Generally, lack of leadership commitment has been observed as a major obstacle to KM (McDermott and O’Dell, 2001:78; Mason and Pauleen, 2003; Ndlela and Du Toit, 2001). Top management and leadership commitment provides an additional motivation for staff to share knowledge. They act as peers in providing leading examples of knowledge sharing, identifying specific barriers to KM and sending messages throughout the firm that KM is crucial.

Although participants appeared indifferent to the perception of KM as an additional workload (42.9% were neutral), the findings from the interviews confirmed the view that KM is an additional workload. Interviewees indicated that lawyers considered time spent on KM as time wasted. For example, it was shown that lawyers had no intention to invest in non-billable hours and considered the time spent on internal efficiencies that did not immediately and directly generate profit in the firms unappealing and a waste of billable time.

Interviewees further revealed that lawyers considered work pressure and the pressure of meeting targets as major barriers to KM. Professional assistants are often under considerable pressure to meet targets by bringing in additional profit to the firm in order to earn a bonus salary. Time-based billing method and the partner-compensation methods where partners are compensated based on revenue generated, and revenue is generated based on hours billed, have been identified as probably the greatest barrier to KM in law firms (Kofoed, 2002; Rusanow, 2003, 2007). Kofoed (2002) observed that one of the biggest law firms in Scandinavia moved away from the time-billing model by introducing a system where lawyers are assessed not only on their ability but their willingness to participate in KM activities and other kinds of work that does not result in billing the client.

Although the participants in the survey did not view knowledge as a source of power (53.5% disagreed, and 23.6% were neutral), the findings from the interview revealed that the culture of the law firm is centred on knowledge hoarding. Some of the responses obtained from the interviews are as follows:

We work alone and keep our matters to ourselves;

I only consult a colleague when I am not sure of a general principle of law;

My legal matters are personal to me;

I am concerned that I may be outsmarted by my colleague so I prefer to keep my cards close to my chest;

I am only ready to share my knowledge when I know that my colleague has some knowledge to share with me, but even then I will not share everything;

I am respected because of the knowledge I have and I want to stay competitive;

I am reluctant to share my knowledge because there are colleagues who think they know it all and everything you say they will want to ridicule and prove that you do not know anything.

It was therefore clear that lawyers do manifest a team spirit or knowledge-sharing culture only insofar as discussions on the general principles of the law are concerned or where there is some interest to be gained. Lawyers believe that monopoly of particular information will lead to personal indispensability, job security, influence and professional respect within the firm.

Some lessons for enhancing knowledge management for small law firms

This section draws from the barriers to KM in small law firms to provide some lessons learned for enhancing it in such firms. Amongst these are the role of the managing partner in providing direction to KM, the importance of the role of people, technology and culture in KM, and also the importance of simplicity.

First with regards to the role of the managing partner in providing direction to KM, the managing partner in a firm with two or more lawyers and the sole proprietor in a one person firm should initiate and lead the KM process. For a start, the managing partner or sole proprietor may determine a common terminology and understanding of the concept of KM to the firm. He/she should also align KM to the firm’s business strategy. A positive attitude and manifestation of interest by the managing partner or sole proprietor towards KM will translate to the understanding of the importance of KM and its benefits in relation to the day-to-day business and specific goals and circumstances of the law firm. To this end, they should evaluate the purpose of KM in their firm and determine its expected outcome. Generally, the motives for initiating KM in small firms are not different from those in large firms. Hanzdic (2006) suggests the following three reasons why businesses start KM: risk minimizers, efficiency seekers and innovators. Furthermore, the managing partner or sole proprietor should assume the lead in auditing the firm’s resources and assets. One way will be to review the firm’s long-term goals and short- to medium-term objectives and identify ways by which they may be realized through KM.

The second lesson learned in enhancing KM in small firms is that technology, people, culture and processes will at all times act as either enablers of, or barriers to, its effective use. It is, however, important to note that SMEs have been successful in KM without investing and developing highly sophisticated technologies (Handzic, 2006). Therefore, the lack of highly complex information systems should not deter small law firms from implementing KM. With regards to culture, a major cultural shift from the concept of ‘individual knowledge is power’ to ‘collective knowledge is competitive advantage’ is crucial in small law firms. A starting point may be for firms to review their business strategy to incorporate a written code of knowledge sharing.

People-related issues are crucial for KM given that knowledge depends on the willingness of the people in the firm to create, use and share their knowledge. Also knowledge resides in the minds of people. Therefore, the managing director should ensure that there is an alignment between the personal intention of the individual and the paradigms of the organizations. Issues such as enhancing communication channels, opportunities for learning and interaction, appropriate incentive schemes, efficient reward systems, are crucial in these firms (Mason and Pauleen, 2003; Ndlela and Du Toit, 2001). Reward system may include special recognition of staff for the time spent in knowledge creation, sharing and distribution. Also lawyers should be assessed not only on their ability to meet targets but their willingness to participate in KM activities and other kinds of work that does not result in a bill being sent to a client. Small law firms should capitalize on their strengths of horizontal and flat structures and informal communication channels which is usually verbal, face-to-face informal and ‘in the corridor’ to create a conducive environment for knowledge sharing amongst people.

Small firms should consider integrating international and professional networks, attending conferences and presenting papers and learning from clients and competitors. In this way they will be able to adopt new KM processes necessary for creativity and innovations.

Finally, small law firms should start and keep it simple. A formal KM strategy is not necessary in these firms. Each firm should review its current knowledge initiatives and day-to-day ways of doing things and celebrate and build on its good practices. The different services and activities available and provided by the different people in the firm should be assessed in order to determine the ways by which KM may improve these services.

Although small law firms may learn a great deal from what other large firms are doing or have done, these firms will be able to assess what is working or does not work for them only when they get started and do something. KM techniques similar to those in large firms such as mentoring, lessons learned, organizational learning and maintaining databases should proceed through informal, incremental and iterative processes that provides practical and manageable changes and continuous development which is gradually introduced as the interest develops.

Conclusions

This article investigated the challenges to knowledge management in small law firms in Botswana and suggests some lessons for enhancing it. Small law firms can ill afford an all-out approach to KM as adopted in large firms. The onus is on the law firm to start simple and for the managing partners or sole proprietors to champion the process. Also it was established that, similarly to large firms, technology, people, culture and processes will at all times be acting as either enablers of or barriers to KM. It is recommended that small firms should capitalize on their strength such as informal communication channels and horizontal structures and improve on their weaknesses such as the culture of knowledge hoarding. Suffice to say that there is no single or right way to approach KM in these firms. Every small firm is different and the approach to KM in these firms is not simply a scaled-down version of large firms’ experiences but will need to reflect its own particular circumstances