1. BIgLaw flywheel seems relevant to other domains, especially consulting (which seems even more fortified from ~disruption~ b/c of how ambiguous it is).
2. That tech innovations are sustaining rather than disruptive seems to partially be a GTM problem, maybe?
3. "At the high end of the professions, it’s impossible to be too good. It’s impossible to overshoot." 👏 Good point
And yeah, re: ambiguity, that's really insightful, I had never thought about that before. In law / medicine, the feedback is there (you either win the case or the patient dies or something) -- quality is more tangible. But for consulting I really have no idea what makes a job really well done (i.e., what's the counterfactual if the job is poorly done?), or even what the job is..
2. IMO yes and no. Yes in that the reason Clearspire (and to some extent Atrium) failed was that they targeted the wrong initial market / seemed to have the wrong business model for their solution. And no in that a lot of legal startups are targeted to helping corporate law clients do their jobs better. The product is fundamentally sustaining rather than disruptive, and no change in their GTM would make it disruptive -- they'd need to change the underlying product itself.
🔥🔥🔥
1. BIgLaw flywheel seems relevant to other domains, especially consulting (which seems even more fortified from ~disruption~ b/c of how ambiguous it is).
2. That tech innovations are sustaining rather than disruptive seems to partially be a GTM problem, maybe?
3. "At the high end of the professions, it’s impossible to be too good. It’s impossible to overshoot." 👏 Good point
1. Agreed that consulting is extremely locked in, in no small part b/c of prestige. I've previously written about that (briefly) here: https://chrisxwan.substack.com/p/42-why-government-software-sucks 😉
And yeah, re: ambiguity, that's really insightful, I had never thought about that before. In law / medicine, the feedback is there (you either win the case or the patient dies or something) -- quality is more tangible. But for consulting I really have no idea what makes a job really well done (i.e., what's the counterfactual if the job is poorly done?), or even what the job is..
2. IMO yes and no. Yes in that the reason Clearspire (and to some extent Atrium) failed was that they targeted the wrong initial market / seemed to have the wrong business model for their solution. And no in that a lot of legal startups are targeted to helping corporate law clients do their jobs better. The product is fundamentally sustaining rather than disruptive, and no change in their GTM would make it disruptive -- they'd need to change the underlying product itself.