Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2012 Staffing Survey
2012 Staffing Survey
2012 Staffing Survey
FEBRUARY 2013
General Information
About ILTA
Providing technology solutions to law firms and law departments gets more complex every day. Connecting with your peers to exchange ideas with those who have been there, done that has never been more valuable. For over three decades, the International Legal Technology Association has led the way in sharing knowledge and experience for those faced with challenges in their firms and legal departments. ILTA members come from firms and law departments of all sizes and all areas of practice, all sharing a common need to have access to the latest information about products and support services that impact the legal profession.
Disclaimer
This report is designed for use as a general guide and is not intended to serve as a recommendation or to replace the advice of experienced professionals. If expert assistance is desired, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Neither ILTA nor any author or contributor shall have liability for any persons reliance on the content of or any errors or omissions in this publication.
Copyright Notice
Copyright ILTA 2013. All rights reserved. Published in the United States of America. No part of this report may be reproduced in any manner or medium whatsoever without the prior written permission of ILTA. Published by ILTA. c/o Editor 9701 Brodie Lane, Suite 200 Austin, TX 78748
35:1
LDP
fn
Navigation Tips
Were pleased to present this years Staffing Survey in a format that is optimized for digital use. quickly navigate to the different sections Use the Acrobat tools to search for keywords and print specific pages. Weve included icons in the footer to
35:1
LDP
fn
Functional Responsibilities
Demographics
IT Staffing Ratios
35:1
LDP
fn
Intelliteach is the service desk resource that can save you precious understands the demands of your business. And no one else provides or Complete Service Desk Outsourcing. To learn more about how Intelliteach can help your rm cut costs 866-698-7837 or 404-591-7700, or visit www.intelliteach.com.
866.698.7837 | 404.591.7700 | www.intelliteach.com Now open in London! | +44 20 3051 6273 | www.intelliteach.co.uk
Demographics
ILTAS 2012 IT STAFFING SURVEY
The responses for our 2012 IT staffing survey were gathered in late 2012. The basic format of the survey is similar to that of prior years, although we continue to strive to simplify our respondents work to describe staffing levels in various categories of functional responsibilities, as well as to improve our ability to report the results effectively. This year, we made some improvements to the survey analysis we hope you will find helpful. We included some comparisons between AmLaw 200 firms and all other responding firms. We have shown where personnel with technical responsibilities are members of departments other than IT. We also sought data to help answer the age-old question of the appropriate ratio of IT staff to end users and related contributing factors more about the surprising results of that analysis below.
Number of Users
150 or Less 151-250 251-500 501 or More
* 2012: Included 331 usable responses from the survey, five firms provided number of lawyers but incorrectly included 0 for other counts, therefore not included in law firm size
We know surveys take valuable time, and responding to this one is particularly complex. We are grateful for our respondents generosity in providing information to help their peers understand legal IT staffing trends. Thank you!
35:1
LDP
fn
Demographics
OVERALL TRENDS
We took note of the buzz around our LegalSECTM initiative and the high priority law firms are giving to security. For the first time, we included a question about staffing for security job duties. In future years, we will be able to see trends in how law firms staff for security. Economic conditions remain a concern, with more than oneInadequately staffed (doing more with less)
Adequately staffed (just getting by)
58%
48%
43%
staffed (have some wiggle room). More firms consider themselves Adequately staffed (just getting by) than last year, while fewer are Inadequately staffed (doing more with less).
third of respondents predicting the effects of the downturn will continue through the current year.
I believe the effects of the downturn will continue through the coming year
37.2%
26.5%
18.2%
returning to 2007 (pre-recession) levels. As the economic recovery continues, we note that fewer firms are reporting staff decreases. We leave it to you to draw your own conclusions as you scrutinize the data presented in the following pages, but perhaps we have grounds for being cautiously optimistic while continuing to make sure our belts are tight and we are operating efficiently.
However, other responses indicate things may be looking up. We see a small increase in firms that consider themselves Comfortably
35:1
LDP
fn
Demographics
Stayed the same
average ratios of users to IT staff for the past three years. As you can see, there is not a large variation by firm size or over time. We know this benchmark is controversial; many hold that
Decreased
it is an invalid basis for decisions about staffing levels because of the significant differences in complexity of firms technology 2012
2011
environments. 80%
This year, we sought a way to better inform our members about the effects of complexity on staffing levels by including this question: While ILTA members always have a strong interest in the ratio of IT personnel to total number of lawyers or firm members, that ratio is often considered too simple of a measurement as a basis for staffing decisions, because the complexity of the technology environment has an important influence on staffing requirements. We have asked you several questions about your environment. In the following chart, please indicate your opinion of how much each factor increases complexity of the technology environment, with 1 being the lowest and 5 being the highest. The factors listed as contributing
2012
past few years, we were somewhat surprised by the response to the question (asked for the first time this year) Have you changed your firms or your IT Departments staffing structure or skill set as a result of client demand for alternative fee arrangements?
No, we have not changed staffing to support these efforts Yes, we have added firm (but not IT) staff to support these efforts Yes, we have provided IT staff with the skills to support these efforts Yes, we have added staff in IT to support these efforts 0% 5.2% 3.7% 1.2%
89.9%
35:1
LDP
fn
Demographics
Multiple offices International offices Frequent use of contract attorneys Tech facilities centralized in main office Tech facilities centralized in branch office Tech facilities centralized in off-site data center Tech facilities distributed among multiple offices IT adoption profile of firm is leading edge IT adoption profile of firm is main stream IT adoption profile of firm is conservative IT adoption profile of firm is rarely if ever IT adoption profile of firm is only when firm is doing very well IT professionals work only in main office IT professionals work in branch offices Offices with no IT staff IT Department provides support for end users home computing needs IT Department staff provide support after-hours and on weekends IT Department does not have administrative support IT Department supports consumer technologies IT Department uses consultants Other Please describe
Average Ratio Users to IT Staff (very large firms) Average IT Staff (very large firms) Average Total Users (very large firms) 31.6 52.0 1330.0 30.4 64.6 1408.9 26.1 43.0 1044.0 Average Ratio Users to IT Staff (large firms) Average IT Staff (large firms) Average Total Users (large firms) 33.0 11.0 330.0 37.2 13.3 344.1 33.2 11.0 331.9 Average Ratio Users to IT Staff (medium firms) Average IT Staff (medium firms) Average Total Users (medium firms) 38.6 6.0 198.3 38.0 6.1 201.8 39.0 6.2 209.6 Average Ratio Users to IT Staff (overall) Average IT Staff (overall) Average Total Users (overall)
2012
35.3 16.0 425.5
2011
36.4 15.0 360.5
2010
35.1 10.6 289.7
Average Ratio Users to IT Staff (small firms) Average IT Staff (small firms) Average Total Users (small firms)
35:1
LDP
fn
Demographics
In our analysis, we calculated a score for each complexity factor. Each firms response to the listed factors was recorded on a 4-point scale:
International offices
IT adoption profile of firm is leading edge
2.00
1.96
2.17
2.12
1.90
1.73
1.81
1.73
1.51
1.62
1.29
1.41
1.48
1.56
1.24
1.26
1.46
1.52
1.23
1.22
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
Very Large
Large
Tech facilities distributed among multiple offices
Medium
Small
Critically complex: 3 Very complex: 2 Somewhat complex: 1 No difference: 0 Not applicable: Removed from analysis
Multiple offices
We then calculated averages for each category by firm size. The top five ranked factors for contributing to the complexity of the technology environment were the same across all firm sizes. While different sizes of firms ranked these factors in a different order, the consensus for the top five was the same. Many of the responding firms have environments that include the top five complexity factors, so we therefore attempted an analysis of the correlation between IT staff ratios and highest levels of complexity. There was no evidence of a correlation.
the e-groups to get your comments. We posted these results, suggesting (with tongue somewhat in cheek) the only conclusion to be drawn is that an across-the-board standard ratio is a valid measure upon which to base IT staffing decisions. We invited readers to disagree and discuss. While we still cannot explain why the survey results show such similarity in ratios across the
35:1
LDP
fn
Demographics
board or why there was no correlation between ratios and the complexity factors upon which respondents agreed, we are pleased to share the insightful comments offered by several of our members in response to our e-group post: From the CTO of a very large firm: Strict adherence to those ratios to determine staffing adequacy is not appropriate, in my opinion. Our ratios have tended to be on the low end (i.e., closer to 25:1 than 35:1), which would tend to make you think were well-staffed. In fact, I consider us to be understaffed in some areas due to all those top five complexity factors, plus a huge backlog of projects engendered by a desire on the part of our management to keep us ahead of the curve. Of course, theres only so much you can get done with a given level of staffing, so we have to employ more outside consulting assistance (and therefore spend more) than we might otherwise. Conclusion: staffing decisions have to be based on all those complexity factors, plus other factors unique to ones own organization, and, in the end, it still comes down to what managements philosophies are regarding headcount. Further, how one counts outsourced functions also could significantly skew those ratios when comparing oneself to our peers. What I think we all have in common is that we are equal when we generalize. Greater specificity is very difficult to achieve with accuracy as there are too many inherently unique variables to The Director of Infrastructure and Administrative Systems from a very large firm had these comments: I agree based upon the response that no clear correlation exists between firm size and staffing ratios. We all work in worlds that are kind of similar but also unique and we do the best we can with the headcount we are allocated and the comparative talent of our teams, focus of our firm, and competing priorities. However, I feel quite comfortable with a generalization for ILTA to which I can compare my numbers. The Director of Technology from a smaller firm suggested that there are issues that affect appropriate IT staffing levels besides the complexity factors we listed, including secretarial staff ratios, custom vs. canned accounting reports, using and supporting other custom programming, self-sufficiency and technical skill of end-users, and most especially whether IT staff are well-trained, cross-trained, and able to perform at high levels.
35:1
LDP
fn
Demographics
consider when we compare our firms. If ILTA reported that firms of the size of mine had a total headcount to IT ratio of 200:1, I might find that interesting if my number was greater than 200:1 and possibly use that as an aide to provide greater service to my firm.
I find less value in comparing how many engineers I have to other peoples numbers as that descriptor covers many different roles and the apples to apples comparison quickly evaporates.
Team lead, Shirley Crow, Chief Information Officer at Farella Braun + Martel LLP, has led this team for several years; and I commend her continued dedication, her keen eye and her focus on achieving the teams mission and vision to deliver data analysis to support IT staffing decisions. Teammates included Sandy Mikita of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Catherine Monte of Fox Rothschild LLP and ILTA staffer Deb Himsel. As a team, these good folks reviewed, dissected, assembled, re-dissected, reassembled, honed and polished the questionnaire; and each was instrumental in reviewing our final product that youre enjoying. A small team of ILTA staffers provided the final wind beneath the wings of this herculean effort. Its been my pleasure to assist this stellar team in providing information that we hope informs and supports your staffing models. Randi Mayes Executive Director
Finally, the Systems Manager at a small firm said: I am currently at a 65:1 ratio. I think the main contributing factors which help maintain that ratio are the following: (1) We moved to virtual desktops, which reduced system maintenance and administration; (2) we use an outside consultant for guidance and special projects; and (3) we have only one office location.
35:1
LDP
fn
Struggling to nd Struggling nd RIGHTto talent? the RIGHT talent? Letthe us do the heavy lifting for you!
CIOs Directors Senior Managers Let us do the heavy lifting for you! Application, Web, Database, SharePoint Developers Infrastructure Administrators andEngineers Support and Training CIOs Directors Senior Managers Litigation / Practice Support andSharePoint KnowledgeDevelopers Management Application, Web, Database, Infrastructure Administrators and Engineers Support and Training Litigation / Practice Support and Knowledge Management
Call FRIEDMAN WILLIAMS Your Partners for Direct Hire and Contract Legal IT Stafng Call FRIEDMAN WILLIAMS
Your Partners for Direct Hire and Contract Legal IT Stafng
www.FriedmanWilliams.com www.FriedmanWilliams.com
855-FW-Hires 855-FW-Hires
Profile 1
I am part of what we call the Discovery Management Organization, which is within the legal department. It includes legal support staff, project managers and operational staff. There are 30 of us in the group, and we support 10 litigation attorneys. Beyond that, each practice area has a support team specific to their needs. Our IT security team performs forensic collections. There are 5-6 people on the team, and theyre part of the information security and risk management department. Our IT legal team is in charge of software upgrades, databases, etc. We identify a need and together we determine which solution to use or to build a solution internally.
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn
Functional Responsibilities
For the following charts, we listed several areas of functional responsibility found in typical law firm IT departments and asked respondents to indicate which titles are filled at their firm in each applicable chart and provide a rough estimate of the percentage of time an FTE (full-time equivalent) spends in each category of duty. Some firms have multiple people who hold the same title and perform the same duties (for example, multiple Helpdesk Specialists); in such cases, we asked respondents to list the title once, and indicate a greater than 100% FTE. We requested inclusion of leased or outsourced employees who work in the firms office, but not temporary employees of any nature. We also captured FTEs who sit outside the IT department but perform duties associated with each functional area. The red columns in the charts provide those numbers. In reading the charts, the numbers represent responding firms, not staff counts. Lets examine the column headings:
A B
1%-20%
# of responses
as you move to the left. Column G simply indicates that more than one FTE is in the role. For example, in the first chart on the following page, lets examine the row labeled Manager.
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Manager
46
46 of our Small Firm respondents indicated they had full-time personnel who performed the role of manager; 3 responding firms had people devoting more than half of their time to the role; 3 responding firms had people devoting roughly half of their time to the role; 7 responding firms had people who devoted less than half their time (but more than a quarter of their time) to the role; 5 responding firms had people who devoted less than a quarter of their time to the role; and there were no firms in the Small Firm category who reported multiple individuals in the role. Youll also note that the numbers in the red columns represent people who sit outside of the IT department who are devoting some time to this role.
C
21%-40%
# of responses
D
41%-60%
# of responses
E
61%-80%
# of responses
F
81%-100%
# of responses
G
Over 100%
# of responses
Column F is the equivalent of full time employees. Everything to the left of it represents less than FTEs with decreasing time spent in each column
35:1
LDP
fn
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator
2 6 0 5 0 2 0
2 1 0 0 0 3 0
1 3 1 7 0 2 2
0 2 0 2 0 0 0
1 4 2 3 0 2 0
1 2 3 0 0 0 0
0 6 0 3 0 2 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 0
2 29 1 46 3 13 6
5 3 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
2 3 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 24 0 9 1 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 2 0
1 1 0 1 0 0 0
What percent of management and supervisory functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 5.68 4.17 2.84 2.85
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator
0 1 0 0 0 0 1
1 1 0 1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 1 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 4 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 2 2 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39 31 4 18 2 15 7
1 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 8 1 17 1 5 2
0 2 0 2 0 0 0
35:1
LDP
fn
Network Services
Includes any position where the primary duties relate to developing or supporting infrastructure technologies. Positions that fall into this category would include responsibilities in the following areas: network administration, servers, LANs, WANs, data center, equipment maintenance, remote access, disaster recovery, email system administration and security. (This does NOT include application development or telecom/audio-visual services).
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Architect Engineer Technician Specialist
8 0 10 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 13 3
1 0 1 0 1 0
4 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 1
0 0 0 0 1 0
4 0 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
20 2 32 3 14 4 2 3 2 4 4 3
2 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Architect Engineer Technician Specialist
2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 9 0 5 0 1 2 2 9 3 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 6 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
What percent of networking services (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 19.6 4.87 11.5 7.9
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Architect Engineer Technician Specialist
4 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 3 0 5 1 0 0 0 3 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 7 0 12 0 0 2 0 5 1 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Architect Engineer Technician Specialist
4 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0
4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
6 2 31 5 8 3 2 5 7 10 8 3
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8 0 11 2 1 2 3 26 12 7
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
35:1
LDP
fn
Security
Includes any position where the primary duties specifically relate to security strategies, development, deployment and oversight. The term security might apply to network and cyber security, physical security, or work with regulatory/compliance agencies.
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Officer Senior Manager Manager Administrator Architect Engineer Analyst Specialist
9 0 1 12 7 1 7 1 2
1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 4 2 0 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 5 1 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
2 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 1 2 30 9 2 4 1 3
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Officer Senior Manager Manager Administrator Architect Engineer Analyst Specialist
5 0 0 4 2 0 4 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 4 1 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
What percent of security functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 20.4 19 13.3 16.7
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Officer Senior Manager Manager Administrator Architect Engineer Analyst Specialist
4 2 0 7 4 0 3 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 2 0 4 5 0 4 1 1
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Officer Senior Manager Manager Administrator Architect Engineer Analyst Specialist
6 0 1 5 3 0 4 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 2 3 0 0 3 0 1
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 4 1 1 2 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 2 4 8 3 0 7 2 2
1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0
0 1 0 1 1 0 4 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35:1
LDP
fn
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist
19 0 13 0 4 0 3 2 3 2
1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
3 0 8 0 8 0 2 0 5 4
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 11 6
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
14 1 26 3 10 4 3 2 14 5
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist
3 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 10 0 0 0 1 3 5 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 13 10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Excluding third party coverage for week nights and weekend days/nights, what percent of helpdesk and desktop support duties (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 8.19 4.71 7.19 12.23
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist
6 0 7 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 7 0 1 0 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 6 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 6 0 1 0 2 1 11 10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist
4 1 1 0 3 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 5 1 0 0 0 1 3 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 27 4 2 1 3 9 4 10
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 8 1 0 0 4 10 33 24
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
35:1
LDP
fn
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Trainer Technician Specialist Courseware/ e-Learning Developer Writer/Editor
12 0 11 0 5 0 1 0 3 6 3 0 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1
3 0 6 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
3 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0
0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 7 2 2 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
9 1 21 2 3 4 2 1 8 5 2 2 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Trainer Technician Specialist Courseware/ e-Learning Developer Writer/Editor
2 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 1 5 2 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 3 0 0 0 3 2 18 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
What percent of end user technology training functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 19.35 23 11 28.5
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Trainer Technician Specialist Courseware/ e-Learning Developer Writer/Editor
4 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 13 1 2 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Trainer Technician Specialist Courseware/ e-Learning Developer Writer/Editor
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 19 1 0 0 4 6 17 1 4 3 3
1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 1
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0
35:1
LDP
fn
Application Development
Includes any title specifically related to application development and might encompass developers, programmers, reporting/BI specialists and systems analysts for applications that are not Web-based. (This does NOT include applications used on the Web.)
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Developer Programmer Analyst Technician Specialist
3 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
3 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
11 1 14 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Developer Programmer Analyst Technician Specialist
3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 3 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 3 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
What percent of application development functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 33.33 48.46 21.7 22.86
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Developer Programmer Analyst Technician Specialist
2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 1 0 2 4
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Developer Programmer Analyst Technician Specialist
3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 2 24 0 3 0 1 6 14 6 11 1 2
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
0 0 4 1 2 0 0 0 16 9 8 2 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35:1
LDP
fn
Application Administration
Includes any title that relates to the administration of applications. Duties might include application deployment, configuration and testing. This functional area includes database administration; administering accounting and HR systems, email, CRM, document management systems, etc.
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Specialist
9 0 14 2 6 1 3 0 11
2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 0
3 0 3 0 1 0 3 0 4
0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
6 0 5 0 4 2 1 0 4
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 1 23 1 6 2 1 2 5
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Specialist
4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 5 0 2 0 0 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 6
0 0 0 0
What percent of application administration functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL 13.97 15.36 6.67 5.59
0 0 0 0 0
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Specialist
3 1 6 0 1 0 1 0 2
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
2 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 5 0 6 1 1 0 6
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Specialist
3 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 19 1 12 0 3 6 11
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
0 0 3 1 11 0 4 0 16
1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2
35:1
LDP
fn
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Engineer Technician Specialist
14 0 14 1 6 0 3 4 8 7
1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
4 0 3 1 4 2 0 2 4 2
1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
6 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 8 0 3 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
10 2 19 2 6 4 2 1 6 2
2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Engineer Technician Specialist
5 0 3 0 3 2 0 3 5 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 5 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
What percent of telecom and audiovisual functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 18 21.25 21.61 12.1
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Engineer Technician Specialist
6 0 3 0 4 2 1 1 4 4
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 4
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Engineer Technician Specialist
5 0 6 0 2 1 2 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 3 1 2 0 3 4 3 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 10 3 11 0 4 5 14 14
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 3 0 2 0 3 2 8 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
35:1
LDP
fn
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist Analyst
13 0 12 0 4 0 3 0 8 5 1
3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1
1 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 5 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 1
1 0 6 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 2
3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 14 0 1 2 2 0 2 9 0
3 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist Analyst
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0
2 0 5 0 3 0 2 0 0 4 0
3 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 4
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
What percent of practice support functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 18.2 12.12 16.21 11.49
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist Analyst
5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
2 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 6 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Supervisor Technician Specialist Analyst
2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 1 14 1 2 1 4 2 4 3 5
9 1 10 0 2 1 2 0 4 4 3
0 0 5 2 1 1 3 1 5 10 9
1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 5 2
35:1
LDP
fn
Knowledge Management
Includes head of the firms KM department, functional managers and supervisors. The primary duties of the position involve supporting the firms KM initiatives, processes and systems. Some typical technologies related to KM might include client-facing KM tools (extranets, etc.); data mining; enterprise search; expertise location; taxonomy/folksonomy systems; legal research; and social networking.
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator KM Attorney (includes Professional Support lawyer) Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher
2 3 0 9 0 1 2
0 1 0 0 0 1 0
0 2 0 2 0 2 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 5 0 4 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 1
0 3 0 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 6 0 11 1 0 0
2 1 1 2 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator KM Attorney (includes Professional Support lawyer) Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher
0 1 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 3 0 1 0 0 0
0 4 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
What percent of knowledge managementfunctions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 13.29 6.32 9.21 6.06
1 4 1 0
1 0 0 2
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
4 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
2 0 0 1
0 0 0 1
1 0 0 1
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator KM Attorney (includes Professional Support lawyer) Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher
2 5 0 1 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
1 0 0 1 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 2 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chief Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator KM Attorney (includes Professional Support lawyer) Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher
1 4 0 1 0 1 1
2 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0
0 2 0 1 0 0 0
1 3 0 1 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 0 2 0 0
1 11 1 6 0 2 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
1 0 0 0
1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
2 0 1 1
1 1 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 1
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 2 1 2
1 2 2 3
0 2 0 1
1 1 0 2
35:1
LDP
fn
Small Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
Large Firm
61%-80%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher Engineer
9 0 9 0 0 1 1 2 3 1 1
1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1
2 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
10 2 15 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher Engineer
2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 4 0 2
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 1
1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
What percent of portal/ intranet and Web development functions (as described above) are outsourced to consultants? SMALL MEDIUM LARGE VERY LARGE 36.93 42.33 29.57 22.02
Medium Firm
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
1%-20%
# of responses
21%-40%
# of responses
41%-60%
# of responses
61%-80%
# of responses
81%-100%
# of responses
Over 100%
# of responses
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher Engineer
7 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1
1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 1
0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Director Assistant Director Manager Assistant (or Junior) Manager Administrator Assistant (or Junior) Administrator Coordinator Analyst Developer Researcher Engineer
4 0 4 1 2 1 0 2 2 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1
0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
5 0 14 0 7 1 3 3 13 0 2
0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 3 1 0
0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 8 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
35:1
LDP
fn
In those firms that had a referral program in place, it was common for the referring employee to receive a monetary award that ranged from $500 to $2,500 (!) if the new hire was successful past the probation period, and that ranged from three to six months.
How predominately does networking through ILTA play into your process?
Significantly Somewhat Not much Not at all 13 21 9 7 26% 42% 18% 14%
35:1
LDP
fn
What is the total FTE staffing number for your IT department? (Include all offices and all functions providing technology services and considered part of or aligned with IT.)
10.6
13.7
Median
15
20
Average
Comparison
AmLaw 200
Median
35:1
LDP
fn
Are your technology facilities (i.e., data center) centralized or distributed, off-site or on-site?
Centralized in our main office
2012
2011
2010
Distributed; we have data centers in multiple offices
17%
19%
21%
12%
10%
8%
0%
1%
1%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
72%
71%
70%
Yes
No
How many offices in total does your law firm have? (Include international locations.)
5.3
Average
6.1
5.9
3.0
Median
4.0
5.0
0
2
4
6
8
2012
2011
2010
Centralized in our main office Distributed; we have data centers in multiple offices Centralized in an off-site data center Centralized in a branch office
39.7% 79.1% 27% 14.2% 33.3% 6.7% 0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Comparison
AmLaw 200
Average
Comparison
AmLaw 200
Median
35:1
LDP
fn
Please indicate the direct reporting relationship of IT within your law firm. (Select all that apply if multiple direct reports.)
Head of IT reports to Legal Administrator
23%
20%
21%
23%
21%
18%
8%
7%
8%
5%
4%
4%
5%
4%
7%
5%
4%
5%
4%
4%
3%
10%
20%
30%
2012
2011
2010
40%
27%
36%
34%
Type B - Mainstream
Type C - Conservative
Head of IT reports to Managing Partner Head of IT reports to Technology Partner IT Management reports to Law Firm Technology Committee of firm partners only IT Management reports to Law Firm Technology Committee of firm partners and legal/administrative Other
66.7% 60.1%
Comparison
AmLaw 200
Type C - Conservative
Type D - Rarely if ever Type E - Only when the firm is doing very well
35:1
LDP
fn
IT Director
IT Manager
Other
In your opinion, which are the most important factors in deciding to place IT professionals in branch offices?
71%
Number of users in branch office
39%
57%
Technology Director
2%
3%
2012
Needy or demanding users in branch office
Technology Manager
2011
2010
Data center facility located in branch office
12%
35:1
LDP
fn
Project Management (IT and/or Special Projects)
Litigation/Practice Support
Knowledge Management
Records
Copy Center
Docketing/Calendaring
Legal Project Management
Word Processing
Facilities
Library
Conflict Checking
Other
Marketing
Mail Room
Alternative Fee Arrangements
Reception
Building Security
Project Management Office (PMO)
6%
10%
8%
7%
6%
8%
6%
5%
8%
9%
5%
8%
7%
5%
6%
5%
5%
5%
6%
3%
4%
4%
3%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
10%
11%
9%
10%
5%
Comparison
Project Management (IT and/or Special Projects) Litigation/Practice Support Knowledge Management Records Copy Center Docketing/Calendaring Legal Project Management Word Processing Facilities Library Conflict Checking Other Marketing Mail Room Alternative Fee Arrangements 2012 2011 2010 Reception 17.8% 15.3% 14.1% 9.4% 9.8% 5.3% 1.8% 6.5%
27.0% 24.9%
4.3% 5.7% 2.5% 5.4% 3.1% 5.2% 5.8% 10.4% 3.3% 4.3% 3.1% 4.3% 2.8% 0.6% 3.0% 2.5% 1.0% 0.9% AmLaw 200 Non AmLaw 200
35:1
LDP
fn
How do you provide support to users in offices with no IT staff? (Select all that apply)
We
use
remote
control
tools
to
assist
with
so<ware
ques>ons
and
problems
User
support
services
are
centralized
in
our
main
oce
Members
of
the
IT
sta
regularly
travel
to
branch
oces
with
no
IT
sta
We
outsource
as
needed
tasks
that
must
be
done
on
site,
such
as
printer
repairs,
PC
moves,
etc.
We
send
someone
from
a
nearby
oce
when
on-site
assistance
is
required
We
send
someone
from
a
nearby
oce
when
on-site
assistance
is
required
A
member
of
branch
oce
administra>on
is
trained
to
handle
basic
user
support
services
Facili>es
sta
handle
many
hands-on
tasks
involving
technology
equipment
and
support
1%
2012
Other
0%
0%
3%
1%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2011
2010
6%
7%
8%
6%
6%
7%
26%
24%
23%
22%
24%
19%
15%
14%
17%
14%
13%
14%
10%
10%
12%
10%
35:1
LDP
fn
Does your IT department provide support for end users home computing needs?
Yes, but only to the extent of helping them with access to our remote access systems
Yes, we require the user to bring the PC to the office
15%
15%
42%
42%
38%
Firmwide Average %
11%
Firmwide Median%
Yes, we make house calls No, but some of our employees moonlight to earn extra money by providing home computing support No, we do not provide home PC support
15%
Local Average %
12%
Local Median %
10%
35:1
LDP
fn
Week Days
On-Site Employees
On Call/Pager Employees
Third-party with escalation to employee
Third-Party
6%
10%
10%
6%
5%
4%
5%
9%
0%
0%
1%
30%
60%
2012
2011
2010
90%
84%
80%
80%
On Call/Pager Employees
Week Nights
58%
60%
66%
19%
20%
16%
13%
10%
6%
6%
12%
4%
4%
6%
30%
60%
90%
2012
2011
2010
On Call/Pager Employees
Weekend Days
60%
62%
65%
17%
18%
18%
12%
10%
6%
7%
11%
5%
4%
6%
30%
60%
90%
2012
2011
2010
Not Covered
Not Covered 0%
Third-Party 0%
0%
Comparison
76.4%
86.3%
4.2%
6.8%
12.5%
4.0%
6.9%
2.9%
0.0%
0.0%
30%
60%
AmLaw 200
Non AmLaw 200
90%
Third-Party
6.2%
5.4%
0.0%
5.7%
30%
Third-party with escalation to employee
On-Site Employees
On Call/Pager Employees
AmLaw 200
Comparison
43.2%
On Call/Pager Employees
24.3%
15.2%
25.7%
8.5%
6.8%
6.0%
0.0%
6.0%
30%
60%
64.2%
AmLaw 200
Comparison
AmLaw 200
On-Site Employees
On-Site Employees
Third-Party
Not Covered
Not Covered
Not Covered
Third-Party
0%
0%
0%
35:1
LDP
fn
Weekend Nights
On Call/Pager Employees
14%
14%
15%
13%
11%
8%
6%
7%
6%
7%
11%
30%
60%
90%
2012
2011
2010
Third-Party
59%
62%
67%
On Call/Pager Employees
Holidays
57%
60%
62%
16%
16%
16%
12%
10%
9%
7%
10%
6%
7%
12%
30%
60%
90%
2012
2011
2010
Third-Party 0%
0%
Comparison
On Call/Pager Employees
13.9%
13.7%
30.6%
8.6%
0.0%
10.1%
6.0%
5.4%
0%
30%
60%
AmLaw 200
Non AmLaw 200
90%
48.6%
62.2%
On Call/Pager Employees
49.4%
58.9%
15.6%
15.8%
28.6%
8.1%
0.0%
11.6%
6.5%
5.6%
0%
30%
60%
AmLaw 200
Comparison
AmLaw 200
On-Site Employees
On-Site Employees
Not Covered
Not Covered
Third-Party
Third-Party
35:1
LDP
fn
On call, with no extra compensation - part of the job On call, paid based on actual time spent on call Trips to the office paid based on actual time spent On call, paid based on fixed stipend (paid even if no calls) Trips to the office not compensated - part of the job On call, compensatory time Not applicable - do not provide after-hours coverage Trips to the office paid based on guaranteed minimum Trips to the office paid on fixed stipend 14% 15% 13% 14% 12% 12% 10% 10% 10% 5% 5% 7% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 5% 1% 1% 1%
25% 27% 29% 25% 24% 21% On call, with no extra compensation - part of the job On call, paid based on actual time spent on call Trips to the office paid based on actual time spent On call, paid based on fixed stipend (paid even if no calls) Trips to the office not compensated - part of the job On call, compensatory time Not applicable - do not provide after-hours coverage Trips to the office paid based on guaranteed minimum Trips to the office paid on fixed stipend 14.4% 14.4% 18.2% 13.3% 9.8% 10.1% 3.8% 5.8% 1.5% 3.4% 3.0% 2.5% 0.8% 0.9% AmLaw 200 20.5% 26.1% 28.0% 23.6%
Comparison
35:1
LDP
fn
19% 25% Yes 19% 16% 81% 75% No 81% 84% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 2012 2011 2010 No 88% 86% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2012 2011 2010 Yes 12% 14%
100%
Have you changed your staffing structure or skill set as a result of end-user demand to use consumer technologies for firm business?
Yes
33%
37%
No
No
68%
63%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2012
2011
10.8%
Comparison
AmLaw 200
52.4%
Yes
35:1
LDP
fn
If you have made staffing changes as a result of end-user demand to use consumer technologies for firm business, please select all that apply:
We have purchased the relevant consumer technologies for IT department so staff can properly support
We have increased the amount of staff time spent on supporting consumer technologies for firm business
We have added staff training to support various consumer technologies
We have added staff to support various consumer technologies
0%
9%
9%
10%
20%
30%
29%
30%
23%
24%
2012
2011
40%
50%
39%
37%
89.9%
5.2%
3.7%
1.2%
2012
Comparison
AmLaw 200
No, we have not changed staffing to support these efforts Yes, we have added firm (but not IT) staff to support these efforts Yes, we have provided IT staff with the skills to support these efforts Yes, we have added staff in IT to support these efforts 14.3% 3% 7.9% 2.6% 0% 1.5% 0% 20% 40% 60%
76.2% 92.2%
We have purchased the relevant consumer technologies for IT department so staff can properly support We have increased the amount of staff time spent on supporting consumer technologies for firm business We have added staff training to support various consumer technologies 29.3% 28.6%
Comparison
AmLaw 200
39.0% 39.3%
24.4% 22.9%
7.3% 9.3%
35:1
LDP
fn
Stayed the same Stayed the same 49% 49% 53% 30% 24% 2012 2011 2010 60% 0% Increased, but not to 2007 levels 5% 21% 20% 40% 60% 11% 0% 9% 12%
75% 67%
Increased
15%
Decreased
Decreased
0%
If the total FTE staffing of your IT department has changed since 2007, has the attorney headcount changed roughly proportionately?
52%
Yes
37%
33%
48%
No
63%
67%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
2012
2011
2010
Comparison
AmLaw 200
Stayed the same 23.8% 7.5% 11.1% 7.8% 11.1% 3.7% 0% 20% 40%
52.4% 78.7%
Decreased
35:1
LDP
fn
Under what circumstances do you engage consultants? (Select all that apply.)
Special skills/ knowledge
Emerging/new technology
Staff augmentation
Staff backfill
3%
2%
7%
10%
20%
30%
40%
12%
10%
11%
8%
8%
7%
2012
2011
2010
50%
33%
32%
30%
44%
47%
45%
Other
Comparison
AmLaw 200
0%
60.3% 56%
What are your options for managing staff workloads? (Select all that apply.)
Re-prioritize work
43%
42%
44%
33%
32%
30%
14%
15%
11%
7%
8%
8%
4%
3%
7%
Inadequately staffed (doing more with less) Comfortably staffed (have some wiggle room)
28.6% 24.3%
11.1% 17.9%
Pay overtime Hire temporary staff Request help from other departments Other 0%
20%
35:1
LDP
fn
Yes
Our firms IT staffing levels have not changed much since the economic downturn
I dont think well see a return to prior levels
95%
14%
28%
6%
18%
25%
34%
53%
45%
No
67% 67%
I am optimistic that well return to prior levels of staffing I am optimistic that well return to prior levels in the future but not next year I think well continue to reduce staff next year 0%
5%
We look carefully for alternatives before replacing staff who leave the firm
43%
2% 3% 4%
Comparison
AmLaw 200
37.2%
76.1%
35:1
LDP
fn
Logical/analytical skills
1- Most Important
2
3
4
2012
2011
2010
5- Least Important
7%
6%
11%
1%
4%
2%
1%
4%
2%
49%
48%
47%
42%
39%
39%
5 - Least important 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
5- Least Important
35:1
LDP
fn
For 2012, please indicate what percent of the IT budget was allocated for training and technical development of IT staff. (If the budget for this expense is the responsibility of another department, we still request that you indicate the amounts relationship to the overall IT budget.)
No
What was your IT departments staff salary and overtime budget for 2012?
$1,000,000 $1,500,000
35:1
LDP
fn
$300,000 Median $ $319,500 $250,000 $0 $250,000 $500,000 2012 2011 2010 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000
35:1
LDP
fn
Technology Facilities Centralized in our main office Centralized in a branch office Centralized in an off-site data center Distributed; we have data centers in multiple offices IT Adoption Profile
Small 91% 0% 2% 8%
Type A - Leading edge Type B - Mainstream Type C - Conservative Type D - Rarely if ever Type E - Only when the firm is doing very well FTE IT Staffing For IT Dept Average
Large 95% 5%
Median
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn
92%
100%
100%
100%
Large 5% 2% 12%
14%
31%
10%
50%
34%
54%
44%
48%
16%
21%
40%
38%
7%
5%
21%
7%
30%
52%
40%
13%
42% 0%
62% 3%
70% 0%
50% 0%
5% 9%
5% 0%
9% 7%
7% 7%
35:1
LDP
fn
Week Nights On-Site Employees On Call/Pager Employees Third-Party Third-Party with escalation to employees Not Covered
Medium 9% 81% 7% 5% 5%
Holidays On-Site Employees On Call/Pager Employees Third-Party Third-Party with escalation to employees Not Covered
Weekend Days On-Site Employees On Call/Pager Employees Third-Party Third-Party with escalation to employees Not Covered
35:1
LDP
fn
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
1%
2%
5%
0%
1%
5%
2%
9%
0% 1% 6%
10% 2% 7%
7% 2% 5%
8% 3% 3%
1%
2%
7%
15%
98%
92%
86%
76%
35:1
LDP
fn
17%
16%
11%
23%
79%
79%
89%
84%
50%
79%
50%
63%
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn
Small 1% 5% 7% 87%
Medium 5% 9% 9% 77%
Small 1% 99%
Medium 7% 93%
Large 2% 98%
Current Staffing Condition Inadequately staffed (doing more with less) Adequately staffed (just getting by) Comfortably staffed (have some wiggle room) Circumstances Engage Consultants? Staff backfill Staff augmentation Special skills/knowledge Emerging/new technology Other
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
23%
12%
14%
16%
18%
22%
12%
18%
36%
42%
45%
34%
24%
24%
29%
32%
35:1
LDP
fn
1%
9%
7%
8%
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn
35:1
LDP
fn