Automation-Driven Productivity Targets vs. Adequate Review Time Allocation

Business Context

Automation genuinely increases the volume of work an attorney can produce or process in a given period, and firms and departments reasonably want productivity targets and staffing models to reflect this increased capacity. However, when productivity targets are set based on automation’s drafting speed without a corresponding allowance for the review time that responsible use of that automation requires, attorneys face structural pressure to shortchange review in order to meet the target, effectively converting a capacity gain into a hidden risk increase.

Resolution

Rather than setting productivity targets based on drafting speed alone or refusing to adjust targets despite genuine capacity gains, the resolution builds review time into the productivity model explicitly, as a defined proportion of the time saved by automation, so that targets reflect the full cycle, drafting plus meaningful review, rather than only the fastest visible step, and productivity gains are real rather than achieved by quietly eliminating the review step from the time budget.

Applicable TRIZ Principles

Principle 40 – Composite Materials Combine drafting time and review time into a single, explicit productivity model rather than measuring drafting speed alone.

Principle 11 – Beforehand Cushioning Build review time allowance into productivity targets in advance rather than allowing it to be squeezed out under pressure.

Principle 23 – Feedback Track actual review time against the model’s allowance as a feedback signal for whether targets are realistic.

Expected Outcome

Productivity targets that reflect genuine, sustainable capacity gains

Reduced structural pressure to shortchange review

Clearer institutional visibility into how much time review actually requires

More accurate client and leadership expectations about true turnaround capacity

Decision Indicators

Early indicators that this contradiction is limiting organizational performance include:

Productivity targets set based on drafting speed with no explicit review time allowance

Attorneys reporting they cannot meet targets without shortchanging review

No tracked data on actual review time relative to drafting time for automated work

Rising error rates coinciding with productivity target increases following automation adoption

Leadership treating automation’s full time savings as available for additional caseload without offset for review

Monitoring these indicators helps firms set productivity expectations that preserve genuine review quality.