Chapter 7: The PPT Framework and Behavioural Change

The People Pillar

A consistent finding across legal technology surveys is that people — adoption, engagement, behavioural change — are the single biggest factor in whether a technology investment delivers its expected value. The tools work. The processes are often sound. The difference between success and underperformance comes down to whether the humans in the system embrace and use what has been built for them.

The People-Process-Technology (PPT) framework has been a management consulting staple for decades. Its application to Legal Ops is straightforward: sustainable transformation requires alignment across all three pillars. Technology performs best when it supports well-designed processes, and processes perform best when the people using them are engaged, trained, and motivated. The three pillars are interdependent, and people are the most important to invest in.

Why People Deserves the Most Attention

Understanding the Lawyer Mindset

Lawyers as a professional cohort bring specific behavioural characteristics shaped by their training and professional incentives. Understanding these dynamics allows change managers to design adoption strategies that work with how lawyers actually think and operate — leveraging their professional strengths rather than treating them as obstacles.

Risk aversion as professional identity. Lawyers are trained to identify risk and protect against downside outcomes. A new tool or process represents an unknown — and unknowns carry risk. The instinct to reject the unfamiliar is professionally conditioned.

Expertise-based authority. The legal profession's value proposition rests on individual expertise. A tool that claims to perform legal analysis challenges the professional's sense of indispensability. The subconscious response is often: "If a machine can do what I do, what am I worth?"

Perfectionism and control. Legal work product faces external scrutiny — from courts, regulators, counterparties, and boards. The tolerance for error is near zero. Ceding control over any part of the work product to a technology introduces a perceived quality risk that many lawyers find intolerable.

Billable hour conditioning. For lawyers who have spent their careers in private practice, time spent learning a new tool is time not spent billing. Even in-house, where billable hours are irrelevant, the ingrained habit of optimising for immediate output over long-term efficiency persists.

Autonomy expectation. Senior lawyers, particularly partners and GCs, are accustomed to high autonomy. Standardised processes and mandatory workflows feel like constraints on professional judgment — even when the intent is to free that judgment for higher-value work.

The WIIFM Principle

What's In It For Me?

Every individual who is asked to change their behaviour — adopt a new tool, follow a new process, report data in a new format — implicitly asks: "What's in it for me?" If the answer is unclear, unconvincing, or absent, adoption stalls.

The most effective approach is to frame WIIFM at the individual level rather than the organisational level. "This will save the department $500K per year" is a compelling board-level argument, but it lands differently with the associate who needs to spend 45 minutes learning a new CLM. Individual adoption accelerates when each person sees a personal, tangible benefit.

Effective WIIFM must be personal and immediate:

For senior lawyers (partners, GCs): "This tool handles routine, administrative work so you can focus entirely on the strategic advisory and leadership work you entered the profession to perform. Your direct reports work more efficiently, escalating only genuinely complex matters."

For mid-level lawyers (senior associates, counsel): "This tool reclaims 5-8 hours per week from administrative overhead, redirecting your time to substantive client work. Your matter management data flows automatically, and your cycle time metrics visibly improve — both strengthening your case for advancement."

For junior lawyers: "This tool accelerates your professional development by embedding the firm's negotiation positions and standard clause language directly into your workflow. You spend more time on substantive legal analysis and less time on precedent searches."

For business stakeholders: "You get your contracts faster, with real-time visibility into where every request sits in the queue. You stop chasing legal for updates because the system notifies you automatically."

Implementing WIIFM

Map every stakeholder group affected by the change. For each group, define the specific, personal benefit they will experience. Build these benefits into training materials, launch communications, and ongoing reinforcement. Measure adoption by stakeholder group and investigate promptly when any group falls below target — the adoption gap almost always maps to a WIIFM gap.

Managing Shadow AI

The New Shadow IT

Shadow IT — the use of unapproved technology tools by employees — has been a governance challenge for a decade. In 2026, Shadow AI has emerged as its more consequential successor. Lawyers and business users are independently adopting generative AI tools — ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and a proliferation of legal-specific AI applications — without organisational approval, oversight, or governance.

The risks are material:

Confidentiality breach. Lawyers inputting client-privileged information, deal terms, or litigation strategy into consumer AI tools may waive privilege and breach confidentiality obligations. Most consumer AI tools' terms of service allow the provider to use input data for model training.

Accuracy risk. AI-generated legal analysis requires validation by a qualified lawyer to ensure accuracy. AI systems can generate confident, plausible assertions that may be incorrect; when unvalidated output reaches clients, counterparties, or regulators, liability exposure increases significantly. Validated AI use, by contrast, reduces downstream review burden.

Regulatory non-compliance. Jurisdictions including the EU (under the AI Act) and Australia (under evolving AI governance frameworks) impose obligations on the use of AI in regulated contexts. Uncontrolled AI use may inadvertently trigger compliance obligations the organisation is not meeting.

Data sovereignty. Consumer AI tools process data on infrastructure that may not comply with the organisation's data residency requirements or the data protection obligations in its client contracts.

The Response Framework

Organisational strategy in 2026 must account for AI's real productivity benefits while establishing governance. A blanket prohibition drives adoption underground, making usage invisible and unmanageable. The effective response is a governed enablement model that harnesses AI's benefits within a compliance framework:

1. Establish an AI Acceptable Use Policy. Define what AI tools are approved, what data can be input, and what use cases are permitted. The policy should distinguish between consumer-grade tools (restricted) and enterprise-grade tools with appropriate security controls (approved).

2. Provide approved alternatives. If lawyers are using ChatGPT because the organisation has not provided a sanctioned AI tool, the Shadow AI problem is a supply problem, not a demand problem. Deploy enterprise AI tools with appropriate security, privacy, and auditability controls, and give people a reason to use the official channel.

3. Train on responsible use. Every legal team member should complete training on AI-specific risks: confidentiality, accuracy validation, bias, and regulatory requirements. This training should be practical, scenario-based, and regularly updated as the technology and regulatory landscape evolves.

4. Monitor and guide. Deploy network monitoring to detect the use of unapproved AI tools. Make the response proportionate and constructive — initial instances are treated as coaching opportunities, with escalation reserved for repeated use after training. The goal is sustainable behaviour change through education and accessible approved alternatives.

Building the Change Management Plan

The Four-Phase Approach

Phase 1: Awareness (Weeks 1-2). Communicate the change clearly: what is changing, why, and when. Use multiple channels — email, team meetings, intranet, and Slack. The key message at this stage is not "here is how the tool works" but "here is the problem we are solving and why it matters to you personally."

Phase 2: Training (Weeks 3-4). Deliver role-specific training. Senior lawyers get a 30-minute executive briefing focused on strategic benefits and oversight responsibilities. Working-level lawyers get hands-on workshops. Support staff get operational training. One-size-fits-all training serves no one well.

Phase 3: Supported Launch (Weeks 5-8). Go live with intensive support. Assign "floor walkers" or digital champions who can answer questions in real time. Establish a dedicated support channel for the first month. Track adoption daily and intervene immediately when usage drops.

Phase 4: Reinforcement (Ongoing). Publish adoption metrics and celebrate wins. Share stories of how the tool saved specific team members time or improved their work. Address laggards individually — the conversation is "how can we help you?" not "why aren't you using this?" Build the new tool or process into performance reviews and team objectives.

In the Trenches

The Tool Nobody Used

A regional Australian law firm invested $280K in a state-of-the-art document automation platform. The technology was excellent — it could produce first drafts of complex commercial agreements in under three minutes, with clause selection guided by a decision-tree interface. The vendor's demo was impressive. The managing partner approved the spend enthusiastically.

Twelve months later, adoption was at 11%. The firm's lawyers were still drafting documents from prior-matter precedents saved on personal drives.

The post-mortem identified three failures, all on the people pillar. First, the lawyers had not been consulted during the selection process — the tool was perceived as something imposed by management, not something designed for them. Second, training was a single two-hour session delivered during a Friday afternoon when half the team was in client meetings. Third, and most critically, no one had addressed the WIIFM: the senior partners who controlled workflow allocation did not understand how the tool benefited them personally, so they never directed their teams to use it.

The firm hired a Legal Ops consultant who restarted the adoption effort from Phase 1. She conducted individual interviews with every partner to understand their concerns, redesigned the training programme around role-specific use cases, and identified three "champion" lawyers who had experimented with the tool independently and were willing to demonstrate its benefits to peers. She embedded adoption targets into the firm's quarterly review process.

Within six months, adoption reached 67%. Within twelve months, 84%. The tool's ROI, which had been negative for the entire first year, turned positive in month 14.

The Monday Morning Checklist

• Conduct a Shadow AI audit. Ask your IT security team for a list of AI-related domains accessed from the corporate network in the past 90 days. The results will tell you the scale of your Shadow AI exposure and which tools are being used.
• Draft a WIIFM statement for your next initiative. For whatever change you are currently planning or implementing, write a one-paragraph personal benefit statement for each stakeholder group. If you cannot articulate a compelling personal benefit, the initiative has an adoption problem that no amount of training will fix.
• Identify your change champions. In every legal team, there are 2-3 individuals who are naturally curious about new tools and processes. Find them, engage them early, and make them visible advocates. Peer influence is more powerful than management mandates.
• Assess your AI Acceptable Use Policy. Does your organisation have one? Is it current? Does it specifically address generative AI tools and the risks of inputting confidential information? If any answer is "no," drafting or updating this policy is your immediate priority.