[Originally appeared 2000.]
Shared responsibility for the drafting and editing of documents can hardly be said to be unique to the practice of law. Yet lawyers do so with an intensity and attention to detail (perhaps better termed an obsession) difficult to match in any other document endeavor. Every word of a legal document may have consequences. At least, we lawyers are trained to draft as if that were the case. Once again we hope that an aspect of Word that so engages lawyers will inform others who use the program at industrial strength.
In this series we will explore the methods, tools and issues relating to the collaborative drafting of documents. This review will include the tools and functions within Word that assist (and sometimes hinder) this process, as well as third party products that can extend Word’s capabilities. We will look beyond word processing to consider issues relating to document storage and tracking when sharing responsibility for document drafting. In that spirit, we will look especially at the newly sprouting Web enabled systems to support collaborative drafting.
As we begin to explore this topic within our legal context, it will often matter who is participating in the process of collaboration. Let’s distinguish between “cooperative collaboration,” where all those who share responsibility live within our physical or virtual walls (and would sit on the same side of the table at a physical or virtual meeting) and “adversarial review” among those with differing (and sometimes very much competing) interests.
We will try to answer the following questions:
What activities must be supported when drafting documents collaboratively?
How should these activities be different when the collaboration context is cooperative, and when it is reviewed by the opposing side?
Has the ability to electronically share our documents altered our activities in any way? Or do we consider sharing our documents electronically with outside parties as being ‘different’ at all?
How do tools for document comparison – the phase which identifies changes in document content – improve or hinder our process? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these tools? Are tools internal to Word better than third-party tools?
What do the third-party tools enable which internal Word functionality does not? What causes the document comparison process to break down? Once broken, how can it be fixed?
What are the differences between Word’s Track Changes, File Versions and Compare Documents features?
What techniques can be used to assure the identity of the persons who have worked on a document?
How does Word preserve evidence of the drafting process? What strategies can be used to avoid creating this information in the first place? When it is desired to include such information during drafting, how can it be cleaned out before delivery of a document?
How should documents be stored to promote successful collaboration and maintain a proper revision history? What capabilities are offered by the file system, enterprise-wide document management systems and Web-based collaboration systems? Where do Web-enabled on-line collaboration tools fit into the process – better still, when will they fit in?
We will begin answering these questions in the next column. For now, just realize how few years ago it was that we supported teams of proofreaders whose job it was to review paper copies of the original document against paper copies of the revised version. eyeballing any differences they found between the two. Indeed, the term “redline” was derived from the generation of hand-drawn underlines made using a red pencil or pen. Today, we electronically produce this compared or redlined result, accelerating our ability to review, then accept or decline, changes made between parties.
But we’re moving toward a new document processing arena: where the revision process occurs not between parties on paper, but between parties on-line. We expect nearly instantaneous, if not simultaneous access to documents as they are drafted. As connectivity barriers faced as few as three years ago become relics of the past, we struggle through the new and emerging issues surrounding the document collaboration task: Do we have the same word processing applications? Do we share the same comparison technologies? Which choices better provide for the client share moment, and which choices produce a high-maintenance relationship where successful sharing is elusive?
The exchange of paper drafts of documents created few of practice issues described above. While the arrival of word processing both accelerated and intensified the drafting process, other times, the freedom to make changes invited more frequent and involved revisions. The electronic exchange of documents, however, both creates opportunities for enhancement of the speed and thoroughness with which collaboration can be accomplished, and risks accidental or malicious change as well as intentional or unintentional exposure of the details of the development of a document draft.
One could hardly imagine a more fitting topic on which to practice collaborative drafting than the writing of this series. Thus, a collaborative drafting environment has been established, in which Sherry Kappel of Microsystems (www.microsystems.com) will share her expertise with Word, especially extensive experience in the art and agony of document comparison, and with the hazards of electronically sharing document content.
This 2000 article originally appeared in Office Watch.Subscribe to Office Watch free at http://www.office-watch.com/.