Electric
vehicles
have
a
problem,
and
it’s
not
the
lightning
rod
of
Elon
Musk. New
sales
have
slowed
across
the
industry.
Jeremy
Korst
wrote
in
Harvard
Business
Review,
“A
couple
of
years
ago,
we
seemed
to
be
hurtling
toward
an
electric-car
future.
Tesla
had
reached
a
trillion-dollar
market
cap;
Hertz
had
signed
a
$4
billion
deal
with
Tesla
to
supply
cars
for
its
rental
fleet;
the
Biden
administration
had
announced
plans
to
make
EVs
comprise
50%
of
all
new
vehicles
sold
by
2030;
and
GM
had
committed
itself
to
achieving
100%
EV
sales
by
2035.”
But
all
of
that
has
changed. Why? Because
of
the
Adoption
cycle.
In
the
Geoffrey
Moore
classic,
“Crossing
the
Chasm,”
he
explains
how
Innovators
and
Early
Adopters
will
buy
new
technology
products
for
different
reasons
than
the
majority
of
buyers. Early
Adopters
are
more
willing
to
take
a
risk
and
may
use
a
product
for
different
reasons
than
the
majority. For
electric
vehicles,
early
buyers
were
motivated
for
environmental
reasons. They
might
have
been
fascinated
with
the
re-imagined
features
of
a
Tesla-like
software
upgrade,
self-driving
features,
or
the
additional
roominess
(the
motors
are
attached
to
the
axles
of
the
car).
There
are
other
great
reasons
to
buy
an
electric
vehicle.
Early
Adopters
can
be
thought
of
in
the
same
vein
as
influencers
on
social
media. They
help
define
what
is
cool
and
will
put
up
with
issues
that
others
who
are
more
pragmatic
might
not.
Those
in
the
Early
Majority
of
the
Adoption
cycle
are
more
pragmatic
and
less
willing
to
tolerate
issues
like
finding
a
nearby
charging
station
and
waiting
the
extra
time
for
a
charge.
That
isn’t
pragmatic
in
a
hurried
schedule
when
their
daughter
needs
to
be
at
her
softball
game
two
towns
away.
Battery
performance
degrades
in
the
cold.
A
commuter
in
Minneapolis
may
shy
away
from
an
electric
vehicle
on
a
subzero,
snowy
Minnesota
morning.
It’s
obstacles
like
these
that
keep
two-car
families
from
severing
their
relationship
with
the
gas
station,
and
it’s
why
tax
incentives
and
regulatory
mandates
can’t
always
force
behavioral
change.
So
what
does
this
have
to
do
with
legal
technology
and
AI? Well
a
lot. The
same
Adoption
cycle
will
apply
to
AI
solutions.
The
good
news
is
that
lawyers
are
using
AI
frequently. The
Wolters
Kluwers’
Future
Ready
Lawyer
Report
found
that
76%
of
attorneys
in-house
and
68%
of
attorneys
at
law
firms
used
AI
every
week.
The
study
didn’t
dig
into
what
AI
technology
is
being
used
or
for
what
purpose
though.
Not
All
Law
Firms
Are
Early
Adopters
Crunchbase
reports
that
over
$10
billion
has
been
invested
in
legal
tech
from
2019.
Although
that
much
money
suggests
the
promise
of
legal
tech,
it
also
demands
a
return.
A
set
of
law
firms
are
purposefully
tech-leading.
They
are
typically
the
firms
that
are
in
the
news,
like
AO
Shearman
and
their
recent
announcement
with
Harvey.
But
there’s
also
a
larger
group
that
isn’t
in
the
news
regularly. What
has
struck
me
as
I
have
spoken
with
firms
over
the
last
year
is
that
the
majority
are
being
rather
deliberate
in
how
they
select
and
adopt
AI
technologies.
They
aren’t
sitting
still,
but
they
aren’t
blindly
pushing
for
the
AI
version
of
existing
products,
and
they
haven’t
yet
decided
on
new
AI
workflow
solutions.
This
is
important
for
vendors
and
law
firm
buyers
alike.
Vendors
may
underestimate
the
willingness
and
readiness
of
the
majority
of
firms
to
buy
an
AI
solution.
Their
pragmatic
nature
may
want
to
see
real
justifications,
and
they
may
expect
more
guardrails
to
support
ethical
AI
and
AI
governance
than
Early
Adopters.
Law
firm
buyers
on
the
other
hand
need
to
keep
a
pulse
on
the
expectations
of
their
clients. Law
departments
move
faster
than
firms,
and
when
a
client
expects
work
to
be
done
with
AI
or
technology
assistance,
those
firms
had
better
be
prepared.
Client
satisfaction
is
very
pragmatic.
Purchase
Does
Not
Equal
Adoption
In
any
industry,
the
success
or
failure
of
a
software
solution
is
dependent
upon
adoption
and
acceptance
by
users. This
is
especially
true
in
law
firms.
Vendors
may
underestimate
the
effort
it
takes
to
secure
the
adoption
of
end-user
attorneys
across
a
firm. Large
firms
are
composed
of
a
series
of
practice
areas
led
by
different
partners
and
can
operate
almost
like
separate
businesses. Getting
traction
in
the
tax
practice
does
not
guarantee
the
capital
markets
practice
is
going
to
adopt.
The
pressures
of
the
billable
hour
have
created
longstanding
challenges
for
the
library,
knowledge
management,
and
IT
staff
who
are
very
willing
to
train
end
users.
Even
some
of
the
more
prominent
AI
solutions
touted
in
the
market
are
struggling
to
secure
the
intended
adoption.
Managing
The
Chasm
So
how
should
the
industry
manage
the
so-called
Chasm?
The
first
thing
is
to
be
aware
that
it
exists.
Electric
vehicles
were
plugging
along
with
brisk
sales
and
then
hit
barriers.
It’s
almost
as
if
everyone
forgot
about
the
Chasm.
Legal
tech
vendors
should
be
eyes
wide
open
and
recognize
their
solutions
may
require
more
functionality
to
overcome
the
pragmatic
objection
of
the
Early
Majority. And
they
need
to
consider
how
to
help
with
adoption.
It
may
mean
more
adding
resources
to
a
customer
success
or
professional
services
team.
It
might
mean
partnering
with
one
of
the
more
established
vendors
that
has
access
and
distribution.
Similarly,
law
firms
will
need
to
keep
a
pulse
on
their
clients
and
competition. With
many
solutions
to
choose
from,
a
closer
look
at
the
strategy
and
financial
strength
of
newer
vendors
may
be
required.
Are
some
vendors
too
early
to
the
AI
party? Are
other
vendors
that
appear
late
to
the
party
actually
right
on
time? Is
the
Chasm
wide?
Or
is
it
small
and
manageable? Only
time
will
tell!
Ken
Crutchfield
is
Vice
President
and
General
Manager
of
Legal
Markets
at
Wolters
Kluwer
Legal
&
Regulatory
U.S.,
a
leading
provider
of
information,
business
intelligence,
regulatory
and
legal
workflow
solutions.
Ken
has
more
than
three
decades
of
experience
as
a
leader
in
information
and
software
solutions
across
industries.
He
can
be
reached
at [email protected].