Our first demo recordings are here, and we’d like your critical feedback.
As Preston mentioned last week, our first product will be focused on the narrow use case of NDA automation.
We are calling it AutoNDA.
The goal of this product is to automate the NDA request, negotiation and signature flow for large and mid-size enterprises that generate hundreds or thousands of NDAs per year. In later posts we can debate and defend the merits of starting with a narrowly focused use case like NDAs, but for today, we'd like your critical feedback on the flows as presented.
In these short videos, we'll show you the end user experiences for both approving and suggesting changes. This is not the admin portal or what you'd see as our customer, but what the recipient/receiver of AutoNDA will see when you send them an NDA to review and sign.
Some additional context about what you’re about to watch.
The way we’ve designed the NDA flow resulted in the NDA document itself being broken into 3 distinct sections. These are: (1) Key Terms, (2) the Standard Terms, and (3) the Parties.
Key Terms is the most innovative of these sections, as it allows you as admin to grant on-platform negotiation rights across a few key terms including Term Length and Jurisdiction. In this way, the counter party can review, modify these key terms within your parameters, and sign without any redlining or back and forth.
Standard Terms as presented here is using one of the open source NDA's, in this case, oneNDA.org as the standard. The idea being that since the goal is to improve NDA approval/signature time, that allowing our customers to use one of the open source standards might increase speed to signature. But please note the platform will allow for any NDA template or standard. We’re using oneNDA for as our starting place.
The Parties section is pretty straightforward. This is where the receiver can modify/add necessary information like address before signing.
Please review the videos below where I walk through the two flows: Approving and Signing, and Proposing Changes.
Post Demo Notes (for after you’ve watched the videos):
By breaking the NDA into sections, and building the flows as you just watched, our hope is that it will make it faster and more intuitive for the receiving legal team to review, approve and sign.
BUT we'd like your feedback on whether that's a valid hypothesis and whether or not our current design is intuitive in that way.
So as you give feedback, please put yourselves in the shoes of a receiving legal team that is getting introduced to AutoNDA for the first time.
So, I am probably a bit old school, but I prefer seeing an agreement in a document view (essentially, as what you would see when you print it save it to PDF) rather than as a web form. What I have seen is a flow that has the document view side by side with the fillable form fields. I believe it is important that, at least by the time of signature if not before, a signatory see the actual document (as put together by filling in the form) that they are signing and that would be produced in a document form for court etc. I personally would be uncomfortable signing without being able to review the full document that the form assembled.
Mindy and Shelly have already asked most of my questions. I receive a lot of markups to our standard NDA around indemnity and Work Product. provisions. If you notice a trend in requested markups/feedback, does AutoNDA have the ability to track those provisions receiving the most feedback? This could provide the organization data to make a case for revising their form NDAs to get ahead of these frequently requested edits. The flow of the demos is clean and easy to follow. I appreciate that your demo videos (which could be used as possible future training materials) are short and effective.