Multiple CLMs, partial AI deployment, and a siloed CLM RFP – looking for legaltech strategy sanity check

I’m looking for a sanity check and some strategic advice from people who have done CLM / legal ops at scale. Context: I was brought into a very large media conglomerate enterprise (think broadcasting stations, a very popular streaming app, theme parks, internet, cable, etc) to help with CLM selection and implementation, plus contract‑data cleanup and normalization so the implementation doesn’t turn into shelfware. My remit is very much CLM + data + workflow design, not traditional compliance program work. Two structural things already felt odd: * I report into an SVP of Compliance who is a non‑lawyer, not into Legal or Legal Ops. * My mandate is limited to one major business unit (let’s call it the “Cable” business), not the broader corporate group or all subsidiaries. Now that I’m deeper in, here’s where it gets truly weird. 1. **The shortlist was locked before I showed up.** By the time I arrived, the RFP had already run and they’d narrowed to Malbek, Icertis, and Sirion as the only options to consider. All three are serious, enterprise‑grade CLMs with strong AI and integrations, so this isn’t about “bad tools” per se, more about whether the process and scope make sense. 2. **Different subsidiaries already use different CLMs.** * A small sub‑business elsewhere in the group already uses Malbek as its CLM. * Another subsidiary is using Icertis. So the company *already* has at least two CLMs in production in different corners of the org. 3. **Our AI assistant is integrated with Icertis, but barely anyone can actually use it.** * The broader legal function has rolled out Harvey (or something similar) as the AI assistant, and it has a direct integration with Icertis as a CLM. * But the Icertis deployment is tied to that one subsidiary, so about 95% of the lawyers across the broader legal org don’t touch that instance and therefore can’t really benefit from the Harvey–Icertis integration. 4. **We’re still treating this as a narrow “pick a CLM” project, not an enterprise legal platform decision.** When I look at the landscape, there are platforms like Onit that are explicitly “enterprise legal management” – unifying matter management, spend, and CLM on one AI‑native platform that can be configured across legal, compliance, procurement, and the business. That kind of holistic platform feels more aligned with where legaltech and AI are going (shared data, shared workflows, shared AI assistants) rather than just dropping *one more* CLM into an already fractured ecosystem. Where I’m stuck is this: * On paper, Malbek, Icertis, and Sirion are all fine products. They all tout AI, strong integrations, and enterprise deployments. * In practice, this company already has multiple CLMs live, an AI assistant wired into only one of them, and now a CLM RFP being run out of Compliance for only one major business unit, without a clear enterprise architecture or legal‑ops‑driven governance model. So I’m wondering: 1. **Is this level of fragmentation “normal” at large enterprises, or is this a sign that CLM / legaltech strategy is happening in silos without a real owner?** 2. **If you’ve inherited a landscape like this, how did you approach:** * Making a case for an enterprise‑level legaltech roadmap instead of another one‑off CLM deal. * Deciding between “standardize on one CLM” vs “federated model with 2–3 tools but governed centrally.” * Rationalizing AI deployments (like Harvey + CLM) so they’re not only useful to the 5% of people sitting in the “right” business unit. 3. **From a career perspective, how would you view a role like mine, where:** * The work is sophisticated (CLM + data + AI‑adjacent), * But the reporting line is into a non‑lawyer Compliance SVP, * And the scope is intentionally limited to one major business unit rather than the whole enterprise? 4. **If you were in my shoes, would you push hard for:** * A broader enterprise legaltech / CLM steering committee with Legal, Compliance, IT, and at least one senior legal ops voice. * A pause / rethink on the RFP to consider whether this should be an enterprise legal platform (Onit‑style) decision instead of just a “business‑unit CLM.” * Or would you accept the narrow scope, optimize for this business unit only, and treat the fragmentation as “inevitable at this scale”? I’m not trying to trash any particular vendor; I’m more concerned that we’re making local optimization decisions (single business unit + Compliance) in a context where the legaltech stack is evolving at 10,000 mph and AI integrations (like Harvey + CLM) only really pay off when you design them at an enterprise level. Would really value war stories, architectures that actually worked, and honest “I wish I’d seen the writing on the wall earlier” takes.