Much of the knowledge in architecture and engineering firms is tacit, silent—residing deep in the intuition and experience of employees. Codifying tacit knowledge is often the central goal of knowledge management initiatives. This is understandable, because the firm’s core assets walk out the door every evening. Leadership hopes they return the next morning.
For many industries, especially product-centric industries such as manufacturing that create repeatable goods, the return on investment for codifying knowledge is clear. If capturing knowledge can improve efficiency, quality, and profits while costing less than the time and money required to capture it, well, then, there you have it, a clear case for the return-on-investment (ROI) of knowledge management.
Knowledge in Architecture and Engineering Firms
But in professional services, especially architecture and engineering, codifying knowledge is more complex, largely due to the one-off nature of architecture and engineering projects. Obviously, there are routine processes and procedures inside architecture and engineering firms that can and should be documented. Checklists, templates, and design guidelines can be powerful tools for capturing lessons learned on previous projects. However, most firms spend too much time creating documents and organizing databases and not enough time connecting people. Both are important, and a balanced approach to knowledge management is the golden ticket.
A powerful use of documents and databases is to provide pointers to the people who might have answers to the problems we are trying to solve. An illustration of the evolution of knowledge management strategy is the recent surge in the deployment of social networking tools inside organizations to promote knowledge sharing. Again, firms should remember the importance of the balanced approach to knowledge management and not simply rush to adopt the tools that all the cool kids are using. It is not a question of either or, but yes and.
Two Degrees of Separation
My good friend Ed Friedrichs, formerly the President of Gensler and currently the Chairman of ZweigWhite, exemplifies this approach with a concept he calls Two Degrees of Separation. Two Degrees of Separation means that within two phone calls (or e-mails) I should be able to either find the person who knows the answer to my question, or, find the person who knows the person who knows the answer to my question. Ed insisted that every asset uploaded to Gensler’s first intranet contain the most relevant expert’s name, phone number, and e-mail address, because he understood that “data, diagrams and facts are rarely helpful to the person making the inquiry. After all, their problem is unique and needs interpretation to adapt what is on the Intranet to their individual application. Only a person with expert knowledge can interpolate for the situation at hand.”
Amen to that.
Connecting People
An under-leveraged component of knowledge management strategy in architecture and engineering firms is connecting people. The way you design your knowledge management strategy should flow from that insight. Your knowledge management team must be comprised of strong communicators and technologists. Think about how the systems, services, and value your knowledge management platform provides can be optimized to connect people, as well as organize documents.
Here are a few excellent examples of architecture and engineering firms that have taken a balanced approach to knowledge management:
• Einhorn Yaffee Prescott and their A16 program for up/down mentoring.
• Arup’s integration of knowledge management and thought leadership.
• Degenkolb’s Technical Conference and New Technologies Group.
Is your firm taking an innovative approach to knowledge management? If so, I’d love to hear from you.
– Chris
NOTE: This blog post is was originally written for the AIA Practice Management Spring 2012 Digest. It’s a great issue and group. You should check them out.