Knowledge Management/Transfer and Feedback

Throughout this review it has been stated that the idea of architects learning from feedback should be possible. However, learning at this level is still not widespread in practice. Heylighen et al.

(2007b) states that architectural practices learn in project teams and that some of the knowledge gained on those projects tends not to transfer over to the whole practice. This could lead to a practice failing to claim a common knowledge base. Currently, there are very few mechanisms that could solve the lack of a knowledge loop or utilisation of feedback within practices, which generally means that project work is constantly ‘reinventing the wheel’ (Newell et al. 2006). It is suggested that if architectural practices learned through feedback from past projects, rather than just project teams, the knowledge gained is less likely to be lost as the knowledge would stay within the practice rather than just the specific team. However, in order for feedback to be utilised effectively there needs to be a knowledge management strategy in place within the practice in order to improve utilisation (Jensen 2011).

Knowledge transfer from building operations to building design is nothing new. There is even evidence that there were experiments in this field as early as the 1960s (Jensen 2011). Heylighen et al. (2007b) showed that in the past few years several researchers have taken initiatives to develop

50

One of the main issues with knowledge and these attempts to make it available to all, is that it is context dependant; “as ‘meanings’ are interpreted in reference to a particular paradigm” (Newell et al. 2006). A lot of knowledge management and feedback techniques try to take knowledge out of this context and generalise it to all (Bordass & Leaman 2005a). However, CoMem, a knowledge management tool (Fruchter & Demian 2002b, Fruchter & Demian 2002a), starts from the principle that architects must be able to explore the context and the history of the product in order to be able to understand its value. Therefore, the system supports three activities in the process of adapting buildings: 1) find; 2) explore project context; and 3) explore evolution history. This shows that there are currently tools out there that have started to explore how they can include the context of the project into the system itself rather than trying to extract the information into a general format.

Domeshek et al. (1994) also looked at the benefit of case based knowledge for architects. Their research focused on the conceptual design stage and the usefulness of past experiences to inform their decisions at that early stage. Neither of these tools, however, consider how to feed this information back to architects in the most appropriate manner or about adaptable design decisions.

4.7.1. Communication Links

Although this thesis is researching feedback, it is believed that communication links and networks as well as knowledge management strategies between all of the relevant stakeholders may provide useful suggestions for developing the feedback mechanism framework. As communication is how information is transferred (Dainty et al. 2007), there is also considerable evidence to suggest that the ability to process information is dependent on the type of network (Emmitt & Gorse 2003) and also whether the communication is formal or informal (Dainty et al. 2007). Two of the most common networks are centralised and decentralised, which can be seen in image 4.1.

51

Figure 4.1 - A visual representation of centralised and decentralised networks (Emmitt & Gorse 2003)

A centralised network model has all of the information channelled through one person or hub.

Whereas within a decentralised network, there is no defined channel; the information is free for anyone to view (Emmitt & Gorse 2003). It is suggested that decentralised networks are most effective with complex problems, where as centralised networks struggle with complex tasks, as the person or hub gets overloaded with information.

However, it is argued that whilst decentralised networks may be effective within the complex nature of a design and construction project. A centralised network is expected to best suit the conceptual feedback mechanism framework proposed within this thesis, which is not a combination of complex tasks, rather it is based on the need to distribute specific information. It suggests that the proposed feedback mechanism framework is likely to need to go through a process of collating information and then distributing it to the architect through a gatekeeper, who Emmitt & Gorse (2003) suggest is someone who withholds non-essential information to stop the receiver of the information from becoming overloaded with information. The work of Bordass & Leaman (2005a) links to this, by highlighting that direct feedback from users and facilities managers, suffers from a lack of clarity.

Together, these suggest that there needs to be a specialised gate keeper of adaptability information capable of disseminating the correct information through the feedback mechanism.

4.8. Summary

When looking at the topic of feedback for architects it is clear that there are some significant benefits to be gained by utilising it. However, currently the perceived barriers with regards to architects make it difficult to envisage a form of feedback that could make a significant impact within architectural practice.

Cohen et al. (2001) suggest that post-occupancy evaluation and benchmarking would become more routinely used in new buildings, before and after refurbishments. It is also suggested that such

52

and why buildings change over time and highlights that current mechanisms are insufficient for feeding back information on adaptability. This highlights the need to develop a mechanism that captures and categorises change information and then feeds it back in a way that 1) matches architectural values 2) captures the context of the changes; and 3) is located within an architect’s current learning style.

53