ScotMARK – gm+ad
Research into architecture practice: A pilot study of capturing experiential knowledge
Case study: Hazelwood Special Needs School, Glasgow

Executive Summary

The importance of knowledge for the architecture profession is widely acknowledged, but few architecture firms proactively look on knowledge as a resource that needs management. In addition architecture firms undertake various forms of knowledge development in practice 1, however few conceive of this as research and even fewer invest the resources needed to ‘capture’ this knowledge and pass it on. The recent study identified 3 main types of knowledge that architects firms seek: i) specific information for which they search (often now on-line); ii) ‘experiential’ research and development (R&D) activities, which are engaged with in a relatively informal manner and may involve other parties such as manufacturers and other professions; and iii) ‘real’ research, with which they generally have a limited engagement and which they expect to be undertaken in specialised research entities such as universities. In the light of this, the pilot study, of which this is the Executive Summary, sought to: a) investigate a pilot mechanism within an architectural practice for capturing unique knowledge concerning the architectural process for a recent specific ‘R&D’ activity linked to a particular design process; b) use this to assist the practice develop a mechanism for wider dissemination of the above process-focused mechanism and its impact on the architectural product; and c|) assess the costs and resource implications, as well as the wider feasibility, of such activities as an input to the wider professional, academic and policy-making institutions.

To achieve these objectives ScotMARK worked with Gordon Murray and Alan Dunlop Architects, Glasgow (gm+ad) and studied the knowledge developed for designing and building a specific case study building, Hazelwood School in Drumbeck, Glasgow, a school for some 60 children with multiple sensory impairment. The case study assesses the research and briefing stages of the design process, and the impact this had on the designed product. The results were to both provide conclusions for the future design of such schools, as well as pilot and review the knowledge capture mechanism. By examining the case study in depth, ScotMARK and gm+ad have reflected on how new knowledge was captured and its role in design and construction; the pilot process of study and other mechanisms for knowledge capture in practice; and the publication of the main report provides a mechanisms for wider discussion findings vis-à-vis profession and policy issues.
This report includes the Introduction (section 1), descripotions of the design process (Section 2), and built product (Section 3) and reflection on the knowledge capture mechanism within a wider review of knowledge management in architecture practices (Section 4). The ScotMARK and gm+ad teams involved in the study included Prof. Paul Jenkins and Dr Soledad Garcia Ferrari from ScotMARK and Prof Gordon Murray, Stacey Phillips and Fergal Feeney from gm+ad.

The main report details various tools and techniques for experiential knowledge capture and sharing / transfer and argues that these can essentially be organised into four main categories in relation to practice activity:

• Prior knowledge development: Foresight Reviews; use of Yellow Pages, Wikis etc.
• In-project knowledge capture; Stage-based Project reviews and Management Information Systems, codifying information using techniques such as Wikis and  bespoke IT solutions to link disparate but related knowledge sets;
• Post-factum knowledge capture: Hindsight Reviews; client surveys / post-occupancy evaluation, using a range of techniques such as interviews, storytelling, case studies.
• Permanent knowledge capture; Yellow Pages, Mentoring, Communities of Practice, Away Days, CPD, Workspace design etc.

The nature of the tools and techniques used will vary across firms, depending principally on their size and office set-up (i.e. single or multiple offices), but also, importantly, on how they conceptualize knowledge as part of their design and/or business strategy. The key issues are thus:

• Conceptualizing: reflecting on the role knowledge within the practice and how this is currently sought, produced, captured and shared;
• Creating appropriate mechanisms for knowledge capture and recording;
• Creating, or participating in, appropriate mechanisms for knowledge sharing.

While smaller practices are likely to feel they can operate effectively with fairly informal ways of sharing knowledge internally, they could well benefit from a more systematic approach to capturing knowledge and sharing it outside the firm, benefiting in turn from wider access to knowledge sources. This can be as simple as setting aside some time for specific review of projects (especially Hindsight Reviews) and recording experiential learning in some simple codified form, making this available also to the profession. They might also want to participate in some wider form of Yellow Pages that could be set up across the profession and could readily benefit from any wider CPD and/or ‘Communities of Practice’ type events which the profession could lead on. Medium size practices or those with multiple offices need to be more systematic not only in capturing knowledge, but in sharing this in-house – and again can benefit from wider sharing across the profession. Large practices often are already aware of knowledge management issues and may have invested considerable effort and resources in knowledge capture and sharing systems, but again it is argued there can be advantages for these offices in participating in wider outside knowledge sharing activities to refine their own knowledge bases.

Other than a greater awareness of the role of knowledge and importance of appropriate knowledge management in practices, the study raises the possibility of wider knowledge sharing across the profession – and this could include practices, other organizations (such as government and quangos) and research institutions such as universities. Arguably these types of activities can have a wider impact than those organized by practices or other organizations on their own, but are likely require seed funding to establish their function and the value added that this can bring, on the basis of which they subsequently could be relatively self-supporting. However, the main value added is likely to be within firms, and this is what the current pilot project was created to identify.