I often wonder what the Google founders were researching at University and if it had anything at all to do with Google or Internet search. Assuming they did and they decided to tackle the problem of 'relevant search' I am then left wondering how do you academically describe 'relevant' in a way that is testable.
My direction has been set primarily by a bunch of observations gathered from a number of other issues in the modern AEC environment. There are some clearly identified issues with the rigidness of the briefing process that are an ongoing concern within the industry. An issue I have been grappling with is how brief requirements and conceptual issues can be maintained and reevaluated throughout the design and construction process. Following a traditional process a briefing document is prepared and the architect responds to this with a set of working drawings. Other participants (contractors, engineers and consultants) typically only interact with these formal working drawings or the completed work. As a consequence of this reinterpretation the consumers (client/occupants) find it difficult to change their requirements whilst the producers are left with a partial understanding of the overall intentions and evolution of the project.
Solving this problem is reliant on clear and consistent communication. A major issue in communicating architectural ideas is the language in which this conversation takes place. An obvious focus for this debate is the richly detailed computer models that constitute a large portion of contemporary project documentation. Building Information Model (BIM) theory is attempting to establish a unified 'model' in which the life-cycle of of building can be tracked and monitored. Unfortunately the structured nature of this model makes capturing and relating informal conversation about a project very difficult and time consuming as fitting these snippets of information into a highly structured model is very difficult (and adapting existing models to suit informal structures impossible).
Compounding the BIM advocates is the limited degree of Information Technology uptake throughout the AEC industry. Whilst proposing the use of highly technical BIM's may suit the management tier of a project (architects, engineers and consultants) it does not 'downsize' well into the production arena where technology skills and resources are low or enable those unaccustomed to the concept (clients and occupants) to participate at an even level. What is required is a lowest common denominator means of transferring and storing this informal conversation in a manner that facilitates later reuse in the design process or within a much higher level Building Information Model.
These issues all fall under the general umbrella of 'knowledge management' which is a formal term for 'stuff we should really note down and hopefully don't forget'. Whilst at the Manchester conference last year I sat through many (rather dull) presentations about the subject and how it fitted into the AEC industry. Given the level of interest at academic and even professional levels there is obviously some demand for knowledge management but I think it should be known more appropriately as information reuse. Knowledge is something that you have learnt over time through the process of doing and parsing different information sources.