Or better: the case for project archaeology. Why should companies still involve humans to create their knowledge banks, seen AI knows it all by now, scans content in seconds and is at everyone’s fingertips? Because like the news and the truth, speedy info and useful info are not the same thing.
Companies have started to buy and implement AI tools on a massive scale. Now they are trying to speed up learning how to use those tools and what to do with the outputs generated by their AI.
No doubt, the ambition to improve efficiency at work is a fine thing. But in doing so, it is the throwing out of human professionals and their expertise in favour of AI that worries me. The need to capture and preserve human expert knowledge is equally urgent. We not only need to know how work can be done more efficiently. But also, how it used to be done and why it evolved from there. And how AI should be used in a healthy way to support people at work, as opposed to just taking their place. Much can be learned from adapting new technologies like AI and new, speedier modes of working – when we combine and compare them with lessons learned from the past.
It is that very combination that i see vanishing, at high speed. Human expertise and interative processes are getting replaced by AI which in turn gets fed its information and working modes by Force knows whom.
The most successful organisations have no allergy against history. They value it and understand that it does not stand in the way of agile modes and innovation at all. Contrary.
AI is making progress at high speed. It can easily capture and structure any kind of knowledge. What it does not yet do well is asking the right questions or drawing the right conclusions, from a humanoid perspective and memory. AI Claude itself a few months ago had some highly interesting things to say about this – albeit in a slightly different context. Back then I had asked Claude what it thought about the realistic perspectives for creatives to keep making a decent living in our days. Two verbatim quotes (read the full interview here):
“Specialist and technical writing in any field where accuracy, liability, or professional credibility matters remains strong. Legal, medical, maritime, financial, regulatory — these areas need writers who understand the subject deeply enough to be accountable for what they write. AI generates plausible-sounding content in these areas that is sometimes dangerously wrong. The clients who’ve learned that lesson are actively looking for human expertise.”
and
“The flood of mediocre AI content is making the internet noisier and less trustworthy at a remarkable speed. Readers are starting to feel this even if they can’t name it. The reaction, already visible in publishing and media circles, is a growing premium on writing that is clearly, unmistakably human – specific, opinionated, rooted in real experience, willing to be wrong about something.”
So. For the time being and as long as the human source of such interviews can clearly be traced back as such, conversations with seasoned human professionals are likely to result in far more useful knowledge: How decisions really got made and when. Why certain procedures are the way they are, what the new person needs to understand before their third week. And which good practise has proven itself throughout bigger changes, and why.
Ensuring that an organisation doesn’t lose what took years to build is a challenge in the midst of the AI hype. But if done well, precious knowledge is preserved and a solid knowledge base can be created:
A quickstart guide for young professionals fresh from the academy. A best practise documentation. A knowledge base actually built from knowledge, as opposed to info scraps skimmed by a robot from all over the Internet and thrown together like dog food. With masses of wild text featuring screaming highlighted entries like “the best part being this” and “the more interesting part being that” – sounds familiar?
Before you blissfully make redundant your engineers, planners, controllers, hr and admin experts, do yourself a favour.
I really appreciate and am fascinated by what AI can do. And I for one believe that there is such a thing as the best of both worlds also here – potentially. It does need our human input and correction though. And it is not too early for us humans to get a solid grip on that process.
The project archaeology page will tell you more about what I do with this challenge.