Repeat questions to senior engineers
Fewer interruptions for routine lookups means more billable time for the most experienced staff.
Engineering firms · Internal knowledge assistant
Design criteria, standards and past project know-how, findable in seconds
Engineering firms accumulate decades of useful knowledge: how the firm approaches detention design for a particular county, which details passed review with a given building department, calculation templates for common conditions, and memos explaining why a design choice was made. Most of it sits in project folders that only the original engineer could navigate.
How it often works today
- EITs ask senior engineers where to find criteria and templates several times a day, which interrupts the people with the highest billing rates.
- Engineers recreate calculation spreadsheets that already exist somewhere in a past project folder, sometimes introducing new errors along the way.
- Lessons from agency reviews, such as recurring comments from a specific county or city, live in individual memory and leave when people do.
- Firm CAD and design standards exist but are hard to search, so teams interpret them differently across offices or disciplines.
An internal knowledge assistant indexes approved documents, such as firm standards, agency criteria manuals your teams use, calculation templates and lessons learned, and answers questions with links to the source. It helps EITs find where to look and saves senior engineers from repeat questions. It does not make design decisions or replace checking the governing criteria.
The improved workflow
Curate approved sources
Select firm standards, approved calculation templates, agency criteria references your teams commonly use, and a lessons learned log. Retire superseded versions so the assistant cannot quote them.
Keep it inside your environment
Index documents within Microsoft 365 or another approved platform, respecting existing folder permissions, so staff only see answers from files they can already open.
Answer with citations
Engineers ask in Teams or a browser. Each answer points to the specific standard, template or memo, so the engineer opens and checks the source before using it.
Log recurring agency comments
When a review comment recurs with a particular agency, the PM adds it to a lessons log. Over time, teams can check common issues before submittal.
How we deliver this: AI automation for small business or fractional CTO leadership, scoped in writing and run over 90 days. See pricing or the sample scope.
What we would measure
Accuracy on a fixed test set
A list of real questions with known answers, rechecked monthly, shows whether answers stay reliable as documents change.
Repeat agency comments per submittal
If the lessons log is used, the same review comments should appear less often on new projects.
Where people stay in control
- The assistant points to sources. Engineers confirm the governing criteria and code edition for each project; answers are never used as design values directly.
- Calculation templates in the library are approved by a designated senior engineer, and only approved versions are indexed.
- Client-confidential or security-sensitive project folders can be excluded from the index entirely.
Example
Illustrative example: an EIT on a first site development project
For example, a second-year EIT is assigned grading and drainage on a commercial site in a Denver metro jurisdiction. She asks the assistant about the firm's detention calculation template and recurring review comments from that jurisdiction. The answers link to the approved spreadsheet and three lessons log entries. She reviews them, then brings two specific questions to her supervising PE. This is an illustrative scenario, not a measured result.
Tools typically involved
What the first 30 days look like
In the first 30 days we would collect 40 questions EITs and project engineers ask most often, map where answers live and note outdated or duplicate standards. Then we would agree sources, an owner for each, and an accuracy target for a pilot in one discipline.
Common questions
Can we include published agency criteria manuals?
Often, if the manual is publicly available and your license or terms of use allow it. The bigger concern is version control, since agencies update criteria. Each indexed manual should show its edition date, and engineers must confirm the edition that governs their project before relying on anything.
Will it understand our calculation spreadsheets?
It can find and describe them from titles, notes and surrounding documentation, which is where most of the time goes. It should not be trusted to interpret formulas or validate results. That stays with engineers and your QA/QC process.
We have multiple offices with different practices. Does that matter?
It matters a lot. If offices follow different standards, the assistant will surface both, which can be confusing. It is also a useful prompt to decide which standards are firm-wide. We would tag sources by office or discipline where differences are intentional.
The business case
Does it pay for itself?
Illustrative defaults for an engineering firm. Replace them with your numbers.
What this workflow costs today
a month in staff time, before any lost sales
Monthly fee + assumed tools +
Break-even: new clients a month (at first-year value)
Or: staff hours recovered and redeployed
Break-even additional revenue
Value of +1 point of win rate
First 90 days, service fee
Worth a closer lookTest the assumptions
Illustration only, not a forecast or guarantee. Recovered staff time becomes a cash saving only if spending actually declines or the time goes into paid work. Tool costs are an assumption; we replace every number here with yours before recommending a scope.
Internal knowledge assistant in other industries
Accounting and CPA firmsArchitecture firmsConsulting and professional services firmsIT managed service providersLaw firmsSmall manufacturersNonprofit organizations
Internal knowledge assistant: full guide
Related guides
Getting staff to adopt new toolsMicrosoft Copilot for small businessCybersecurity basics to fix before adopting AIWriting standard operating procedures with AI, and keeping them true
Terms used here
Next step
Bring one expensive workflow. Leave with a clear next step.
In 30 minutes we look at one recurring workflow, what it costs you today and whether there is a credible case to improve it. If there is not, we will say so.
Book a 30-minute workflow review
Not ready to talk? Take the 3-minute check
30 minutes with Phil or Martin. No technical brief, no pitch deck. Phil or Martin replies personally, usually within one business day.