project summary: 

Problem 

The architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) sector, by comparison with other sectors, has historically been slow to adopt and implement digital technologies to drive design practice and business innovation. Past research in other sectors has identified that it’s not the actual technology that drives knowledge flow and digital innovation, it’s the people using the technology (Parker et al., 2025). This suggests interventions that start by empowering employees to collaborate and learn across different professional expertise and organisational hierarchy will assist in building knowledge flows and digital innovation. 

Gap 

How organisations adapt and remain competitive while navigating technological change has been a central theme of organisational studies since the mid-twentieth century (Trist, 1981; Trist and Bamforth, 1951). More recently, an emerging body of research across business studies and built environment disciplines has begun to investigate digital transformation processes in the AEC sector towards developing strategies to foster technology adoption, acceptance, and digital innovation (Criado-Perez et al., 2022). 

Focusing on the intra-organisation and individual levels of digital innovation, Shojaei and Burgess (2022) identified how an organisation’s culture, as well as leadership styles, behaviours, and mindsets, were key non-technical barriers to the uptake of industry-standard digital technology. Moreover, they described how interviewees frequently cited key factors affecting digital technology uptake as, “… lack of skills and training, lack of knowledge about the benefits of digital innovation, lack of leadership, lack of management, negative perceptions and resistance to change” (p.6-7). In a research study by Rotimi et al (2025), training and collaboration are also identified as factors that can significantly impact the successful uptake and implementation of digital technologies in the workplace. 

There are many types of formal and informal training adopted in the global architecture industry, of which mentoring figures prominently. Mentoring is a professional and developmental relationship between a less experienced and knowledgeable individual (the mentee or protégé) and a more experienced and knowledgeable individual (the mentor); mentors often play an essential role in the transfer of organisational, internal knowledge and communication of tacit knowledge (Deng and Turner, 2024; Eby et al., 2008). Typically, it’s a top-down exchange, thus failing to capitalise on the mentee and their potentially more contemporaneous knowledge of digital technology. 

A reverse mentoring relationship, by contrast, typically involves a junior member of an organisation mentoring a more senior decision-maker. In this relationship, the knowledge exchange and insights emanate from junior to senior (bottom up), and discourse is typically focused on digital literacy and related areas of knowledge. Whilst the emphasis is on developing the digital literacy of the mentees, the knowledge exchange can be nurtured in both directions (Garg and Singh, 2020). 

Progress 

This research acknowledges that “people are the real key to digital transformation” (Morgan and Papadonikolaki, 2022, p. 593). Accordingly, it focuses on reverse mentoring as a strategy that holds potential to shape digital innovation opportunities in the AEC sector by creating a psychologically safe context for bi-directional knowledge exchange. It is reasoned that reverse mentoring can help to foster a commitment to mutual learning and support in organisations and create the opportunity for tech-savvy personnel to mentor less digitally literate senior decision-makers.   

Whilst reverse mentoring has been shown to contribute to bridging knowledge gaps, improving knowledge of emerging technologies, and promoting organisational learning, the majority of past research has been in non-AEC sectors – including in organisations such as General Motors, PwC, and Microsoft (Garg and Singh, 2020). Therefore, this research aims to assess reverse mentoring in the architecture industry and evaluate its potential to enhance knowledge flow in a digital transition. 

Reverse mentoring program 

The research includes an intervention with partner organisations, establishing a reverse mentoring program case study. A commitment to a reverse mentoring program involves: 

1. Commencement survey: Survey to assess baseline capabilities. Questions to understand and identify existing conditions, behaviours, digital knowledge, and individual impressions. [30 minutes | month 1] 

2. Workshop (inc. formal CPD): Setting up reverse mentoring pairings for success. Best practices and expert coaching on mentoring, e.g., communication, empathy, etc. Useful tools, e.g., mentoring agreement, digital transformation tools, etc [1.5 hours | month 1] 

3. Assessment survey: Survey to assess changes. Questions to understand and identify what might have changed in behaviours, understanding, and the participants’ impressions of the workshops. [30 minutes |month 1] 

4. Mentoring program: Run for 2 months, meeting weekly. Includes support for the pairs. Assisting in addressing challenges faced, providing guidance, or answering questions. [0.5-1 hour/week for 8 weeks | months 2-3] 

5. Assessment survey: Survey to assess changes. Questions to understand and identify what might have changed in behaviours, digital knowledge, and the participants’ impressions of the program, as well as its individual and organisational impact. [30 minutes | month 4] 

• Total Commitment: 7-11 hours 

Potential Outcomes 

Potential Mentor Outcomes (Graduates and other digital natives in the team) 

• Visibility and recognition by demonstrating technical expertise and initiative. 

• Accelerated leadership through practicing communication and mentoring skills. 

• Professional growth through building confidence, organisational knowledge, and genuine agency. 

Potential Mentee Outcomes (Senior architects & leaders) 

• Digital literacy through hands-on knowledge of digital tools shaping the industry. 

• Fresh perspectives in rethinking legacy systems through modern workflow insights. 

• Confidence to lead technical transitions rather than resist them. 

Potential Organisational Outcomes 

• Future-proof methodologies by systematically integrating new technologies with proven methods. And closing knowledge gaps by the sharing of tacit knowledge. 

• Boost productivity by reclaiming hours lost to digital inefficiency. 

• Reduce graduate turnover by offering clear job pathways, agency and leadership.  

Bibliography 

Criado-Perez, C., Shinkle, G.A., Höllerer, M.A., Sharma, A., Collins, C., Gardner, N., Hank Haeusler, M., Pan, S., 2022. Digital transformation in the Australian AEC industry: prevailing issues and prospective leadership thinking. J. Constr. Eng. Manage. 148, 05021012-1–12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002214 

Deng, C., Turner, N., 2024. Identifying key mentor characteristics for successful workplace mentoring relationships and programmes. PR 53, 580–604. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2022-0535 

Eby, L.T., Allen, T.D., Evans, S.C., Ng, T., DuBois, D.L., 2008. Does mentoring matter? A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals. Journal of Vocational Behavior 72, 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005 

Garg, N., Singh, P., 2020. Reverse mentoring: a review of extant literature and recent trends. DLO 34, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-05-2019-0103 

Morgan, B., Papadonikolaki, E., 2022. Digital Leadership for the Built Environment, in: Bolpagni, M., Gavina, R., Ribeiro, D. (Eds.), Industry 4.0 for the Built Environment, Structural Integrity. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-82430-3_25 

Parker, S.K., Ballard, T., Billinghurst, M., Collins, C., Dollard, M., Griffin, M.A., Johal, W., Jorritsma, K., Kowalkiewicz, M., 2025. Quality work in the future: New directions via a co-evolving sociotechnical systems perspective. Australian Journal of Management 50, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962251331813 

Rotimi, F.E., Silva, C., Ramanayaka, C.E.D., Rotimi, J.O.B., 2025. Digital Technology Knowledge Transfer Enablers Amongst End-Users in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Organisations: New Zealand Insights. Buildings 15, 772. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15050772 

Trist, E.L., 1981. The evolution of socio-technical systems : a conceptual framework and an action research program, The evolution of socio-technical systems : a conceptual framework and an action research program, Occasional paper, no. 2 (June 1981). Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre. 

Trist, E.L., Bamforth, K.W., 1951. Some Social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting: An Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological Content of the Work System. Human relations (New York) 4, 3–38.