The Workspace You Already Have

My daily setup involves three AI systems, a shared drive, and a folder structure that only makes sense to me. It works. It also wouldn't survive a compliance audit, a colleague handoff, or a question about where the data goes.

The Informal Layer

Most knowledge workers operating with AI have built something like this without naming it. Conversations in Claude for research, Gemini inside Google Workspace for documents, ChatGPT for a second opinion. Files land in Drive or on a local disk. Context lives in chat history, or in memory, or in neither. The result is a personal productivity layer that is genuinely powerful and entirely ungoverned.

The document management industry has spent decades building the governed version: structured repositories, metadata, audit trails, version control, retention policies. SharePoint. OpenText. M-Files. The category is called DMS, document management system, and the market is around ten billion euros and growing fast. What it has never managed to build is the experience of actually thinking with your documents, of asking a question and getting a useful answer rather than a search result.

Two Directions

AI is now arriving from both sides. The DMS vendors are bolting intelligence onto their repositories: auto-classification, semantic search, generative summaries. The AI vendors are adding structure to their chat interfaces: folders, projects, persistent memory, file search. Both are converging on the same space, the AI-native knowledge workspace, from opposite ends.

The difference is where they start. Legacy DMS starts from governance and adds intelligence. AI-native tools start from intelligence and add governance. That ordering matters more than it sounds. A system designed around compliance and filing tends to feel like compliance and filing, even after AI is layered on. A system designed around thinking and conversation tends to feel like that, even after folders and access controls are added.

The European Gap

There is a third variable that rarely features in the US-centric DMS conversation: where the data lives and who controls the models. For European practitioners and organisations, working with AI means trusting that client conversations, internal documents, and strategic thinking are not being used to train someone else's model in another jurisdiction. The major platforms offer reassurances, but the architecture is American, the models are American, and the terms of service reflect that.

This is where the category gets interesting for smaller European practices. The improvised setup, Claude plus Gemini plus Drive, is functional but not sovereign. An EU-hosted workspace that supports multiple models, keeps data in Europe, and organises knowledge the way teams actually work is a different proposition. Not a DMS in the legacy sense, and not just a chat interface. Something in between, and perhaps more useful than either.

What that category ends up being called is still open. The tools are arriving before the language has.

Built in, not bolted on

Most organisations are adding AI to software that was never designed for it. The real gains come when AI is part of the architecture, not an add-on to it.

Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers

When Git Grows Up

Git-based knowledge management has always been too complex for content teams. Agents change that, and the implications for governance-heavy organisations are worth watching.

Rob HoeijmakersRob Hoeijmakers