If We Were Designing Association Content Today, Would We Still Publish It the Same Way?

For decades, associations have developed and distributed much of their intellectual property through books, journals, technical publications, research reports, and other finished products. We bring subject-matter experts together, develop and validate content, organize it into a publication, and distribute or sell the finished product. When the information needs updating, we revise the publication or produce a new edition.

It's a model that has served associations and the professions they represent well. Publications have provided a practical way to organize specialized knowledge, establish authoritative references, and make information available to professionals who need it. But as artificial intelligence continues to evolve, I've been wondering whether we should be questioning something more fundamental than how we produce and distribute those publications.

If we were designing association content today, would we still organize it around books, journals, and other finished products? Or would we build an entirely different model?

When the Publication Defines the Process

At ASNT, one of our most significant bodies of technical knowledge is contained in the NDT Handbooks. These publications represent an enormous investment in technical expertise, with subject-matter experts responsible for reviewing and validating the content according to an established revision schedule.

The content is developed and organized specifically for the handbooks, with the publishing schedule largely determining when it is reviewed and updated. New technical developments that emerge between editions generally wait until the next scheduled revision before being incorporated. In the meantime, journals, research papers, white papers, and conference presentations provide channels for sharing more timely information.

The handbook development process provides ASNT with a structured way to organize, review, and validate technical knowledge while allowing emerging research and new developments to be shared through other channels. However, it also means that the publication itself determines much of how the knowledge is organized, maintained, and ultimately delivered.

What if we reversed that relationship and developed our knowledge independently of the publications used to deliver it?

What If the Knowledge Came First?

Imagine that instead of developing content for individual publications, an association maintained a comprehensive, structured body of knowledge that existed independently of any particular book, journal, or educational product.

That knowledge could be organized and categorized in numerous ways. In the case of nondestructive testing, information might be classified by inspection method, technique, equipment, material, industry application, or level of technical validation. A single piece of knowledge could relate to several categories without having to be duplicated across different publications. Research papers, journal articles, conference presentations, and other sources could also contribute to the system, with AI helping identify relevant information, organize it, and connect it to existing knowledge.

Subject-matter experts would continue to play a critical role in determining what information is accurate, authoritative, and appropriate for different applications. Not every piece of information would carry the same level of authority. Emerging research would need to be distinguished from established technical practices, and standards would still require the version control and formal approval processes appropriate to their use. The difference is that the underlying knowledge would no longer have to be organized primarily around the publication in which it appeared.

Consider what that could mean for the NDT Handbooks. New technical methods or developments could be incorporated into the association's knowledge base once they had been appropriately reviewed and validated. Existing knowledge could be maintained on a schedule determined by its relevance and need for review rather than by the production of a new edition.

“Instead of developing knowledge to produce books, we could use our knowledge to produce books.”

If a new inspection method emerged, we wouldn't necessarily need to begin by asking whether it justified another handbook. We could begin by adding the knowledge to the larger system and determining how it should be made available. When a handbook was needed, we could produce it from that knowledge. Instead of developing knowledge to produce books, we could use our knowledge to produce books. That may sound like a subtle distinction, but I believe it could fundamentally change how associations approach publishing.

What Happens When the Customer Defines the Product?

Imagine taking that concept further. AI capabilities are advancing rapidly, and while we cannot predict exactly what they will make possible, I believe associations should be preparing for a future in which AI can reliably create publications and educational materials from validated knowledge without requiring someone to manually develop and approve every individual product.

A professional working in aerospace manufacturing might need a technical reference covering several nondestructive testing methods, particular equipment, and applications relevant to their responsibilities. Rather than purchasing several existing technical publications and searching through hundreds of pages, they could describe their needs and have AI assemble a customized reference from the association's validated knowledge.

Another professional might request a study guide focused on specific technical competencies. An employer could create an e-learning program tailored to the needs of its workforce. Someone preparing to move into a new area of the profession might request an introductory book that draws on several traditional subject areas but presents the information at an appropriate level. The resulting product could be a digital publication, an interactive learning experience, or even a printed book developed for a single purchaser.

Traditionally, an association determines what products to develop, estimates the potential audience, invests in producing them, and then offers those products for sale. A highly specialized publication might never be developed because the potential market is too small to justify the investment. In the model I'm imagining, the association wouldn't necessarily need to anticipate every possible combination of content that a professional might need. It would maintain the underlying knowledge, while AI would create the appropriate product in response to individual demand.

The customer would increasingly determine what gets published, rather than choosing from a catalog of products the association has already decided to produce. We're certainly not at the point where AI can reliably create every type of technical publication or educational product without appropriate human oversight. Accuracy, completeness, context, and the potential consequences of incorrect information remain serious concerns. However, those limitations shouldn't prevent us from considering what becomes possible as the technology improves.

If an association can eventually deliver the information someone needs in the format they prefer, does it still make sense to organize the entire publishing operation around developing predefined products?

From Selling Publications to Subscribing to Knowledge

This possibility also raises questions about the economics of association publishing. Today, many associations generate revenue by selling individual books, courses, technical references, and other knowledge products. Membership may provide access to certain resources or discounts on purchases, but the products themselves often remain separate transactions.

What if that model eventually looked more like a Netflix subscription, with access to an association's knowledge becoming a central benefit of membership? Rather than purchasing individual publications that may not be updated for several years, members could access a continually evolving body of knowledge that incorporates new developments as they are reviewed and validated. Much like Netflix regularly adds new content to its library, an association could continually expand and update the knowledge available to its members.

Through their membership, professionals could access the association's knowledge platform and have information delivered in whatever format is most useful to them. Some might use it primarily to ask technical questions, while others could generate customized reference materials or study guides. Employers could purchase institutional memberships that provide employees with personalized technical training and learning resources.

Different membership levels could provide different capabilities or levels of access. The value wouldn't necessarily be measured by how many publications someone received, but by how effectively the association helped them access, understand, and apply the knowledge they needed. Members might interact with the association's knowledge platform regularly as part of their professional work rather than purchasing an occasional publication.

Such a change would require careful financial consideration. Associations have invested substantial resources in developing their intellectual property, and moving from individual product sales to membership-based access would introduce new risks and opportunities. Maintaining a comprehensive knowledge system would also require investment in technology, content development, validation, intellectual property protection, and staff expertise.

A more connected approach to knowledge could also influence other association activities. Education, research, and certification could both contribute to and benefit from the system, while publishing staff might increasingly become digital content and knowledge-management professionals. Conferences and other in-person activities would continue to provide opportunities for professional networking, the exchange of emerging ideas, and relationship building. The goal would be to better connect the knowledge these activities generate with the resources members can access.

Preparing for a Future We Can't Fully Predict

Much of what I'm describing may seem ambitious, but I don't believe we're talking about a transformation that is necessarily decades away. Given the pace at which AI is advancing, associations could be confronting some of these possibilities within the next three to five years. We may not know exactly which capabilities will mature first, but the potential changes are significant enough that they should already be part of our strategic conversations.

I believe one of the biggest challenges associations face is developing the organizational understanding necessary to imagine a different operating model. Most organizations are still learning how to use AI to make existing work more efficient. Staff are using it to draft communications, summarize information, conduct research, and automate routine activities. Those are worthwhile applications, but they largely focus on improving how we accomplish the work we're already doing.

The greater opportunity comes when staff become comfortable enough with AI to begin questioning how the work itself might change. Using AI to help write a book faster improves the traditional publishing process. Asking whether the book should remain the organizing principle for developing and maintaining knowledge challenges the process itself. That shift in thinking requires more than introducing new software or offering a few training sessions. It requires building enough understanding throughout the organization that people can recognize opportunities to do things differently.

That doesn't mean associations should immediately abandon their publishing models or begin restructuring every piece of content into a new technology platform. Doing so without a broader AI strategy could be a costly mistake. None of us knows exactly what the future technology infrastructure will look like, and investing heavily in a particular approach today could create a new set of limitations that we'll have to overcome tomorrow.

Instead, I believe associations need AI roadmaps that consider not only technology but also governance, intellectual property, staff capabilities, and the potential evolution of their business models. Developing greater AI fluency among staff should be an important part of those efforts, not simply to improve productivity, but to help people understand how the association's products, services, and operations might evolve.

For publishing, that means beginning to think about knowledge as an organizational asset that should be developed, validated, structured, and maintained in ways that allow it to support delivery methods we may not yet have imagined. We don't necessarily need to implement that entire model today, but we should be considering it as we make decisions about future technology investments and content-development strategies.

The Knowledge Is the Asset

I don't know whether associations will still be selling conventional books and technical publications ten years from now. Some will undoubtedly remain important, particularly where a stable, formally approved reference is necessary, as with industry standards. But I can also envision a future where a professional never purchases a traditional technical publication because the association can provide exactly the knowledge they need, in the form they need it, at the moment they need it.

What won't change is the importance of authoritative knowledge. Associations have a distinct role in bringing together professional expertise, validating information, establishing consensus, and maintaining trusted bodies of knowledge. As AI makes information easier to generate and distribute, that role could become even more valuable.

The question is whether we continue organizing that knowledge around the publishing formats we've inherited or begin preparing for a future in which those formats are simply one of many possible outputs. We may not know how association knowledge will be delivered in the future, but that shouldn't prevent us from rethinking how we develop and maintain it today.

About the author Barry Schieferstein, CAE, is chief operating officer of the American Society for Nondestructive Testing (ASNT). He writes Rethinking How Associations Work, a practical look at what is still working, what needs updating, and how associations can redesign themselves for today.