The drafts of the revised versions of Parts 1 and 2 of the 19650 standard are now out for consultation. The industry has until 3 May to respond.
Nima chair Dr Anne Kemp OBE is the convenor of the 19650 suite of standards. In an online briefing staged by the BSI and nima last month to introduce the draft changes, she said: “What we need are constructive comments, which must include alternative proposals. If there are things that you’re troubled by, that you don’t like, say so, but then tell us very clearly what you would like to see instead.
“Please, if you like what you’re seeing, indicate that you like it, because otherwise all that we’re responding to are the negatives – and that would be unfortunate, because the negative comments may actually be a minority view.”
Kemp anticipates thousands of comments. The commenting process will be managed by the BSI. “All those comments have to be reviewed and discussed by the working group, and we have to reach a consensus about what actually appears in the final drafts and the published standards,” she said. “That consensus can be really, really tough to reach. And as convener, my job is to listen carefully and help to get to a consensus. And I should really emphasise that the consensus may disagree with what the authors [have written], and it may disagree with what quite a few of the national standards bodies would like to see.”
She returned to why reaching a consensus is necessary. “We have to work by consensus. I think it’s really important to remember that, actually, 19650 is trying to cater for a very wide stakeholder community. It needs to be understood both in different international languages and from different perspectives, from facilities managers, manufacturers, lawyers, etc.”
Changes to Part 1 of 19650
In last month’s briefing, 19650-1 author David Churcher MBE noted: “The fundamental principle of ISO 19650 is the same as it always has been – that information and data are valuable commodities that need to be managed properly in a collaborative environment. That is where we start from.
“The focus of the standard is very clearly now about the whole life of assets. We have removed the distinction between delivery phase and operational phase, and all we’re talking about now is the outcome to develop and maintain asset information models from the management process.”
He said the revisions working group has focused on simplifying and rationalising the language. For example, he noted: “The emphasis is very much on ‘information management’ rather than ‘BIM’ as a term.”
The revisions to Part 1 reflect the expanded ecosystem of standards since its launch. “What we wanted to do in the revised standards is to make explicit reference to these to start joining some of the dots. Two particular standards that we are referring to in the new text are the ISO 7817-1, which is the concepts and principles for level of information need, and the information delivery manual standard, which was revised only last year, ISO 29481-1,” Churcher said.
Changes to Part 2 of 19650
19650-2 author Paul Shillcock delivered highlights of the changes to that part. The main change has been known for some time, but he offered more detail: “The international steering committee voted to combine the information management process for the delivery phase of assets defined within 19650-2 with the operational phase of assets defined within 19650-3 into a single process covering the whole of the asset lifecycle. The main reason was that they wanted those involved during the operational phase of assets to be front and centre at the start of an asset-related project, not just at the end of it, and to help asset owners and maintainers to find their place within the process.”
He continued: “There’s also a significant amount of overlap between the two processes: each of the eight steps is very similar and in some cases identical. We’ve made a clear distinction within the process between ‘information management’ and ‘information production’. This was because Parts 2 and 3 use slightly different language for each of the activities and outputs.
“We’re proposing to align the activities and their outputs with either information management or information production. So, for example, we’re proposing an information management strategy at the organisation level to sit alongside the asset management strategy, along with an information management plan at the project level and an information production plan at the appointment level, and an information management team and an information production team.”
Noting this might be seen by some as controversial, Shillcock said: “We need to decide if the benefit of making standards more accessible, more inclusive and more translatable for the majority, especially the asset owners, is worth the cost of amending the current terms.”
Changes to Part 3 of 19650
Churcher stated that Part 3 “is now being designated as a set of implementation guidelines to support the new Part 2”. He described it as potentially elastic in scope and that it may reflect comments and the consensus drive on Parts 1 and 2.
The revisions to Part 3 should be made available for review and comment from the start of June.
He also noted that anything that doesn’t find its way into the new guidelines can be picked up in the Information Management Initiative Framework guidance, which will itself be updated in time once the finalised versions of Parts 1 and 2 are published (likely to be at the start of 2027).
Kemp emphasised that in the meantime, the 2018 editions – and certifications aligned with them – still stand.
She concluded: “This is all up to you now. The final outcome really does depend entirely on what public comments we receive and how we are then able to resolve them by consensus with our international colleagues.”
