Construction Management is the highest circulation construction-based publication serving the UK built environment.
Digital Construction
One information management process, two standards
Paul Shillcock
Is the current approach keeping us stuck in our separate lanes?
The author of ISO 19650-2 questions the structure of the ISO 19650 series and asks if we should have two standards for one information management process.
The International Standards Organization (ISO) 19650 series defines an internationally agreed business process for the effective management and collaborative production of information relating to built assets.
Currently the ISO 19650 series is published in five parts (standards) - with parts two and three containing the information management (IM) process for the delivery and operational phases, respectively. Logically, the operational phase follows the delivery phase for a built asset. So, surely logic would dictate that part three should follow part two?
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
Those familiar with part three (operational phase) will already know that it does not start after the project is complete – far from it. In fact, part three starts way before a project is initiated. That is why I explain to people that part three of the ISO 19650 series should actually be seen as the prequel to part two (delivery phase).
The reason being is that part three contains several important activities (clauses) that asset owners (appointing parties) must complete before the delivery phase (project) commences.
Failure to undertake these activities, or attempting to undertake them when the project has started, is likely to lead to inaccurate, incomplete, or ambiguous information being handed over at the end of the project. This makes it difficult for the asset owner to operate and maintain the asset effectively and adds unbudgeted costs to retrospectively generate the information required. The phrase starting with the end in mind.
Looking back
The reason the IM process was split into two parts and the delivery phase (part 2) was developed (and documented) before the operational phase (part 3) was, in my view, nothing to do with logical steps.
It all started in 2010 and the development of the UK 1192 series. I think it is fair to say, at that time, we knew more about managing information during the delivery phase than we did the operational phase. And operators and maintainers had the misconception that ‘BIM’ (Building Information Modelling) was only relevant for the design and construction of a built asset.
Having two standards for one IM process may have inadvertently shored up the silos we are so desperately trying to break down
In 2014 when we started to elevate the UK 1192 series to international level (the ISO 19650 series), things had thankfully moved on. By this point the UK 1192 series was widely adopted around the world. Therefore, it was decided to retain the structure and numbering sequence to avoid any confusion.
In reality when you map out the key activities of the IM process you will find that 35 of the 40 activities within part two of the ISO 19650 series are also found in part three - albeit some with an asset focus, rather than a project focus.
This is no accident and is testament to the efforts of the respective working groups in ensuring that parts two and three of the ISO 19650 series are closely aligned.
Is two better than one?
However, I am now concerned that having two standards for one IM process may have inadvertently shored up the silos we are so desperately trying to break down. Whereby designers and constructors only use part two, operators and maintainers only use part three.
On reflection, I wonder what would have happened had we combined the two standards to create an end-to-end IM process that all parties could adopt.
Would it have increased the likelihood that projects would be initiated with a clear set of organisational, asset and security information requirements and asset information standards etc? Might it have improved the exchange of information from the operational teams to the delivery teams and back to operational teams; or enabled the ‘golden thread’ of information throughout the asset lifecycle?
Based on my personal experience of working with several large asset owners and megaprojects, I honestly believe it would. What are your thoughts?
The knowledge gap
I also believe that this approach would significantly aid learning and understanding across all parties. At Operam Academy, we help individuals learn about the effective management and collaborative production of information.
We have always believed that ‘doing a page turn of the standards’ is not an effective way for people to learn about the IM process, or their role in it. Instead, we focus more on the key activities within the IM process, and less on the various parts of the ISO 19650 series.
We have already used our extensive knowledge of the ISO 19650 series to combine the key activities from parts two and three to create an end-to-end IM process covering the entire asset lifecycle. It is the same process, just presented in a different way. The feedback on this end-to-end IM process has been extremely positive from a learning perspective.
Please note, this combined IM process is for training purposes only, and you should always conform to the activities and clauses within the relative standards when required.
This is not a first step towards a paywall. We need readers to register with us to help sustain creation of quality editorial content on Construction Management. Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings. Thank you.
