Does the new 19650 address the sector’s issues?

The shift to a ‘purpose-led’ approach for information in the revised standard is welcome, as is the simplified logic of information purposes, information requirements and information production. This has the potential to result in only the minimum essential information being created and maintained, aligned to clear ‘purposes’ – ie, the actions that need to be taken and the decisions that need to be made.

Despite this good progress, the purposes do not go far enough. Purposes should flow from the business outcomes that the asset owner chooses to prioritise. This clear link between information purposes and business outcomes is necessary to inform the asset owner’s business cases by demonstrating return on investment.

The integration of Part 2 (Delivery) and Part 3 (Operations) into a single part with a unified multi-step process is very positive. 

However, the focus and the language lean heavily towards the capture of asset data in design and construction. This does not reflect reality – there are many more buildings already in use than being built new. The revised standard must do more to recognise how data describing the existing estate is captured and maintained. And describing all activities that depend on, and generate, information, including surveys, facilities management and smart buildings as ‘projects’ is confusing and sends the wrong message. 

The revised standard positively brings a focus on accountability for information and sets out how CDEs should be the single version of the truth at the centre of a network of federated platforms with workflows supporting data approval and data quality validation. 

It would be even better if Information Quality were defined, with descriptions of how it can be achieved, maintained and assured both during lifecycle stages and at the transition between stages.

The new unified nine-step process describes in detail how information requirements are defined and then how the necessary information is produced. However, the need to transfer information to others, in an appropriate format, as the project nears its end, is only touched on in the briefest detail.

The revised standard should cover the definition of the structure and format of information to be transferred to others in the information requirements stage, and should address in detail the format and quality standards required for the transfer of asset data to others. To bring the focus required, one option would be to add an additional step: (new) Step 9 – Information Review, Acceptance and Transfer, making 10 steps in all. 

At project handover, information must be structured into the asset register required for operations. Asset registers must include not only traditional assets, but also BMS, meters and IoT, and unstructured data must be linked to assets rather than being provided as separate pdfs in static folders. 

The new standard does little to recognise the wide range of digital maturity or to provide a route to improved maturity for those starting on their digital journey. It appears to be written for those already well advanced in their digital journey. 

Perhaps standards should set a high bar. If so, there is a scope for separate ‘how to’ guides, aligned to the revised ISO 19650, to help those starting out to make real progress quickly. The Digital Operations Playbook is one such initiative: more on this at Digital Construction Week in June.

Steven Boyd has more than 20 years of experience in managing public sector estates, including nearly five years as CEO of the Government Property Agency. As well as running his own consultancy, he is collaborating with professional institutions to align data classifications and to drive sector productivity through the Digital Operations Working Group.

Keep up to date with DC+: sign up for the midweek newsletter.