ISO 19650-3, which will be introduced later this year, will cover the op- erational phase of assets. However, similar CDE- based data management logic will be applied to the entire data manage- ment process throughout the whole BIM lifecycle. While there is still about one year to welcome the completely new ISO release, it would be ben- eficial to investigate the practices of BIM-AM/
owner’s EAM requirements not been able to integrate into the delivery phase in a sufficient manner, a substantial amount of time and work will be required after the delivery phase to fill the gap of data asymme - try. Meanwhile, due to inconsistent data transfer, additional efforts will be required to perform data validation to ensure data interoperability and accuracy. One of the true advantages the new ISO 19650 series can bring to the industry is its positive impact on the current BIM lifecycle implemen- tation from the principle and process level. The combination of part 1 (concepts and principles), part 2 (delivery phases of assets), and part 3 (operational phases of assets) provide a high-level, generic structure to ensure holistic data management processes. These can be streamlined throughout the delivery and operational phases, by addressing the fol- lowing questions: 1. What kind of data will the operational phase need? 2. How can I make certain these data are collected? 3. How can I ensure these data will be accessible and readable by the operational phase? What is Happening Now Some remarkable efforts have contributed to “BIM to FM” (or “PIM to AIM”) integration to improve the BIM lifecycle implementation. This work has led to a better understanding of the true value of BIM.
Illustration of information asymmetries and process defects between Delivery Phase and Operational Phase
FM integration, evaluate current implementation efficiency and effi - cacy, and perform gap analysis from a data management perspective to prepare the industry for global BIM Level 2 adoption. Gap in PIM/AIM Handoff When talking about BIM’s integration into the operational stage, we are one step ahead of actual BIM utilization in the larger AECO indus- try, which places us in a bittersweet situation. On one side, we have been able to foresee the promising and appealing long-term benefits coming from BIM-integrated AM/FM. These have been supported by a few good and substantially successful cases. On the other side, we have experienced spending extra effort to overcome difficulties regarding data sufficiency, interoperability, and consistency, mainly from upstream phases. The absence of an industrial level consensus of asset data classification, and codification is a major contributor to these difficulties. Meanwhile, a bigger problem is the data requirements and demands from the operational phase cannot be completely included in the Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Process or reflected in BIM relevant regulations, standards, and contractual languages or utilized to conduct the data collection and preparation processes during the delivery phase. In short, a variety of factors, from perspectives of taxonomy, business process, PM approaches, policies and regulations, etc., is jeopardizing the data interoperability, integrity, sufficiency, consistency, and accuracy during the handoff from PIM toAIM. Figure 3 illustrates the current information asymmetries and process defects between the delivery and operational phases. Current Practice A good example of a commonly used standard is Construction Opera- tions Building Information Exchange (COBie), along with other clas- sification/codification systems suggested by UK 1192, or the proposed ISO 19650-3. Under “ideal” conditions, region-specific requirements regulated by the requirements appendix is supposed to diminish all the data barriers between handoffs, as well as complete the lifecycle of BIM data flow. However, a lot of issues are proving difficult to resolve. It is close to impossible to require all owners and facilities to reach consensus on classification and codification to structure their assets. For most owners, when COBie fails to meet their Enterprise-level As- set Management (EAM) standard (i.e., asset types are out of building and scope), they start to build their own system. In this case, if the
A proposed CDE data flow diagram derived from BIM LEVEL 2 Illustration
For example, one technical service consultancy developed a custom- izable “BIM to FM” solution to help their client incorporate FIM into their daily FM operations, and take advantage of the asset data embedded in PIM without replacing their existing asset classification and codification. Additionally, clients benefit from a holistic strategic implementation plan for the BIM to FM workflow by incorporating FM requirements into delivery phases. This has been achieved by per- forming a thorough requirement analysis of the existing FM system and ensuring corresponding data requirements are established for each delivery stage so asset data can be captured and streamlined dur- ing the development phases of the project (Design, Construction, and Commissioning). The diagram depicts a backflow to indicate operational phase data requirements as inputs to upstream stages, to conduct asset-mined data collection in preparation for the AM/FM phase. At the same time, requirements are in place on related BIM standards, BIM Execution Plans (BEPs), contractual languages, and other peripheral documents to enforce the data transfer during each model handoff to ensure data interoperability, consistency, and accuracy. This positions the FIM, or the Digital Twin of a physical asset as a living model that can synchronize with Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) to update itself on a timely basis. The
41
august 2020
csengineermag.com
Made with FlippingBook Annual report