Neil Ashdown -Next steps from DCW roundtables

Neil Ashdown -Next steps from DCW roundtables

Post DCW Feedback

Neil Ashdown

Neil Ashdown -Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220608

Neil Ashdown thought that because the roundtable discussion was short it was a bit chaotic, but useful because they now have a sense of the requirements. They struggled with getting all the information about fire doors (data sheets/reports etc) into digital information rather than a PDF…and why?

RICHARD says, in terms of how, that’s actually the whole point of the ‘why’ - it has to be done manually which is why it has to be digital and machine readable so you only have to do that exercise once. If a PDF has to be converted to a digital format there is an element of judgement in the conversion process (due to discrepancies of naming of things within data libraries etc). The human view always makes error possible. The information needs to be consistent, updatable, machine readable and accurate.

NEIL says to cry and cram the vast amount of information into a single document could be a nightmare. RICHARD says that data can be viewed differently in a certain context e.g. the performance of a fire door can vary if parts of the door have been changed. if information about the entire fire door system is not written down then mistakes will be made more often. We have to collect the data and make it accessible to the right people when they need it. This will save them time as they don’t have to wade through a large PDF.

NEIL says that certainly some stakeholders would benefit from the document being more targeted for that particular use. Some door manufacturers will give the end user simplified information about the specific door whilst others will supply a PDF with more global door information, so there would need to be a culture change amongst manufacturers. He’s concerned that smaller manufacturers, who are often making a better quality product, may not be able to provide such specific information and may be frozen out. RICHARD says the more we can specify what is needed the better it will be for everyone, including the smaller manufacturers.

Regarding the RACI approach, NEIL thought his skills were best used to help define who needs what and who provides it. Some of the documents can be common use for everyone (floor plan) but installation instructions may vary depending on who’s using them. He did not look so deeply into accountability. RICHARD says they want to take the learnings from that meeting and then at the next 1 1/2 hour group meeting get everyone engaged and hopefully get it nailed. NEIL unfortunately cannot make the next Construction group meeting. NEIL can certainly help with different uses of terminology.

NEIL asks where does this fit with the golden thread? RICHARD replies that Hackett said that BIM was the solution to the golden thread, but he doesn’t think that’s the case - BIM is just part of the solution. BIM doesn’t address how to make the data updatable and doesn’t specify that data needs to be machine readable.