Contractual Workstream Meeting 11-04-2023

GEORGE Most people at the moment are saying as long as we’ve got the specification as a document and the product that was installed then that’s probably as far as we can go. Do you think I’m being defeatist?

MARTIN No, I’m just wondering where it’s falling down, whether it’s the building users or the end users or the owners not knowing that they should be insisting that this information is there on the model, or the main contractors not knowing that it's got to be uploaded, or they can't get the information. I think it can be solved, we do a lot with the government and they’re quite scrupulous and intense, you have to have it.

FIONN I think even for all the talk of this being a requirement for the last 20 years, it’s still deemed to be a new requirement, certainly using IFC. If somebody was brave enough to to do the right kind of survey through the industry the competency for using that technology in any way professionally is lower than the past, for sure. And we’ve got such a reliance on, from a main contractor’s point of view all the modelling, we focus very heavily on 3 or 4 key design team consultants that we work with through an iterative modelling process for possibly years, and yet when it comes to product information, they're not really the people. That's the supply chain of smaller companies who don't have that kind of knowledge and skill and ability in terms of financial ability to procure things like ? 2mins 24 secs, so I think therein lies the challenge.

We've got some awkward situations where we're trying to even understand whether it's appropriate for an architect to take product information and handle it back in to their own model when they might turn around and say that's not appropriate for us to do that. We can give you the structure, but it's not for us to actually start filling out whether this door is this product or not, that’s for someone else to do. That can become a subjective conversation.

GEORGE The solution we as Active Plan have come up with, Martin, is something we’re about to start doing with Fionn on one of his projects. We’ve taken the product data, and there’s no need for the product data to actually be put into the BIM 3D model. It’s still going into the BIM data model and it’s connected to the BIM objects, but it’s as data, so it’s in a database. So that means that it's easy for people who aren't competent with BIM, who don't need to, the people who are actually buying the things top put their information in. The product library suggestion that I’m making actually makes it even simpler than that because the manufacturer simply provides their information into a common free library that everybody can access. And therefore the trade contractor doesn’t need to fill in data templates about a Grundfos pump because all they've got to do is go onto the product library and it’s already got the manufacturer’s details. Who they are, where they are, which is 80% of COBie, by the way.

80% of COBie is basically generic, in standard COBie, which on most of your projects your people will be asking for. They won't be asking for attributes, almost certainly, they'll be asking for just basic manufacturers contact details and the model number. They won’t be asking for fire rating. David, I think a lot of the fire rating, for example, won’t be being procured digitally. It should be, in fact I’ve spent the last 5 years pushing for that, but in most cases people are just asking for what they call basic COBie. And that that could be delivered automatically from the product library. It’s done once, it can be managed from that and then it can be applied.

MARTIN As a solution, does the legislation that’s coming in add some weight to the requirements?

GEORGE Yeah, I think it does. It depends on how you read the liabilities, but in practice. The way it seems to have been phrased is that the responsibility is on you and the landlord to ensure that you've got enough information to ensure that building is safe. And at a fundamental level that includes knowing what products and materials have been installed, where they are and how they should be maintained going forward. Ideally, it should also have the means to automatically check to see whether it meets the performance specification, but that’s a big technical challenge. So, the proposition that I’ve been working up with Fionn, we’re running it on some projects in Ireland at the moment, is to use the technical submittal process because it seems to me that the point at which main contractors are in control of the process is the point at which somebody will state that they're actually going to use this particular product on a project.

Just to give you an indication at the moment, on a PFI project that we’re working on the contractor is asking the FM contractor for their asset information requirements, but they can’t tell the FM people what products are going to be installed because they’ve not got to that stage of the design, for the reasons that we’ve been talking about for the last year. But they want the requirements before they can tell them what products they’re actually working against, and the information requirements on different products are different. So, the compromise that we’ve come up with is that we’ll give them high level information requirements on probably 300-400 asset types that we think will be in this type of scheme, but at the point of technical submittal (when an M&E contractor probably is doing the detailed design) and they will then say that in this system there’s going to be 3 of those and 4 of those and 1 of those.

When they put that up to the main contractor for agreement, at that point we’ll give them a data template with the specific information that's needed for that particular product. Before that, we’re already going to know (without them doing any work) what the product model is and also the contractor’s information, so we can produce the COBie from that immediately. And you could also do a cost at that stage, which might be of interest to your commercial people because it could tie in also to the build cost information service because you’ve got an asset type and a product. But then the additional information that you need for fire rating or whatever can be requested at that point in time. It means that 80-90% of the information that you'd normally expect a subcontractor to provide is pre-populated, and can be quality assured.

On every one of your projects, Martin, people will be compiling O&Ms and they won’t be following any particular standard on that. Event Systems are doing it, or Create Master are doing it. they’ll just be following the protocols that they use, so there won’t be a standardisation, whereas if the manufacturers providing their product data, even in simple form, then they’re in control if it. And it’s done once and can then be applied many times. So, that’s my proposition. I think there's a very simple way of doing this. The other thing, if you did that, you could also tie this into your existing projects, and maybe even historic ones. The thing that's coming from the BIM model is where things are and that's a critical thing, but that can be added later.

MARTIN But in terms of timing, George, I get what you’re saying, but what you were describing sounded a bit late in the process that people were making decisions on products. You were implying, almost, that it was after the event in terms of the design, it was main contractor and the M&E designer. It sounded a but late.

GEORGE No, let me clarify that. The minute you know that you’re prescribing a product, to use the terminology that Paul makes, you’ve got descriptive products and you've got prescriptive products. You could have a descriptive product which is a generic and that also can be in the product library. You don't need to say that it's a manufactured item, you can say that it's a product of that that type. So therefore a lot of the solution information, including costs and things like that, could be held against that.

MARTIN Yeah, I’m thinking 80/20 there, so from the design phase 80% of the information (in terms of the COBie data) that should be available. Your final product selection is your final product selection, a bit later in the process.

GEORGE Yes, but at the moment (Fionn, I think you’d support me on this), typically the COBie data is generated at the end of the project.

FIONN It’s delivered at the end, you’re dead right. Obviously you’re a proponent, as am i, of developing the structures as soon as possible. So, if you think about that for a minute, the key role that the architect would play in their modelling is to determine the spaces, rooms, and at least develop that, get the levels and spaces set, then we’ve got somewhere where the assets and systems can be located. When you mentioned about using the model to locate assets, one thing that I’m yet to become au fait with is using the model to locate every instance of an asset. There are those in the industry who are putting forth the proposition that every single valve ought to be represented as a graphical entity in a 3D model. That’s what we’re kind of up against here, this kind of confusion about what are you trying to do with the model. You push it too much and it’ll all come falling and you’ll get nothing out of it. So, that’s one thing that needs figuring out.

Can you conceivably have in a residential tower, which has got 100’s of rooms in it, every instance of every valve modelled, graphically represented, and thereby schedulable from a model, which is the beauty of modelling. If it's modelled, it's a database with a graphical representation of a 3D view, but a back end of structured data, which is what we all want. Yet, if you push for every single instance of every valve to be represented in that model, well, every time they move around the place during their coordination process, someone's going to move them around. Someone has to, first of all, populate them, and suddenly we're scratching our heads wondering, is this right? We haven’t figured this out.

Obviously with yourself, George, we’re looking at a way to get that done where we’ve got the space. We know we’ve got a space, can we tag data into that space without it being actually visible as a 3D thing, because any little valve that you’ve got to zoom in to and look at it and then if you go to a manufacturer’s website you may find the right product, but do you really need to see all the little bits and bobs, or do you just need to know that it exists there. That’s the question.

GEORGE And that’s the approach that we’re taking, Martin, the valve, it may just be that literally there’s just an ID at that point because having the XYZ coordinate of the vale is really quite important, but you don’t need it as a 3D graphic. Exactly the same issue comes with construction of a wall, or an internal partition or a compartment, because it’s probably made up of 4 or 5 different elements. I’m sure that you wouldn’t want to model all of those different elements. In fact, within Revit itself, it’s got some standard ways of generating walls and things like that, but the detail about what the different components that go to make that up, very few people would go into that level of detail. Whereas if you can then have that as a product that is just referenced to that particular instance in the model, then you don’t need to model it.

IAIN I think this is the big sticking point we’ve got to which is system, product, component. You’ve got this issue of who’s taking responsibility for placing what on the market at what time. There’s IP locks up in here, the manufacturer may or may not wish to declare what all the component parts of their product is. This is a fundamentally big challenge for all of us, because there’s no logic to the way the systems on NBS work. This is where we keep hitting this level of complexity is because nobody standardises at all anyway. Product data sheets don’t really build up as an accumulative standard because if you take a wall, who provided the metal, who provided the installation, who provided the board, how much detail do you actually need if somebody’s taken responsibility for the performance of that wall product.

The main contractor is really going to be looking at compatibility between the products within the system, but then the product manufacturers are placing your data. My sticking point in all of this is that will the manufacturers be willing to put all of this information into a third party environment that they've technically lost control of?

FIONN They’re really good points. From what I can understand of COBie, walls are not even included in it. You cannot use it to deliver a wall, let alone the component part. So that standard doesn't apply in such an incredibly important part of the building in the first place.

GEORGE If you interpret it strictly, I would agree with you. But COBie is just a data schemer, so you can put into it anything that you actually want. I think the determination is what should or shouldn't be included is a bit arbitrary, really. If you want walls to be included in your COBie output, then that could be done, as long as you can define it as a thing. Principally, COBie was put together to replace the O&M and it was therefore driven by the things that go into an O&M, probably 80% is M&E. But there's also specifications, so there's no reason, Iain, why you would need all of the component elements that go to make up that wall, as long as you've got something that says that’s the thing there, the wall, plus here’s a document which is the specification of it, perhaps.

MARTIN Iain’s right, it comes down to somebody saying I’ve signed it off, basically, it will perform as per the requirements, because it's made-up of more than one product. The product library will just be a library, it won’t give you the answer, as such. There’s a lot of information, but it won’t give you the does this work, can it fly.

GEORGE Well, the product library can hold all of the attribute information and it can therefore be used to feed any other application that is actually doing that calculation. It’s just part of the solution, really. It seems madness that on every project you might have Grundfos pumps, on every project you’ll have O&M contractors that are contacting Grundfos and saying can you give me…or they’re going on the website and downloading the file. In recent months I’ve been trying to do that, to backfill some of the projects that we’re working on. And even projects that are still underway at the moment, you can’t get the data sheets for them in any simple way because they’re probably not promoting those products anymore. They were specified two years ago and you can probably buy them, but they're not on the websites anymore.

MARTIN Anything to add, David, from what you've seen over the last few months? From an M&E perspective.

DAVID I’ll be honest with you and say not that I've seen at all. It’s a very detailed set of requirements that I don’t think the discussions that I’ve been involved with, with golden thread and the collection of data, not gone into that level of data yet. I think it’s needed, it’s a good starting point, but I’ve not seen anything discussed about standardisation or the availability of a particular manufacturers’ product data at all yet, unfortunately.

MARTIN I wonder where the regulator will be in their head when they start asking for this information, what will they be looking for?

DAVID I don’t think that they’ve though that through to that nth level of detail, because the golden thread is a very high level requirement of prove what you’ve put in is correct. The devil is always in the detail and i don’t think that’s been given any amount of serious processing as to how we collate that data. This obviously leads to a methodology of having that information, but I think they’re two ends of disconnected thought process.

IAIN Can they default back to saying that, at the end of the day, you should be doing this already. The regulator’s default position is you should already be reassuring yourselves with information that the buildings meet the requirements of the building regulations.

GEORGE Even more so than that, it’s not just that they meet the building regs, it's also have you done enough as a competent provider to ensure that that building is safe. And therefore if, for example, there's a pump on a dry riser that fails and you don’t know what that pump was, when you’re pulled up in front of the inquiry you’re going to look a bit daft. The fact of the complexity of knowing what pump was used, that would be disregarded, wouldn’t it.

IAIN I think the question is who needs to know what pump is being used. That’s the key question. If you move it to another industry, Apple don’t give you the entire ingredients set of their iPhone, you have to go back to Apple to get your iPhone fixed.

GEORGE Yeah, but the people who are maintaining that pump, they would need to know. If you’ve not passed over to the maintenance people what that pump was or what that valve was then I think you could be in an exposed situation, if that valve was the thing that…Now, we’ve got some simple ways to make the information explicit, I'm frustrated because we've been down this track for many years. And we've got a solution, we just don’t have the scale to be able to bring it to…I think with the new Building Safety Act there’s a requirement now, as Iain was saying, you’re expected to already be doing it. I remember Willmott Dixon saying to me a few years ago that when Grenfell happened they had a huge challenge because their insurers came to them and said how many buildings have you built, what cladding have you put on buildings that are over 18 metres, and then haven’t got a clue. So, they ended up having to have teams of people trawling through all their O&Ms just to find out which buildings were over 18 metres. They didn’t know, because that wasn’t a criteria that had been considered before.

MARTIN They weren’t on their own, George, it’s an industry issue.

GEORGE Exactly. And it’s exactly the same now, whatever the problem is you don’t know when it’s going to be that knowing which thermostatic mixing valves have been installed actually could become an issue.

IAIN There’s a million reasons not to do anything, isn’t there? Why would we not go down this road, what’s stopping us just having a crack at this? If it’s something it moves the conversation on, we might not succeed, but will we make the world a better place by trying?
GEORGE My view is that we can do exactly that. Active plan’s got the technology which I’m willing to provide to BIM4housing, so it’s free. It might not be the best way of doing it, but it's a way of doing it, and we’re not going to be dancing around waiting for something else to happen. We can get underway and do it and then work out going forward how we fashion it. If, for example, Bouygues and Balfour Beatty and Mace, Willmott Dixon and Waites all said, right, if you want to supply us with product we want you to just provide a data sheet, that’s all. And if you provide that data sheet we can then add information to it like the new BS8644 data, all of that can be added incrementally. And the important thing is that when it's in the product library, if on one of your projects, Martin, if people are using Revit they can simply connect to the product library and generate all their COBie data automatically.

IAIN Could we use it at the same time, George, to try and sort of kick start, because you say in your email that Lexicon sort of ground to a bit of a halt, not because it’s not a good idea, but because of all the politics that sit around it. So if we focus this on some key areas rather than trying to be all encompassing, because if you try and do it at an entire building level it may be a huge task. If we align it with some of the work I’m trying to do with Paul on dampers and the Passive Fire Knowledge Group, could we try and take a smaller sample set…could we not start to do some of the Lexicon work. I had a chat with Peter Caperhorn just before Easter about it, I said I kind of feel it’s all a bit constipated and we’ve either got to crack on with trying to be an authority, or whatever the relevant authority is for Lexicon. I'm quite happy to act as a relevant authority until somebody tells me I can’t. Somebody’s got to do something. Realistically, we might step on a few toes as we move forward, but I can't see there's gonna be too many fundamental disagreements about the basic stuff that needs to be agreed around Lexicon for the key product areas that we're dealing with.

GEORGE Most certainly. Two things, really. What Lexicon is doing is defining what the essential characteristics are, what the product data should be for all the different product types. That is a significant piece of work. We've already got it pre-populated in the Templater using IFC as the standard. So if manufacturers agreed, which they don’t agree, to use IFC as their standard information, because that’s principally the design information. If they did, when they do, then we could do that. I’m feeling that everything is, as you say, constipated. We’ve also got CCPI that’s now being relaunched, that’s another CPA initiative. That’s great, having somebody verifying is obviously good, but it’s not going to be comprehensive because ETIM and GS1 told me that 80% of the manufacturers in the construction industry are SMEs, and they’re probably making half a dozen different products. So, whether they’re going to go through that registration method is probably unlikely.

IAIN But again, you can incorporate it, because if it provides a degree of extra reassurance, which is all the CCPI does…you say has it been approved by the CCPI or not. If it’s not been approved then that tells you you’ve got to do a little bit more due diligence yourself.

GEORGE Lloyd’s Register are also willing to audit and endorse, because Travis Perkins are quite keen on this, so they’d be willing to contribute their data. One of the reasons it’s taken so long, we’ve been talking to Travis Perkins for 3 years now, is that their data is all over the place. It’s a lot better than it was, but it’s put together to be able to sell things, and not necessarily that standardised because of the different products that they’ve got. So, there’s a lot we can do in this area. I’m thinking, as you say, Iain, what can we do to just do something, because we’ve been talking about it now for 6 years now.

MARTIN It’s the biggest blocker, though. Iain mentioned IP, do you think the manufacturer is not being asked, George? Or do you think it’s that they don’t have the information, because they’re so small, generally speaking. What’s holding it back, what’s making it constipated?

FIONN I think, not to pass the buck, but seeing client requirements currently and the misalignment within and the confusion they create, that doesn't help. So, if you think about it from the most basic perspective from a main contractor, obviously things are massively changing now, but if you take COBie as an end deliverable it’s debatable whether or not it holds any great value to the main contractor. Its value is for the end recipient, whatever, the FM guy. And that seems to attract fees and questions the minute that conversation starts, is it, well, does the client really want this? is it clear what they want? From the get go, that’s contentious.

This is idealism on my part, but if you had a client who had undertaken a study, some time to look at what they really want and need, and discuss that with their own FM people and they’ve articulated it in some way that was clear, and then cascade that out knowing that they will stand by it, as opposed to allowing it to be confused and potentially rubbed out once it becomes a financial…once someone sticks a figure beside it, then that becomes something which could be value engineered out. Do you really want this? Do you know what you want to do with this? Do even have a system on the other end to receive this? That's my experience today, and I really envisaged working in the residential sector since 2015 that that wouldn't have been the case, and it's still somewhat the case. And I think we see a discrepancy here if we were to compare ourselves to healthcare where they’re more prescriptive in terms of government style requirements. I guess that’s beyond…it’s the politics that sit behind how does a local authority operate versus a centrally funded scheme.

IAIN And the other party in this is the principal designer, because if we go back to that conference the regulator ran last month the biggest fear at the moment seems to be that nobody can get insurance to be a principal designer, because technically they’re responsible for the information journey. So, it's back to your original question, Martin. Who's responsible for this? Well, arguably the principal designer. They at least have to make sure they’ve specified a process that allows this to be done properly. Their comment from the regulator at the thing last month was that they envisaged one principal designer through the job. So you can't abdicate principal design responsibilities to anyone else.

They see it as one principal designer, which isn’t really the way the world works now, there is a principal designer, but they’re out off the scene. One of these ? 41mins 31secs working groups is on professional indemnity insurance and they’re desperately trying to find a way to ensure that principal designers can get any insurance at all. The original draft of the letter was couldn’t they be exempted from having PI cover, I said i could never sign that letter because that liability, where does it sit? That’s not a sticking plaster, that’s ripping a plaster off and staring at a gapping wound.

GEORGE Can I just pick up on what Fionn was saying, just so we’re all on the same page, because people talk about COBie and it might be that you’re not completely familiar with it. (shares screen). This is a COBie output from out asset information requirements tool. This information here, this is the name of the product (it’s a fire door), here we’ve got the manufacturer’s information. We've got a description, a model number, information about warranties. You've then got replacement cost, expected life, and its height, width and depth. You've also got information on here, like shape and things like that, but these can be switched off. These are optional. Those are for types of products. Now, I don't think there's anything on there that a main contractor wouldn't want to know. It’s not just for asset managers.

You've then got the instance, which is the individual location of that door, which is saying where it is and also its serial number. There’s nothing on there to say it’s got a fire rating. As Active Plan, we add onto there the IFC attributes that are relevant to a door. And these have been selected by people who are subject matter experts. Whether they're right or not, whether they are adequate, an external door, an internal door, what's its security rating and things like this. But these are all attributes that are largely specific to a door, or other things like doors (maybe windows). The reason I’m mentioning this is that these main COBie attributes are the ones that at a basic level people are working to, and with our tool you can switch on or off the ones you don’t want to see. That just provides a bit of context. I can't see that any product that you are putting into your building, you wouldn't want to know who the manufacturer is and if there's a model number, what the model number is.

FIONN I agree. I guess what I’m not seeing yet, and I suppose that’s maybe a lack of maturity in the quality of the COBie that I’ve seen coming through, I haven’t seen…also as a main contractor and finding a way to use that ourselves, to build that into our own process. So, we’ll have the technical submittal, what we call a PTS, that’s our main means of understanding all of what you were showing there, because it’s more humanly readable. That’s the problem with COBie, it has to sit at the back of it and then become accessible to the mere mortal.

GEORGE Most certainly, that’s dead easy to do.

FIONN It’s useful. So, is part of the problem we’re seeing now convincing people that the value in supplying it is there versus the effort required, because almost every box that you're showing there is input required from someone, so how best can they do it. We can see at the moment in industry for someone to open up their 3D model and start populating blank property data within the model is something that the industry is just not there with. So how else can they do it to retain that connection?
GEORGE What I’m suggesting is that it's done once by the product manufacturer and then it’s used thousands of times. Because if that goes into the product library, yeah, then it's then accessible to…

FIONN I’m with you, George. If you looked at this industry from the outside, you’d wonder how is that not possible right now, looking at a basic level of technology usage. There’s only so many finite things we put in a building, how is there not a system that’s regulated that’s got that stuff in it, because it doesn’t exist right now. There’s a lot of chatter. In your case, George, you’re developing a bespoke solution to that problem, there’s other guys doing similar. There’s no industry norm for that that’s an agreed independent structure for that where everyone, software vendors, could draw from and harness that.

GEORGE What I’m proposing, though, is something that isn’t proprietary. I’m suggesting we do it around COBie, because the COBie structure gives you the manufacturer, model number, warranty, that key information in an absolutely standard way. Anybody could use that, it’s not a BIM thing. And we're putting into a free product library which then anybody can access.

IAIN So any SME manufacturer could create their own templates using the tool, for free?

GEORGE Correct.

IAIN In a format that was agreed standardised, by a group of main contractors.

GEORGE Absolutely. It does it now.

IAIN Just picking up Fionn’s point about proprietary, some manufacturers may or may not decide to participate, so could it be a solution that's additive, so if a manufacturer hosting that information in their own format ? 50mins 01secs requirements, you can download it from there. Or, if you want to go to the off the shelf for other manufacturers where they’ve got this free environment to upload it, you could do it that way.

GEORGE Absolutely. And the product library already supports APIs, so we’ve got APIs into things like BIM Object etc. But can I just come back to the basics, the product library holds the manufacturers’ contact details. So as long as the manufacturer puts their contact details in and also some basic information about the types of products they're selling and what the warranties might be (or you could just ignore that bit, that can be done later). That gives the baseline to generate the COBie data because most of that data is basic information about who the manufacturer is, where they're located (so you can start to calculate carbon and stuff like that) and a contact address for them, because it’s absolutely standard. And then if there’s a data sheet uploaded against it, and maybe a declaration of performance or an environmental product declaration, then that means that's done once and then everybody can access it.

IAIN In a conversation similar to this, NBS was born. NBS should do this, right?

GEORGE Yeah, but NBS is owned by a venture capital company now.

FIONN My experience with NBS is that purely from the BIM side of it, it ceased to be developed from circa 2017. There seemed to have been some kind of central government style funding and a partnership with, potentially, a contractor to get it to a point, and then it’s not finished. So, we can’t really use it in its current guise, you cannot cite the levels of development which are shown there because the more you look at it there’s a lot of stuff that’s just blank. It’s a great idea, it just stopped, and there isn't a parallel of that, it's just that was the one.

GEORGE And the challenge with it is you’ve got NBS, you’ve got CIBSE, you’ve got Rickes? 53mins 23secs and all of them have got different perspectives on things and that’s a challenge. That’s why I think doing something simple would be, potentially, comprehensive. In terms of your members, Iain, you’ve got quite a few manufacturers as members. If we were to say let’s just give them a free account, for want of a better term, so that they’re controlling their data, all we need is the name and address and contact details for those and that would go into the product library. So therefore they've got a placeholder for them to start adding their product information and they can put as much or as little up there as they want on the basis that if they put it up there then the architects, the procurement people, would see it. If they don’t put it up there, they won’t see it.

IAIN I think coming at it from a different angle, is it a service to manufacturers to help them structure their data in a format that makes it more useful. So, you could sort of position it there. If we talk about a common data environment, it’s not prohibitive to say that if you were a manufacturer and you were recording your data through this system you could link to it from your website as your place to have structured data. Different manufacturers take different approaches. Saint-Gobain are a member of ours, would Saint-Gobain go down this road? I suspect not, because of their desire to control their own data and keep everything in their own universe, so i suspect they’d be more of a challenge. But if I took a company like Forza Doors, they’d probably be more open to sharing.

GEORGE Yeah, I’m sure you’re right. We don’t need to boil the ocean with this, we can start with the manufacturers who are willing.

FIONN How does this tie in with data dictionaries? Because we’ve got standards that are being knocked about the industry for data dictionaries, it seems like it’s part of the same conversation. But I don’t know where the likes of BSI, a company which has its own motives. But there is no single place that exists yet for this kind of stuff.

GEORGE That’s a very good point. The Templater application that we developed for the BRI, that was the basis of Lexicon, is a data dictionary application. A data dictionary basically allows you to hold parameters and then group them into groups of parameters that are called property sets and then apply them to asset types, or things (things is probably a better term). So you can say that these are the attributes that you would want to record against a door, and there might be many different attributes that are needed for different purposes. There might be fire, there might be maintenance, there might be procurement, there might be carbon, all of those are properties which are then grouped together as a set of properties to fulfil a function about an asset type. And that’s fundamentally the basis of this, and the data dictionary that we created conforms with all the guidelines and standards. So, that’s already existing.