As regulations become more stringent, manufacturers find their levels of responsibility rising. While requirements for product quality tighten, so does the onus on them to supply greater, verifiable detail on those products- often along with certified training on their installation and ongoing maintenance. Product delivery is no longer an end in itself.

Our Manufacturing Group looks at the very specific challenges manufacturers face in the Construction Industry’s changing landscape. Whether identifying issues arising from the level of granularity required to contribute to carbon footprint measurement or the need for conformity in asset attribute descriptions; each is analysed and prioritised.

Passing these issues through to BIM4Housing Workstreams for solutions, we are looking to help enable manufacturers to connect-up with integrators to create cost effective and sustainable living environments.

Manufacturing Group Status

Chaired By : Will Perkins

DateHighpointActionsAttendees
16-Jun-22

Post DCW Feedback

Roy Buckingham

Roy Buckingham - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220616

ROY BUCKINGHAM thought it was a good exercise despite the fact the time was limited and therefore they could not achieve a huge amount. RICHARD says it was a bit more challenging than maybe they had intended it to be, particularly as there were walk-ins who were obviously not familiar with the exercise. ROY thinks the RACI methodology is a good idea, but he thought from his perspective that the escape-ability from the building was missing.

ROY considers more collaboration meetings would be the best next step, whether face-to-face or virtual. He mentions a colleague, Douglas Masterson, who works closely with the Guild of Architectural ironmongers (GAI) who has been adopted onto the BIM BSI framework and maybe he should be included in future discussions.

GEORGE says they want to continue to follow the model used at DCW. The leader of the Construction group, Steve Coppin, is an advisor to the HSE and has a strong understanding of the process that the regulator is following. Gordon Crick from the HSE attended. The HSE are quite nervous about getting involved in certain things right now. Steve organised a session yesterday with 4 breakout groups, taking 4 asset types that make up a compartment and then did a deep-dive to see what information should be coming from who - a bit like the RACI but simpler. The data points were turned into questions.

The new digital information for fire is coming out next week with a large amount of new terminology - it will address some of the points Roy made about escape. ROY thinks ultimately, he’d be led by the contractors, stakeholders that operate the buildings, as to how they want the digital information, but first you have to identify what information is needed. GEORGE has learnt in the last year it’s essential to simplify the questions. roy makes the point that they need to be aware of which standards are relevant so when they need to they can go off and read it, but they don’t need it in the answer at that point. ROY says one of the biggest issues now is that everything is open to interpretation.

GEORGE says that MACE are looking at it as that a lot more of this needs to be prescriptive. Contractors often tell ROY that there are too many variables so they are not sure of what solution to use. Elliot Dawson (door manufacturer) says the challenge to make it interchangeable is that you’d have to have it tested with that particular manufacturer. The door assembly method in the UK (unlike EU) means different elements of the door come from different sources and is then put together on-site and ‘claim’ it’s a fire door. Also, cheaper doors often don’t natch the performance criteria of more costly doors.

After Grenfell, building control changed their approach of looking at the fire test evidence - suddenly they wanted primary test evidence with more specific details. The UK is moving a little bit more towards the door set supply, but there are still projects delivered with door assemblies, particularly small to medium size projects, but big hospitals and high rises use door sets. The question can be simpler with a door set than with a door assembly, which is more complicated.

GEORGE will arrange a 1-to-1 meeting with roy, who is also happy to participate in future group meetings. ROY thinks you need collaborations outside of the particular group specialities because you need interaction between them to understand the difficulties and the challenges the other groups have.

 

06-Jun-22

Post DCW Feedback

Stephen Gore

Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220606

RICHARD points out that as soon as a human gets involved there is a possibility of error. Industry should be moved towards accepting that it’s got to be machine readable and, therefore, absolutely consistent.

STEPHEN thinks that the format was OK but the location of an open space in the middle of an exhibition, along with the time constraints, were not advantageous - a meeting room would have been better. RICHARD said it was typical of the kind of meetings/roundtables that Bim4housing holds. We want to deliver outputs that are solutions (not to be talking shops).

STEPHEN is interested in attending the manufacturing meetings in the future. His role is fire safety but there may also be others at Swegon organisation who may be able to add more value in other elements of manufacturers e.g. service/contractors etc. Stephen is also working on competency frameworks so can assist with templates. It’s generally the manufacturers who will know the technical content of products better than anyone…the matter is to define it into something machine readable. So, Swegon can certainly offer support with the content generation of products.

RICHARD says thats fantastic and he’s already doing a lot of work on that. he will look at the fire dampers and smoke control damper docs and make comments.

 

09-Jun-22

Post DCW Feedback

Elliott Dawson

Elliott Dawson - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220609

Elliott Dawson thinks DCW was good, but probably a bit rushed. Whilst it was clear what detail was being looked for it would be better for things to be looked at in isolation and then amalgamated together to get the desired effect. There was some cross-purpose talk sometimes and the venue was noisy. There were positive outcomes. Certain people at the (Manufacturing) table were pushing their own agenda - they looked at just one avenue rather than looking at the actual effect to the building and the golden thread principle for the entire package, they were pushing their own products.

For Elliot, it’s about data capture for the entire building, you need to encapsulate all the different golden threads and then have a ‘building envelope’ golden thread. In other projects he’s working on he concentrates on education rather than pushing the brand. It’s about accountability hot productivity - how have you captured that information from the point of inception to the point of delivery to ensure that it is exactly as it was tested? The day-to-day process needs to be captured and audited, not the one-offs. As RICHARD says, it’s about an ‘ongoing standard’.

Regarding door data systems, Elliot’s company has committed to paying for every part of the process to ensure that its adhered to for the first year of the products life cycle. The end user can then pay for the maintenance thereafter. To do this he uses JIM format and tags the doors which have all relevant data about the door - date of manufacture/where it was made/when landed in the UK/current size etc. The size is relevant as the door may fail if it has been trimmed too much. It ensures accountability throughout the process from the building of the door through to the maintenance.

Some people are reluctant to share product information, but Elliot doesn’t see why that would be the case. He’s currently working on refining the product, possibly adding an electronic closer. GEORGE asks to be put in touch with Dormer and Rutland, companies who Elliot has been testing door closers with. A concealed closer, put in by the fabricator, cannot be taken out.

GEORGE talks about doing a DCW-like exercise on Teams…Stephen Coppin told him that building control is going national, it’s moving from local authorities into the HSE. GEORGE is going to run the RACI again, on fire doors, walls and (perhaps) penetration seals with the idea of looking at it as compartments rather than just the door itself.

GEORGE says in order to get the simple answers that everyone needs its essential to frame the questions so that the question can be adequately explicit e.g. the width of the door. Elliot says there is often confusion about frame size. The overall size of the door isn’t an issue as such, what’s important is the initial size of the door compared to how much it has now been trimmed. Too much trimming may cause the door to be ‘out of tolerance’.

ELLIOT wants his fabricators to upload their software data onto the JIM system so there will be a full data sheet. If a specific door tag has been shipped to them and they try to attach that reference to an overall door size that is out of scope then it will cause a red flag. From a maintenance perspective you just need the standard and that’s why the golden thread needs to be captured.

GEORGE and ELLIOT talk about whether the information will be available in a machine readable form…

GEORGE talks about the door - there is the door itself, the weight of the door is important, and the wall itself. ELLIOT disagrees that the weight of the door is an issue, it can only relate to the substructure it’s fitted into. But GEORGE says that doors are often fitted into walls when it's the wrong type of wall. Circumstances need to be identified where these things need to be checked.

GEORGE wants to turn the parameters about doors from the issued data sheet into questions because if parameters can be standardised as a question it can then be mapped to an answer. ELLIOT is going to have a look at it. He thinks it would be interesting to put educators that are manufacturers with property owners/architects. George says this will definitely happen.

09-Jun-22

Post DCW Feedback

Paul White

Paul White - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220609

PAUL WHITE says that they spoke more about doors than dampers in the Manufacturing roundtable at DCW. He thinks it would be helpful to do it in a bigger forum. RICHARD says that for the next 1 1/2 hour meeting documentation will be sent out beforehand so participants can be fully prepared to run through it.

PAUL WHITE understands the importance of collating the data but struggles with the presentation of the data ‘back out’. he also understands George’s idea that different individuals only require specific information relevant to them, but he takes issue with it as many people don’t want the information as they don’t want to make decisions about it and they haven’t up until now - they don’t realise the information that they need as they don’t want the responsibility and they’ve never had to do it. The new gateways have stopped things being shunted up to someone else who just signs off on things, now suddenly they have to know about it and think about it. The problem is more of outlook (‘philosophy’) than of data itself.

PAUL WHITE says this is going to kill Design & Build. The architects and consultants will now have to do some ‘real design work’. They’ll need to be aware of how it all fits together, to make decisions on which door will be fitted etc before it gets to the contractor. As RICHARD says, a change of mindset is required. Another example of this change in responsibility is ‘if you’re doing the fire strategy, don’t leave things out of it’. Eg why were the dampers not part of the fire strategy at Grenfell? The responsibility has been pushed down for so long - that’s going to change now.

PAUL talks about his space concept: ‘if you don’t leave space for it, you can’t put it in’.

RICHARD asks PAUL what he thinks about the RACI methodology. PAUL thinks it should be ‘cut down into smaller lumps - to do it by product’. And then it’s necessary to look at coordination outside of that. RICHARD says the idea is to split the group up into rooms within Teams, breaking it up into smaller chunks. It also means more involvement from participants. Also, in additional to online meetings, he suggests some face-to-face meetings would be useful.

PAUL says that he’ll have another look at the documents they’ve developed together and do them more like a checklist. RICHARD says that the plan is to turn the statements from the document into questions and, where possible, make tick boxes. Therefore there would be options next to each question, rather than leaving a question open. PAUL was thinking more to take each line and writing ‘who needs to know this’ and then the boxes are filled in.

10-Jun-22

Post DCW Feedback

Will Perkins

Will Perkins - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220610

RICHARD asks WILL how did DCW go from his point of view? What should be the next steps going forward?

WILL PERKINS says, firstly, there was never going to be enough time. The fire doors group he was involved in was good, including the useful input of an architect who attended. His group focused only on fire doors considering that there were two fire door manufacturers and a hardware manufacturer in attendance. The floor plan was very useful because it was a real life situation. It took 20 minutes for the 3 door experts to agree on the actual application - just 1 fire door has so many possible variations!

The employee of Assa Abloy produced spreadsheets with machine readable data - this enabled them to see for the first time the kind of thing that manufacturers need to be moving towards to present their data. regarding CPPI, he doesn’t know if there is any need there for machine readable data. Therefore, Bim4housing should contact CPPI because they are driving data sheets. RICHARD says, yes, it’s essential to officially contact them.

Regarding RACI, asks RIChard, did that work? WILL says there would not have been enough time to go through all the RACI methodology in the DCW meeting, but the RACI approach to risk and accountability is critical. WILL considers that RACI is an extension of the original roundtable meeting they had about AOVs, it’s an illustration of who is accountable. In RACI there can only ever be one person/actor who is accountable, and several people ‘responsible’. he’s not sure how RACI can be used by them beyond being a tool of illustration of accountability.

RICHARD ask’s Will whether, in the July meeting, it would be a good idea to put out this methodology and going through the exercise with the whole group. WILL says yes, and he can do both AOV and Cavity insulation. WILL thinks there is an issue with the titles in the template because they don’t align with the building safety bill. It’s good to put together RACI matrixes (one for each of AOV and cavity barriers) as long as they will have the freedom to refine it.

WILL says in the next couple of weeks he will email the group to inform them that they’ll refine the RACI matrix with AOV and cavity barrier products (there’s some continuity with the original roundtable here) and he’ll send the original document out. Participants will then be prepared to populate and refine the RACI matrixes during the design meeting. He’ll also send to RICHARD the CPPI info.

04-May-22

BIM4HOUSING MANUFACTURING WORKING GROUP MEETING-20220504

WILL PERKINS ‘last time we agreed to pick a manufacturer and actually walk our way through populating the Templater and see where it takes us. When we are comfortable with it as Manufacturers, we can introduce wider stakeholders into our experience (design, operations).’

GEORGE refers to Michael Gove’s response to the CPA and that its clear the department is taking a very hard line on responsibility and liability. Manufacturers, developers and contractors will be held to account for any defects - ‘defects’ include missing information. In the light of this the Templater work is very important as the information needs to be in the right format to be audited and checked.

WILL PERKINS adds that the relevant information is included in the whole data set (especially from Operations POV). GEORGE says something he’s working on for DCW is to look from a digital record perspective what information does each stakeholder consider to be important to protect themselves?

GEORGE (showing a slide relating to fire doors) says that ‘if we know where all the doors are and what they are made of (need to know this from asset management POV) that should provide us with the information we need from a safety perspective, it’s just a matter of adding the additional attributes on to make sure we have the right information. (We can then) capture information on embodied carbon. We do all of this, ideally, through standardised libraries that can be tested and validated so that the information requirements can be tested against the manufacturer's products, so the only products that are potentially considered are ones that already can satisfy the information requirements. by doing that we then create the asset information that we’re talking about in terms of the golden thread. So that’s a matter from a manufacturer perspective – what product was supplied, the context it was used, the installation procedures, what it was connected to.’

GEORGE re Data Dictionaries: ‘the principle means by which BIM systems talk to each other is called IFC, that’s coming from the Building Smart data Dictionary. There’s also Uniclass, complimentary to IFC, but with differences. Then, the CIBSE (???) data set, RICS and NRM, wholesalers have another set of information. No one of these data dictionaries is right or wrong – we need to be able to accommodate them all, they are all designed for different purposes. But the question is what information do you hold against e.g. a boiler? (GEORGE shows a slide with all the properties of a boiler that Building Smart says should be included). (He then shows a slide of what information NBS holds against a boiler) There is a crossover between the two, but they are different data sets using different terminology. CIBSE, NRM and ETIM all have different information about boilers. ALL THIS INFORMATION IS RELEVANT FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES.’

GEORGE says the Templater can either connect the different data dictionaries directly or the information can be pulled into the master data dictionary in Templater – then it can be used by manufacturers and suppliers to populate information.

GEORGE shows the ‘Template for Door’ slide. It is referenced to several different classifications. It can also be allocated in the Templater who is likely to need to provide (particular) information and what will they need to use at each stage. The data dictionary can filter out according to an actor and the stage at which they are going to use information all of that vast amount of properties – you only see the information relevant that is relevant to you at that point in time.

JULIAN BUHAGIAR begins by talking about LEXICON. ‘The final result of all the efforts going on throughout the industry is to produce the PDT in consistent ways. (If different dictionary providers have) 2 templates that are about the same product they have a way of saying they don’t contradict each other, they are digitally replicable – that's the purpose of interconnecting dictionaries when they’ve been produced independently. The production process itself is becoming more important, to know that the right questions are being asked about products and people can reliably answer those questions. A list of properties (like George’s slides) are essentially a list of questions (what is the width? Etc.). LEXICON will be a form of producing a load of questions and answers, but Bim4housing groups (and others) will also do that. TEMPLATER is designed to be able to accommodate collections of templates.’

JULIAN shows a slide of a BIMhawk template that will become a Lexicon template. ‘As more and more data dictionaries connect, you’ll be able to find other templates by where its come from e.g. IFC etc. Anyone who wants to produce these templates needs a consistent set of answers against a consistent set of questions. For consumers of templates, the process needs to be as simple as being able to discover templates, the right one within BIM models etc. Searchability is a key factor. Having a single point where you can search for e.g. smoke detector would be handy for all manufacturers.

GEORGE interjects to give information about ETIM, which is the international organisation that standardises how manufacturers exchange information with wholesalers and distributors – it's very granular. He couldn’t find a door on it, or a smoke damper – it was all the components that goes to make up a door or smoke damper etc.

JULIAN (looking at the ETIM data dictionary) says there is a lack of definition of what length means (re a particular product). Different data dictionaries provide different levels of definition for the question. Templater gives the opportunity to gather what information is already available and also (over time, with groups like this and others promoting their own templates) leading to a convergence, with properties that are inadequately defined getting weeded out (because) a better definition will (eventually) exist.’

GEORGE :’we, as a Bim4housing community, can pick the things that are important to us and put them into the Templater, based on properties that are the international standards so that we’re not making up new terminology’.

JIM CREAK (after JULIAN’s long anecdote about a European level project he worked on with EPD): ‘When we’ve got different formats of information and possibilities of an intersection of different companies and access to different databases its important to choose words that have clear definitions within the documents that people actually understand e.g. there is no clear definition for ‘non-combustible’

JULIAN replies to Jim with an important point that he doesn’t think has been successfully put across yet: ‘none of this is about the answers themselves, the manufacturers still need to answer the questions. This is about adequately presenting questions and to present certain expectations on answers that allow those questions to be answered correctly.’ (taking Jim’s example of ‘non-combustible’ definition: ‘if you want to create a property that is satisfactory to a definition you can come up with (43 mins) (Julian compares this with a novel and how both the author and reader have the commonality of the English language and dictionaries to refer to clarify meaning) ‘the analogy of a dictionary is the same as this, this is a reference point for the list of questions. It enables people who are going to write the answers to write them a little bit better.’ (the userof templater/data dictionary can see that the manufacturer has provided an answer to a specific question (not the numerous other similar questions).

WILL PERKINS understands from all of this that this Bim4housing working group to actually start to create the questions that anybody writing a specification for my product needs to ask. The group would do it for specification, design, all the way through to Operation...is this correct?

JULIAN says, kind of, ‘but what the NBS level does is to accumulate the answers as well as the questions, but it doesn’t then adequately explain what the questions were...a data dictionary is about providing the additional meaning of the question as well as the answer, but doing it mutually. This is a stage before the product library...it’s the demand of rather than the supply of the information.’

WILL PERKINS asks ‘are you saying we should be thinking about designing questions that filter that down to very specific applications?’ JULIAN says ‘yes’, and example PDFs that he’ll show will clarify things.

MIKE SMITH, from the perspective of an architect/Revit/BIM manager: ‘The key question very early on in any project is how much data do you want to collate and collect within a model. The concept of what you’re trying to get to here is brilliant, a single source of information to an agreed set level, but it feels like at the moment we’re making it more complicated than easier.’

PAUL WHITE says that’ the amount of space you need to install something is the single most significant issue. Most things need more space to be installed than is ever allowed and if you get to far there’s no solution to the problem created by not generating enough space. But, the issue is the thing we have on the screen is a single item (off the shelf). A lot of the stuff we deal with in building services is multi-dimensional e.g. it depends on the volume of air you’re going to put through it (same apples to pipes).’

GEORGE: ‘we need to make sure that the software that is being used to do the commissioning and testing is able to recognize, for example, the the term for that particular (asset). And then finally, making sure that it then fits in with maybe at a procurement or a cost management system because everybody is calling things differently and that’s why we are trying to use the template to normalize some of these things.

JULIAN confirms to ALEXANDER SMALL that the Templater is still at PDT level. ALEX So your looking at a kind of a a granular level down from the product type PDTs to cover more product instance data JULIAN: YES,and other kinds of templates as well, like space, space, templates, build plates, a wider scope, and what lexicon wants to talk. JULIAN: ‘The templates are not about the storing of the answers because every manufacturer needs to be able to grab the list of questions and then put their own answers against it and then issue documents like this, but also to issue them in more digital ways because this is not necessarily the best presentation, (not the best way to) provide that information.

JULIAN - ‘If that relevance authority didn’t have an interest in actually making them, groups like this will probably create their own little bespoke additional properties, and they’ll offer it underneath the banner of Bim4housing . It’s not a lexicon templates.’

WILL ‘So are we looking at product and seeing what data is in the templates that already exist and doing a kind of gap analysis -these are the things that need to be answered as well.’ JULIAN - In some ways, yes.

GEORGE ‘What information do we s Bim4housing stakeholders need, and let’s put that into the Templater. Let’s pick the properties from the other data dictionaries so we are not replicating anything. To try and do a gap analysis is impossible - it’s too big a task.

ALEXANDER SMALL, from his manufacturer’s perspective, doesn’t have an issue with this, but has a caveat ‘please could we make sure that if we’ve got groups around the country putting together their own product data templates that when we have the official lexicon templates for that product that they map absolutely accurately into the product data templates that any organization outside lexicon produce so that effectively the lexicon template is the master template and then any any other properties to it for that product are additional to that lexicon template, not contradictory.’

JULIAN (showing slides) demonstrates (something) by typing the word ‘Detector’ into the application. If there was a lexicon entry already it would appear and then you could add your own properties to it. To create a template from scratch you type it in and create it - it has its own private area that anyone in the group could work on. It’s also possible to do this at the properties level - you can define a property in a template and it won’t get confused with other peoples definition of a property (though this is not encouraged).

GEORGE thinks this is all to much detail…

1 hr 23min 05 sec JULIAN IS DESCRIBING HOW TO WRITE A QUESTION - the way you phrase it affects what answers you get. Once a question is formed a property is created and this in the Initiation created by this working group. Once it’s created there is a possibility to group properties together.

GEORGE urges Julian to look at an IFC data template for a smoke detector because that may help people to better understand things. JULIAN does so.

JIM CREAK: ‘where one component makes up a system within a building I’m having difficulty creating a data sheet when one item is part of a system and it’s the system that then has to be specified.’ JULIAN says in Templater there are systems templates and product templates. The system template is the place where some of the properties should exist.’ He then talks about space templates etc…

 

Jiss Philip Mukkadan - BIM4Housing

Asif Mirza - Berkeley Group

Will Perkins - SE Controls

Jim Creak - Jalite Plc

Richard Freer - IceFire Portfolio

Chris Hall - Siderise

George Stevenson - ActivePlan

Charles Morriss - Kingspan

David Emery - Supply Chain School

Julian Buhagiar - BRE

Mike Smith - Bailey Partnership

Paul White - Ventilation Fire Smoke

Pete Foster - Exyte-hargreaves

Alexander Small - Tata Steel

GEORGE ‘There’s a number of different building blocks here. What we’re showing you the basic building block of of saying how do we describe things and to be able to describe them in different ways for different purposes, so therefore making sure that the information that the maintainer needs is included, the properties that they would relate to that probably tie into their maintenance management system.we’re not talking about the product data here. We then use this these standard data templates in product libraries.’

JULIAN thinks he should do a session showing the stuff that’s in the scope of templater. This is how to identify the stuff that is outside of the scope of templater. And when people can easily do that, it becomes easier to have then a demonstration inside templater because they know what should be going into it versus what should not be going into it’. WILL PERKINS thinks this is a sensible starting point. GEORGE agrees.

GEORGE refers to what Paul said about the space that is needed around the item and how it relates to what they’re doing at digital construction week. What do we need to do to mitigate the risk of smoke? What do we need to do from a digital perspective to protect us legally?

WILL PERKINS: ‘maybe we do a walkthrough example of something that is known and there is an existing template for and let’s kind of see where it takes us because I think we are trying to deal with too many unknowns at the moment.’ GEORGE thinks this is a good idea.

02-Mar-22

Those in attendance:

Chair: WILL PERKINS of SE CONTROLS, specialists in smoke and natural ventilation systems.

CHRIS WATTS chair of BS5266 code of emergency lighting.

LIAM WHEATLEY Bim manager of Swan New Living housing association

CHARLES MORRIS Kingspan Installation, head of digital content team.

DAVE EMERY supply chain sustainability school, creating content about digital and offsite construction.

TINA

NICK

WILL: What are the specific problems we are trying to resolve here?

Data Management and as built information. The operators are effectively the end users eg Housing associations/landlords responsible for safety of their buildings. There is a lack of consistency with and structure of DATA. George is working on how to improve the transferability of that data to different stake holders. Better information management is needed....how can we help industry get information about our products as and when they want it?

RICHARD we’ve set up a workstream with TIER 1 manufacturers to define the kind of information they want from their supply chain.

DAVE: 40% of enterprise data per se is either inaccurate, incomplete or unavailable; it needs to become accurate, correct and complete.

TINA: the ethical approach on GDPR needs to be considered. we talk about the golden thread and the resident engagement strategy, which is in Gateway number 2 and the building safety case. It follows it all the way through and it also in can be part of that resident engagement.

RICHARD: regarding compliance, you’ve got to be able to prove that you comply and know why you comply. This is from the GDPR mindset but is relevant now to all compliance.

DAVE: the group needs to understand not what data can it supply, but what data does my client or end user require and in terms of facilities, managers with building safety bill in mind, I, I think you cannot work in a silo without understanding the requirements of the FM operator.

WILL: One of the opportunities we have as a group is potentially to select two or three products. Out of which, hopefully we’d have manufacturers in the group who’ve got those who make those products, and we could do a walk through and actually populate the work that HACKED (organisation) are doing through their data dictionary and through their work with BRE are doing and just see where it takes us.

TINA: Break it down into 3 stages: 1) having the correct data 2) working out who needs what form of data and why and what sort of methodology they require it in and then underpin that with the ethics and GDPR. This stage can be broken down into job role types and their specific needs. Also, what contribution the main contractors put into that data correlated between Gateway number one and two primarily and three in adjacent to what the manufacturing requirements will be input into that encryption. 3) regarding the resident and what residents require from that data equally because of the whole notion of transparency and risk aspects.

WILL: We could do a Round table exercise where we walk through populating. We can do a lot of pre work to get the bulk of the technical stuff populated, but then we can get the tier one contractors and whichever stakeholders including the residents we feel necessary.

RICHARD: we’ll be setting up a Competency workstream soon.

CHRIS: I think is vital that when we’ve got an interface of different systems eg. There's no point of emergency lighting existing unless there is a fire alarm to warn people to get out: the interface of the way the different systems need to need to work together, which turns the competence level into something precarious. People need to look on a wider basis of the implications of the different technologies.

GEORGE, as an addition to Will’s suggestion, mentions Data Dictionaries and progress he’s making with developing a housing templater database. Data templates can then be set up that reflect the needs of all the different stakeholder groups. An additional functionality now in the templater is to see who the actor is and when they are likely to need information. Therefore, at different work stages, you can present a different set of data to each actor and they will be able to action it.

George suggests to look at 2 or 3 assets that work in concert, but X says the group should be cautious about this.

GEORGE: how we can get the attributes within the declaration of performance into the data dictionary? It’s very significant that the declaration of performance for a smoke detector will have different essential characteristics on the declaration of performance for an AOV.

RICHARD gets an (apparent) agreement from the group to take up Will’s proposal to take one (or 2) product/s very granularly as a first stage. Then, if necessary, move it through to a work stream.

TINA will check with her technical teams to confirm that it’s OK for her company to participate. The most likely product she would propose is fire alarms.

X may supply insulation products.

Manufacturers need to know how to fill in a template.

CHRIS: we need to have identified those bits which are predetermined by the product standard and those bits which are additional and perhaps relevant particular applications. Eg. the essential characteristics, the construction products regulation.

Each individual european working group (there are ‘thousands’ of them) determines what the essential characteristics of products should be.

Tina’s products have a lot of PD data. Her biggest selling product is the combined heat & smoke alarm optical. Will suggests that this should be the product they work on in the manufacturing group. Tina has to check with her company. The product number is Ei3024. It is BIM ready.

RICHARD suggests that the other product should come from a manufacturer without the kind of facilities that Tina’s company (Acre) has, to show challenges.

TINA will check with her company to see if any of their data is in machine readable form, a database.

WILL suggests that in the next meeting in early May they should pick a product and try and populate that template as a kind of first instance. Subject to how that goes they could then move on to Tina’s proposed ‘stage 2’ and invite key stakeholders, get their input, and find out what additional data they need and how they need to consume it.

David Emery -Supply Chain School

Will Perkins -SE Controls

Richard Freer -IceFire Portfolio

Charles Morriss -Kingspan

Chris Watts -Wavelength Fire Safety

Liam Wheatley -Nuliving

Tina Mistry -Aico

Nick Haughton -Sapphire Balconies

George Stevenson -ActivePlan

WordPress Image Lightbox