BIM4Housing Manufacturing Working Group Meeting-20220302

BIM4Housing Manufacturing Working Group Meeting-20220302

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.


Actions:

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.