Operations teams have long suffered from a lack of accurate, complete information about the buildings they run. Often complete surveys are required of new-builds, just to find our what has actually been installed- and where.

The situation with existing housing stock is markedly worse.The first vital step in resolving this worsening situation is to identify, exactly, the information that is needed, where that information can be found and who should be responsible for supplying it.

BIM4Housing provides the asset teams with the opportunity to reach a common agreement of what they need and to speak to the other working groups to see how practical that is to deliver. This will enable us to ensure we have a more reliable asset information model with which to support new innovations, such as around IoT and Digital Twins.

Operations Group Status

Leader: Alex Oldman


BIM4Housing Operations Working Group Meeting-20220622

ALEX OLDMAN says that today participants will have the opportunity to have some input into the documentation that the group is producing, building upon the work from DCW.

GEORGE talks about the prescribed information within the Buildings Safety Act and how it’s down to the industry to work on what this information is. The defective premises act will have a big impact on developers and contractors. Incomplete and inaccurate information seems to be treated as a defect by the regulator. There are 10 working groups tasked with defining what information is needed for the golden thread and also from a process POV. The outputs from the groups have been fed back into the government. Something critical that’s come out of this is the gateways and what information is needed at different stages.

The asset information group has created a data set with information that would be helpful to create the safety case. The visual record team also worked on this. The specification group have identified that specifications need to be complete before the end of work stage 4/gateway 2. Due to this product have got to be selected before construction starts, a real challenge for specialist trades. He shows an overlay of the gateways in relation to the RIBA plan of work on screen. This has made people think about what needs to be done by gateway 1 (spatial co-ordination needs to be settled then). By gateway 2 all of the design should be complete, even M&E.

The group with the Tier 1 contractors has agreed that its necessary to move from the situation where a lot of contractor design portion is left to Workstage 5, it needs to be brought into Workstage 4, a large change. The Construction Control Plan will need information provided in a machine-readable format. In Workstage 5 if there is a need to swap out one product for another there needs to be a very robust technical submittal process and also the products need to be procured in a way that we then have machine readable information. That’s the process we are trying to address.

The challenge is there is lots of data, standards, and guidance, but none of it is machine readable. Also, there is very little common naming/formatting/data dictionaries. What is machine readable information? A PDF may have excellent data but only a human can read it. All the data dictionaries have been created with good reason for the purposes of their users but finding which information we need is a challenge. There are many different terminologies. The solution is the use the Templater to create re-usable data templates that can be used with any software for any purpose. We’re trying to create structure so that we can then access the information. The next step is to look at what information is needed for a particular purpose. The HSE briefing said we should focus on a particular risk e.g., spread of smoke or fire.

We have systems of mitigation to deal with the risk. Compartmentation is made up of different asset types. Part of the exercise we are doing today is to look at what information do we need to know about a particular asset type to ensure it will perform when it is needed. Fire rating might be described in different ways for different purposes. We need to make sure each stakeholder has all the information they need.

Ultimately we are trying to bring together all the data that is available and then transform it, structure it, so we can simplify the way people access. We then add a context, because the reason people may need information depends on the particular scenario.

The form of procurement we are looking at is Design & Build. George shows the scenario document on screen. A lot of feedback at DCW was that this design doesn’t work…but why doesn’t it work? And how can we make it work? We’re looking at it from the POV of compartmentation, smoke control and also detection. We’ve created a series of questions based upon the outputs from the roundtable sessions documents. The purpose of this is also to say who will be likely to provide the information.

JACK WHITE observes that what the HSE suggested is not something he thinks the group should be working towards. Understanding how a building will work within a fire and regarding the passage of smoke, there are so many variables. He thinks this doesn’t get us anywhere. He thinks the HSE don’t understand buildings or asset management. To try and get this amount of information and understand how the building works in a fire we’d be so many computational fluid dynamic models - it’s not feasible.

GARY BELLENGER, another asset manager, responds that he agrees with JACK. For a new build it would have to happen, but he questions whether that information needs to be tested in this way. GEORGE replies that there is certainly a difference between existing buildings and new buildings. If manufacturers can provide information in a machine readable form that will have a big impact. JACK says if we don’t have a vision for what this looks like in Operations, if we have to understand really in depth how smoke travels through the building we, as asset managers, want very different information and would work in a very different way.

GEORGE: All the we are trying to do in these different groups is to try and identify methods by which you would be able to demonstrate that, under particular circumstances, the measures put in place are adequate and the information to be able to check they are adequate is there. The number of ways that the installation of e.g. a fire door can go wrong is legion.

RICHARD then organises group members into their particular breakout rooms after which the breakout rooms take place. They then return from the breakout rooms.

GEORGE, referring to JACK’s earlier comment regarding the lack of feasibility to act upon the HSE’s suggestion, says he doesn’t disagree with him. All he’s saying is we are trying to address the steer we’ve had from the HSE. At the moment a lot of this is determined around what instructions are given to construction supply chains for a new build. JACK replies that he thinks instructions in new build are not necessarily hugely relevant in operations. Also, the shadow regulator can say what they want now and then change their mind in 3 months’ time. We should be doing what we think is right to keep residents safe and manage our assets as well as possible.

When asked by George about carbon, JACK says that Net Zero will at some point overtake safety as the biggest issue for the sector. He thinks the sector didn’t understand fire safety that well five years ago but understands it better now. With net Zero we are still at the not understanding it very well stage.

DAVE WILLIAMS thinks there are many who look at existing builds and can’t imagine how they will ever get the building to net zero due to its age. Regarding the ‘information we require’ issue, the universal data dictionary of components would be nice, but if we want to look at the data set we actually require managing the building operationally it’s a far smaller subset of information than what we were talking about before. We need to concentrate on getting that minimal data set populated that we require to run a building operationally and then consider what ancillary information might be required once in a blue moon.

On decarbonisation, ALEX thinks there’s a strong role for BIM in the context of modelling building information. The creation of smart buildings and monitoring the power consumption will get you a measure for the actual energy performance and the use of a particular building. fairly soon, we’ll be able to get active information on our buildings and then we can feed that information back in again. What he’s looking for next is active augmented asset management where there are measures coming in from systems on energy performance (and maybe safety as well) and bringing those into central systems which we can then react to.

Again, on decarbonisation, GARY thinks it depends on what the exam question is for us and what we are focusing on. he’d like to come to carbon as maybe a separate set of data. GEORGE says that if we know where everything is located then adding information, like embodied carbon etc, is relatively straightforward. The difficult things is to work out what that calculation actually is.

MARZENA, having looked at the golden thread checklist, thinks the format for the floor plans is interesting. For BIM, should we opt for the CAD format of the floor plans? GEORGE will discuss this with her another time. DAVE WILLIAMS says that for those that don’t have floor plans on the high risk buildings, the deadline is January 2023 to make sure all of those buildings have the floor plans, and the premises information boxes. SHARON highlights a concern that emerged in her breakout group that the input of Operators is currently not being asked for/considered.

Sharon McClure - Avestagroup

Jiss Philip Mukkadan - BIM4Housing

Kelly Lee - Orbit

Alex Oldman - Civica

Richard Freer - IceFire Portfolio

James Banner - Orbit

Gary Bellenger - Aster

George Stevenson - ActivePlan

Jack White - Clarion Housing

Marzena Odzimek - Tower Hamlets Homes

Dave Williams - Origin Housing

Clare Williams - Hackney

Ihsan Hoque - Guinness

Calum Kerr - Balfour Beatty

Jim Hannon - London Fire Solutions

Bex Gibson - Livewest

Mike Smith - Bailey Partnership

David Peacock - TÜV SÜD

Fleur Bowen - Notting Hill Genesis

Break Out Rooms

Breakout Rooms_ BIM4Housing Operations WK Grp - Fire Doors-20220622

RICHARD tells everyone in the breakout room that the task is to put a tick to show who would be responsible for supplying the operations group with this information. For the question ‘what type of door is it?’ RICHARD clarifies to think about it as a design & Build contract. Also, any of the questions can be changed or tweaked. JAMES BANNER agrees with MIKE SMITH that it’s the main contractor and also says that the main contractor would actually be responsible for providing information about every item on this list because its the main contractor that is responsible for providing everything towards the client on the project. A contractor would be getting information from different sources.

RICHARD asks if it wasn’t a design & Build contract how would it be different? JAMES says it would vary depending on the procurement route that is taken. If you were a client the people you appoint directly would be responsible for giving you that information. CLARE adds that a New Build would be different again. MIKE SMITH, as an architect, says some of these questions are really good because they would inform how we specify products, whether we are fully specifying a specific product to meet a performance or whether we are giving performance specifications for main contractors and suppliers to meet.

RICHARD says that a lot of the feedback after DCW has been that who is responsible for giving information depends on what stage of the process. JAMES BANNER says that, from an Operations perspective, once you are in contract its definitely the main contractor that’s responsible for giving information. But pre-contract it wouldn’t come from the contractor as there is not contractor at that point. You’d be going through the concept design, architects and engineers, they’ll have to go and get information from other people. Maybe it’s best to look at where the source of this information ultimately comes from rather than relating it to design & build?

RICHARD says for this exercise let’s do that, as we’ve already answered the question for it being design & build. So, looking at it from the perspective of where the information ultimately comes from, What type of door is it? MIKE SMITH thinks that ultimately the designer is responsible to stipulate that. Likely frequency of use? CLARE WILLIAMS, disagreeing with FLEUR BOWEN’s response that it would only be relevant to automated doors, says the question is relevant to any door because you might have a secondary means of escape fire door that only gets used in an emergency or communal ride doors on a means of escape route that gets used all day everyday. JAMES says the answer is client and designer.

MIKE says the only hesitation on the designer question is that we sometimes find that clients, post occupation, will change all the numbering of the doors based upon their own system. BEX GIBSON agrees, they have their own numbering system. Is there any glazing within the door leaf or door set…? MIKE says if we found any glazing in the door we would assume that it’s been tested and verified by the manufacturer, it’s all part of the same system.

CLARE asks are we considering that this building that our doors are in is a single snapshot in time of when the building is built and ready before it is occupied, or might we also be looking at its future life? RICHARD says he thinks we deal with it as just a snapshot. JAMES is still taking it as if we are in a design & build environment. What is the door closer type? MIKE would assume its the manufacturer and the trade contractor, but CLARE says what about the designer - if some of the doors in the block are going to have wheel chair accessibility wouldn’t that be part of design? JAMES says if something is being specified as a particular type of closure, it’s who is providing that - ultimately it's the manufacturer of that door type. Regarding signs on the doors, they discuss who is responsible for it and it seems like both client and manufacturer are involved in the process. Additionally, the designer and installer are also responsible. All this is dependent upon what kind of signage we are talking about.

The Installation: was it installed correctly? BEX GIBSON says Do we not require certification for fire doors in particular instances? So would it not be whoever does that certification after the install? JIM HANNON replies there would be a certification for the manufacturing of that door. There would be a certification for the install and then a final fire engineer, fire risk assessor that would do an ultimate sign off of the building, whether that be building control. the responsibility has to be on the manufacturer that, he’s manufactured it to the correct specification, and he’s got certification in that respect and he’s actually the same for the installer that he’s installed it to a third party certification.

Third party inspection records? JAMES says it depends on who is appointing that third party to undertake the inspection. a contractor could be having them independently verified but so could a client. JIM HANNON says it's the old fashioned clerk of works, whatever title that person may have these days, someone doing random post inspections. He’s not sure who that person would be on new build sites. JAMES says the employer’s agent has to take some responsibility in ensuring those checks have been done. A fire risk assessment company does our post occupation fire risk assessments and to inspect during construction as well.

Final record drawing showing compartmentation strategy…? JAMES says ultimately the designers are providing as-built drawings. to the main contractor to provide so for compartmentation stuff it’s going to be only the designers. MIKE says it depends on what is the intention of the drawings. JAMES replies that as-built drawings should depict precisely what is actually built on-site.

Regarding the question about automation being added to the door and CLARE and JAMES make points about how magnets are a frequently added to that system that holds doors open which are actually fire doors so when there is a fire alarm the magnets are deactivated and the doors close. JAMES says they are always added as the fire door set does not come with the devices. CLARE says the information that the magnets have been added would come from the trade contractor because they would need to be connected to the fire alarm. MIKE says the manufacturer as well.

Going back to the training question (no.17) JAMES thinks it’s about evidence the customer has been trained rather than whether they have provided the video or training. So we we as a client would do a hand over to a customer and a briefing about how that property works.

James Banner - Orbit

Clare Williams - Hackney

Bex Gibson - Livewest

Mike Smith - Bailey Partnership

Richard Freer - IceFire Portfolio

Fleur Bowen - Notting Hill Genesis

Jim Hannon - London Fire Solutions

Breakout Rooms_ BIM4Housing Operations WK Grp - Smoke Dampers-20220622

ALEX OLDMAN begins by saying that JACK WHITE made a very relevant point about the role of asset management in all of this. To summarise, what from a BIM perspective we are looking at what are the information requirements for a piece of equipment that’s in the building. JACK’s right that it’s not necessary to do computational fluid dynamics on smokes progress through a building, we rely on experts to do that. ALEX shares the spreadsheet on screen. We are going to be focused on the information sheets to start with.

GEORGE interrupts to say the task is not to do full RACI, it’s the simple question of who is responsible for providing that information. These questions have all been raised during roundtable workshops during the last year - this information has been requested by the people who have to do the inspections or who are responsible. It doesn’t matter if there are things on there that you don’t think should be there because we’re going to filter that according to different roles.

JACK is not sure what value he would add by going through these questions and saying who would do it. GEORGE replies the exercise is about finding out who is the best person to provide that information. The context when looking at this is new builds, design & build contract. After the introductions ALEX says that everyone in this breakout room is high level, but not technical…this is Jack’s point. They decide to answer the questions on the basis of who is going to be providing the information to us. The product being looked at is smoke dampers (which Alex describes the function of).

What resistance is required in PASCAL terms? PASCAL is a unit of pressure - an express lift shaft would have quite a lot of pressure with the lift going up and down. The supplier, says GARY, is the person from which the contractor would buy it. MARZENA says that if you think about what service maintenance is required she doubts if the supplier would provide any specification, they don’t really add anything on top of the manufacturers information. Regarding what is the movement of structure and services question the group participants are unsure about the meaning of this question.

Re the location, ALEX wonders whether the person who is commissioning it not going to be the person confirming the location because there might be multiple instances and we need to know which one they are providing. JACK guesses it’s about who is responsible for it so the designer would say where it is and then the contractor would position it. MARZENA observes that there are a lot of tick boxes against the supplier but it’s probably worth thinking about the role of the supplier. It’s more like a platform for buying the products. They question whether it’s appropriate that the supplier has been ticked for questions 11,12 and 14.

JACK thinks that from a Housing Association side he would aspect everything to come through either the principal contractor or principal designer. Q.18 is the design approach for damper holistic? ALEX says its the designer and the installer, but not the supplier as they can’t possible know. Going back to PASCAL terms, is the main contractor or designer not going to provide the resistance required? DAVE WILLIAMS thinks that would be part of the specification of the product in which case it would be coming from the supplier and manufacturer, or the contractor. JACK thinks the designer would understand what level of resistance would be required and then select from a manufacturer to say ‘i need this level of resistance’.

What are the limitations? MARZENA thinks it may mean what can impact on the performance of that product, so some limitations are that it can’t be installed in certain types of buildings or environments. e.g it’s not for underwater installation, says ALEX. Regarding the lifespan, wouldn’t that come from the specification and then it just filters down to the client. But ALEX says they may spec a longer lasting more expensive component e.g. 50 year smoke damper.

MARZENA thinks Q.26 about security is interesting. She thinks some of it will come from the client because they may be aware of some ‘local conditions’ - ALEX gives the example of teenagers tampering with it.

ALEX thinks that what he is trying to get from this process is clarity on what information we should be asking for so we can build out the asset information requirements at the start of a new build process. If this is the wrong approach, what are you looking for in asset information requirements. Working in Operations, replies JACK, the Building Safety Act is about to come and he doesn’t really want to hear about new builds: there are many existing high rise buildings and all we hear about is to get this information right from the start…We struggle with ownership of our buildings (if we own them or not) so technical details for smoke dampers is far down the list of want we ned to do.

We are overreaching at the moment in terms of what we are trying to achieve. We don’t know all the locations of smoke dampers in our existing buildings. The first step is to locate them, identify them and have a full register. The next is to gather technical information about them…but that’s down the line. And once we have that technical information, then we see how we can use it. We’ll find out what information we need when we start to utilise that. Once we start giving someone information to go and look at a building we’ll start working out what information is useful to them. The idea that we can define what we need from the start is not necessarily the way that we should be going. GARY nods in agreement.

DAVE WILLIAMS has a similar view to Jack because he looks at the critical information he needs to manage the building. Taking smoke dampers as an example, as long as he has the make, model and product sheet that he can read all the details about it, generally he would not be using that information on a regular basis. he needs to know the location, the manufacturer and the model number, serial no. and installation date. The minutiae of the information we’ll probably never use. On the rare occasion we don need it we need access to it on a PDF product sheet or online library that we can google to get the product sheet.

GARY is in agreement with JACK and DAVE. We’re starting from a low base, the sector knows that…he’s not sure that the HSE does. Of the billions of data sets of the data dictionaries out there most are not relevant for us - he wants to focus on the core bits of information that are going to make him do his asset management job everyday. knowing the location of dampers is important, and also basic information about them, but testing and designing whether that’s adequate isn’t part of this process: this isn’t a risk assessment process. We need to know the properties that something has so that when we replace them we can replace them with something that is the same, and having the certification that somebody competent has done that. When does it need to be serviced? Simple stuff like that.

MARZENA totally supports what her colleagues have said. Perhaps the golden thread is about finding out what at different stages different people want to provide and need to provide. Re asset data information, maybe not everything has to be passed down and therefore the machine readable format and the information we get doesn’t need to contain all of this - though perhaps at certain stages it will need it. As the golden thread goes through and passes to the maintenance side it gets smaller and focuses on maintenance etc.

JACK thinks something which is key and they haven’t been discussing is e.g. a fire door is 30 minutes, another requirement may be for a 60 minute fire door. I want to be able to access that information in a database. If we need to look at something in detail (glazing, hinge etc) he doesn’t necessarily need to access that right now. We need to make a distinction between what we need in a database and what information if you are wanting to understand how this building might perform in great detail - to keep that in an up-to-date database is unnecessary and too onerous.

GEORGE, taking DAVE’s example about just needing to look at the product sheet of a door, says that in 10 years time when that door manufacturer might have gone bust etc…JACK interrupts to say you should just have that data sheet in your own library. GEORGE says if that data sheet doesn’t have the information you need then that becomes an issue and it has to be manually checked. The industry is moving beyond everything just being held as documents. Now the contractors are responsible under the Defective Premises Act or risk liability they are starting to move towards having the information in a machine readable format. That doesn’t mean that asset managers have to do anything differently, but that is the direction fo travel.

JACK is not agains machine readable but going through the list it seems as if we are trying to run before we can walk. GEORGE says the challenge is they don’t know what the regulator is going to be looking for in 4 or 5 years time and we also don’t know what disasters may happen that will cause people to say what material was that made of? was the information adequate in the data sheets? The information in the questions has been asked for by specialists. JACK thinks there is a gulf that is not being bridged between the design for a new building and what happens in asset management. The continued focus on new builds is actually to the detriment of something that may work operationally.

GEORGE agrees with MARZENA’s comment - what we are trying to do is take the raw unstructured data, to refine the questions which are just a brain dump from the round table saying ‘this is important to me’, there may be unnecessary questions there. On new build, you’ll never have better quality information from the supply chain unless you ask for it. JACK disagrees…we maintain buildings we do get information. There is a blind spot to existing buildings and existing buildings currently dictate how we work and it just feels overlooked.

Jack White - Clarion Housing

Dave Williams - Origin Housing

Alex Oldman - Civica

Marzena Odzimek - Tower Hamlets Homes

Gary Bellenger - Aster

Breakout Rooms_ BIM4Housing Operations WK Grp - Penetration Seals-20220622

SHARON McCLURE says, regarding columns, the majority of them are self explanatory, but the end the Commissioner. When you’re dealing with dampers, somebody actually commissions the system, and there is nothing like that for passive fire, so we were using that as a sign-ogg clerk-of-work generic column. GEORGE asks if it makes a difference in terms of who we are getting the information from? SHARON says not when they were going through the list. Any changes we made when we added or deleted a tick we highlighted with a red box so we could differentiate between the Hilti standalone submission and the group discussion.

GEORGE asks what should ‘what is the base material?’ be changed to. SHARON replies that the base material would be the building fabric so the way we looked at it was the client and developer would design it. The designer would then select the product that would give them the cosmetic look of the building and the main contractor would then build it. We marked it down that the first three parties would be involved in the selection, design, and installation of that building. JISS writes in brackets next to the question ‘the building fabric’.

What is the movement of structure and services? SHARON says each of those elements would come form the designer based on the client developer scheme. We started making changes around question 15, having been in agreement with Hilti for the first 14 questions. Q.15 What supports are needed for continuous support during fire? We added Designer.

KELLY says she is struggling to understand how this will help us in the Operational phase because if we are going through replacement programs is it expected that this level of information would have to be gathered again and we’d have to define who would provide that information? It’s easier to get the information at the building design stage. This all has to go into our systems somewhere and none of us currently have systems to hold that level of information. Also, if we have to collate this level of information operationally on an ongoing basis how would people see that happening?

GEORGE replies that as the assets management team you may well only want 5% of this information but for the digital record, the contractor and main contractor say that they need this level of detail. Regarding penetration seals often get very poor quality information about them: their location, materials etc. KELLY says she is not satisfied with the current level of information she receives about penetration seals. Particularly for new builds, says GEORGE, we’re collecting information that the experts have said is important for them to satisfy what is needed. The fact that Kelly’s existing software application may only need 5% of all this information is fine - you can use this info collected during the design and construction process for your own purposes.

KELLY still expresses a concern about the overload of information that we would receive that would be useful moving forward. GEORGE replies that the great advantage of machine readable information is that you only need to see the specific information you need for a particular purpose. SHARON says that at the moment, as a passive fire installer, she’s aware the information she gives to main contractors that hasn’t been passed to an end client (like Kelly) may need information that I can provide but the O&M manuals now existing are woefully inadequate. The information that Sharon could give is not necessarily going to the right person that needs it.

KELLY replies there is a risk here which is that the information is provided to a housing provider, with this level of information the building manager is not going to be using this information. It needs to be ensured that for the people doing the maintenance, inspection and replacement works the right level of information is being given. SHARON believes that considering there is currently not enough information it may be initially a vast amount until at a later date the information is trimmed down.

GEORGE says to KELLY that the fact nobody knows what would be needed in five years time needs to be taken into consideration. The industry is changing from contractually led to one that is regulated. Consequently, the need for evidence will be increased. The Building Safety Act is indicative of this. If the information that you might need is not there when you need it it will cost a lot of money to find it afterwards.

CALUM KERR thinks the fact that the Defective Premises Act allows these claims to be retrospectively applied for 50 year, we want to capture as much information as possible to be able to say this was the justification for using a product to fight off any potential claims in the future.

GEORGE makes the point to Kelly that the fact we’re putting this into a data schemer doesn’t mean that you will have to collect it all. We’re trying to go through this exercise saying ‘who might be the best person to get this information from’. Later, when putting together your asset information requirements, you can pick from this in a structured way to decide what you want for a new build or a later stage - but you can’t do it if it’s not defined as machine readable data. KELLY is ‘good’ with this idea.

IHSAN thinks that it is a lot of information, but it’s best to have as much as possible in anticipation of what will be required. BIM models currently have a lot of information in them that you genuinely don’t need, says GEORGE, because it will have been put together for reasons of design or for construction - we are trying to filter out the information that isn’t needed.

CALUM comments that sometimes when he reads what the description is he has to think about what the actual intent is. GEORGE is happy to change the questions to make them more intelligible. KELLY says as we go through the levels of information and how that is going to held in a system and then you come down to the lowest level of penetration seals and all the attribute information below that, from an operational point of view she believes the questions are particularly confusing: the best people to answer those questions are the people that are actually going to be using them. She manages the operations side of things, but obviously doesn’t do the technical elements (though she does oversee them).

We need to remember that all of this information is to be given to somebody so that they can do their maintenance, repair and servicing in the right way. Another thing is, as a housing provider we will never be able to hold that level of information for operational use. It’s a consideration of how we keep that maintained in an operational phase of the building.

SHARON thinks that there may be a request in these groups for an Operational input, perhaps someone like Kelly who can take it into her own organisation and ask for feedback (she doesn’t know if George has requested such feedback). SHARON obviously deals with it from the Construction side and she’s dealing with facilities management (janitors etc0 and the first question she asks them about fire strategy drawings etc which often don’t exist. As a trade contractor she sees the difficulties placed upon her staff.

KELLY says they may need to hold all this information, but we have to think how social housing providers are going to be able to manage that level of information. From a retroBIM point of view some of them are not even going to modelling their older buildings, so there will be two types of buildings coming over: the new ones that are going to all have the BIM info, and then the older buildings. Also, the relevance of the information is important.

Ihsan Hoque - Guinness

Jiss Philip Mukkadan - BIM4Housing

Kelly Lee - Orbit

Sharon McClure - Avestagroup

Calum Kerr - Balfour Beatty

George Stevenson - ActivePlan


Post DCW Feedback

Clare Williams

Clare Williams - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220616_091903-Meeting

CLARE enjoyed the face-to-face aspect of the DCW roundtable (particularly because she still works from home a lot) and RICHARD said the plan is to have face-to-face meetings on a more regular basis. She thought it was useful for people with different disciplines and backgrounds to discuss the topic. The acoustics, though, were problematic because of all the background noise. Overall, it was very useful.

Regarding RACI, CLARE says they didn’t get too deeply into it, due to the introductions and the time constraints. They didn’t stick completely to the task. She thinks the route of classifying information in terms of who’s responsible and accountable should be continued - it helps her with the idea of planning ahead.

RICHARD says to move forward in the individual working groups they want to bring get the wider working group more involved - continue like DCW but in a more focused way. CLARE thinks more clarity is a good idea, a more complex question requires mental processing which takes time and she’s currently not as practiced at that as she used to be. RICHARD says we’re seeking consistent standardised answers.

GEORGE asks CLARE what she’s doing in Hackney Council regarding safety cases are involved. She says currently they are doing work on this, but they are bit behind with some cases, especially due to the 2020 cyber attack - they had everything hijacked and lost most of the system. Consequently, a lot of the building records are not available. The only advantage of that is that the information which will be fresh and up-to-date, but it’s a lot of work. Currently there is no common data storage system between new build, property asset management teams and safety.

CLARE says the process of building safety case files is now happening and she’s looking at the check list on the Bim4housing website and also proprietary systems for the common data. GEORGE would like to talk with someone at Hackney Council as Activeplan are very skilled at doing exactly the task she is talking about doing at the moment. Activeplan are also partnering with a company that takes laser scans and turns them into models. CLARE is interested and will speak to her boss about it.

CLARE started in local government as a building surveyor for Tower Hamlets, moved into facilities management that had commissions with government/NHS then moved into Health & Safety in 2000 in NHS. She now lives in Suffolk working for Hackney, mostly in fire safety. As CLARE said, one of the biggest challenges is to turn data into information, remarks GEORGE, and that can only be done if there are people with the right expertise to frame what that is. he talks about the breakout groups in the Construction group looking closely at individual assets and finding whose in the best place to find specific information - this helps build structure. The idea is to use scenarios to then interpret what information is needed.

GEORGE is also going to send through questions relating to the golden thread initiative group that he’s framed and asks her to write a sentence for each of them to add to his report.


Post DCW Feedback

Alex Oldman

Alex Oldman - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220607

ALEX thinks that DCW was very successful. However, there was a lot of discussing and organising and he’d have liked more time being able to have conversations on the table. RICHARD tells him that he was the only person that wrote down the names of a couple of walk-ins - considering that one of the reasons for the exercise was to get new recruits this was very helpful. The input of Claire Williams, Hackney’s Building Safety Manager, was significant. The development group basically stole one of the top guys from Alex’s table by asking one of his experts (Ian Smith) to join them. There were two Operations people who were supposed to be attending that didn’t show.

ALEX thinks that the methodology is good. The value that he’s getting out of Bim4housing at the moment is in publications that have been made on individual products suggesting this is the information you want to be collecting on things. There is a question as to whether we are clear on the outputs of these processes - at what point does RACI matrix become finalised and published? To produce as an output. ALEX says there is a mapping back to the RIBA development stages and they have responsibilities. Is it relevant to the construction process?

RICHARD says that a few people he’s already spoken to says it needs to be mapped to the gateways to bring the context of timing into it. ALEX says the Operations group is all about RIBA stage seven and it that context the questions were answered. He’s not sure it’s relevant for design/construction/architects. ALEX thinks it would be good to do dedicate half an hour of the next a full session of the Operations group to nail the RACI, helpful to get input from everybody. circulating the information before the meeting would be really good and also to clarify to people exactly what it is they are being asked to do. RICHARD says that will be planned as part of the next Operations meeting and he’ll circulate things around.

ALEX states there will be 2 things on the agenda for the next meeting: 1) update from DCW 2) review exercise of the application of the methodology. Also an update on the projects - RetroBIM and designing naming and requirements. probably people have not been logging-on to check it.


Post DCW Feedback

Dave Peacock

Dave Peacock - Next steps from DCW roundtables-20220607

DAVE thinks that once the DCW Operations session got going it went well, but another half hour or an hour would have been useful to carry on the really good conversations. All the tables were full, good for visibility. RICHARD suggested to ALEX (Operations chair) that for the next Operations group meeting to send out the information that they had at the meeting and also send the output from the meeting, get comments beforehand, then try and nail the RACI document from an Operations perspective. dave thinks that sounds ideal.

GEORGE and Richard think that perhaps having two sections to the document was too much. The idea is to take what was said at the meeting and basically try and finalise things, to a point where its publishable. DAVE agrees that should be the next step. Perhaps, says RICHARD, there could be intergroup meetings in the future. DAVE thinks it would have been a lot easier if it was a standalone session so there could be peoples’ name tags printed etc. It was difficult to cram it into the time available.

DAVE is into the idea of live meetings.



RICHARD FREER: ‘We have 5 tables at DCW on Thursday 19th, for 45 minutes each, one for each of the working groups. The aim is to take a specific issue (in this case, smoke spread) and look at how to mitigate it, moving through specific scenarios: what could affect a fire door? What if the door is painted? What if there is a cat flap put in it? Etc. The idea is for each working group to have a pre-meeting to look at those issues and give is a steer for the meeting. Hopefully you’ve all had a chance to look at what we’ve got from the fire safety workstream. We don’t want to spend the first 20 minutes of the actual meeting going through it so we want a strong steer from you guys (operations) for the operations round table, so at the roundtable it's as if we’ve already started...we can quickly get into the nitty gritty rather than introductory stuff. This is a pre-meeting to be prepared...’.

ALEX OLDMAN asks Richard ‘what are we actually going to be outputting from the round table?’.

RICHARD: ‘We’re looking at the spread of smoke – initially in terms of fire doors, but also compartmentation. Fire walls, cavity barriers, fire dampers, fire and smoke detectors, alarm systems, smoke vents. We’ve sent through those documents so you have a chance to look at them beforehand (as there won’t be time in the meeting). The frst thing: What information does an operations team need to make sure that those assets all perform on the day? The second thing: in specific scenarios (e.g. painting a door, installing a new carpet which affects the fire door) what information do you need to know, and what training do the tenants perhaps need, to get round those scenarios and mitigate the risk? Then, we can go into the meeting on the 19th with that already established.’

‘The aim of the roundtable is twofold: to get some more people and also to engage and promulgate our risk-based approach to what we’re doing in Bim4housing.’

ALEX asks if the focus will be on an emergency event (there’s already been a fire somewhere, there is a source of smoke) or is it focused on the precursor to that?

RICHARD says that it’s both: ‘There are two phases: 1) looking at the documents we’ve sent through is there anything we’ve missed on there that you think the operations would need to know? Any additions to be made? Primarily (within these documents) look at the risk and the mitigation of risk re smoke.

ALEX ‘So, construction hands over to Operations, then Occupation, presumably certification information, and are we then going as far as emergency response?’

RICHARD : ‘yes, that’s the idea. We’ve got 2 phases: the first is pre-emergency, handover, everything covered in that document. But there is what George calls Game Simulations: what would happen? What would you need to have happened? What information would you need on-site readily available in an emergency situation?

PAUL WHITE asks if it’s to be looked at from the person responsible for the building point of view? Or the fire brigade point of view?

RICHARD says they should look at it from an Operations point of view (as they are the Operations group).

LYSA NICELY says that from her ‘Operations’ perspective the certification and the ongoing test data are important (and also maintenance in general). She has to understand what equipment (for example, AOV) is in the building that would prevent the spread of smoke, and have the certification to back it up.

WILL PERKINS asks, re information, should it be discussed about where that information is available and how it’s going to be held? He says (in response to Lysa’s and Richard’s comments about AOVs) it’s about clarity of information further up the chain at design stage.

PATRICK FLYNN talks about the referencing of the assets within the block and their location from an Operations perspective. There’s an abundance of certification from his new build team. ‘But in relation to the change in legislation this year, how do I know that that door is the one that I need to attend? How do we reference our doors? This also extends to emergency lighting.’ Maybe they will repair the wrong lights instead of the ones reported to have gone out. This links back into how BIM data is used’.

ALEX says that a point that needs to be made at the roundtable regarding ‘this information’ is that it does not suffice to just send out a questionnaire and get a response back. Complex analysis is required. There’s a lot of technical stuff to understand.

PAUL WHITE says that regular checks of equipment should be taking place so that it’s ready to be used, therefore you should be expecting something to wrong with that equipment on the day of a fire.

CHRISTINE MILLING says that when looking at Operations you need to have considered the system. ‘it’s ideal if you are starting to use BIM and you can locate with all your items are because your systems will then say this group of these particular doors or these instances are all part of that system. But if you haven’t got that system in place, you know how you’re going to move to that point where you can see where that system has been impacted by something being swapped in or swapped out, or how it could be impacted.’

PATRICK FLYNN asks ‘are we looking just at new builds or are we also looking at occupied buildings that this can be retrospectively applied to? They have to be fundamentally different approaches. The challenges on the occupied property side is going to be far more than on the new build.’

AELX OLDMAN will be chairing the roundtable at DCW. He asks the group - what information do we need and what gaps do we have in the technical documents that have been produced so far? Has anybody read those in detail enough to have spotted anything that’s missing or any areas of discussion that we haven’t got?

PAUL WHITE: ‘(there are) fundamental issues: you’ve got passive fire protection which is compartmentation. The majority of fire doors will shut and stay shut and any day-to-day ventilation will shut and stay shut, the fans will stop. The active side is the sprinklers and smoke control. If there is fire in your flat you may well open the door of the flat, hopefully you’ll shut it when you leave to keep the fire in the flat. But often windows break and it may spread to the flat above. At that point you’ve allowed some smoke into the corridor and a smoke control system starts up. The stairwell should be free of smoke, people can get out and the fire brigade can get in. That may use things that open and may use some things that need to stay shut and you won’t know which those are until you know where the fire is, and that’s all dealt with by the alarm system. At the roundtable, how do you need to interact with those key things if there is an event?.’ He is struggling with dealing with this.

WILL PERKINS ‘isn’t the question what information needs to be put in place for the operations team the to ensure that product is ready to go in accordance with its design if there is an event?’

RICHARD FREER reiterates the point he made earlier, which is the purpose of this pre-meeting– what information do you need to supply? What information does the building safety manager need when a fire breaks out? ‘I want your definition of what you need’.

AELX OLDMAN refers to Richard Whittaker’s anecdote (in another meeting) about the 2 fires he had to deal with in an 18-month period and having to decamp 150 households overnight – ‘that's the operational sharp end’. JACK WHITE sees that what Alex spoke about is ‘all operational’. It’s not possible to have zero risk, but what is the work that is done to make buildings as safe as practicable? How do we maintain buildings as well as we can to minimize the chance of an emergency situation occurring?

PAUL WHITE will be attending the roundtables at DCW. RICHARD says just over 20 people have signed up so far. WILL PERKINS will be attending.

WILL PERKINS wonders, ‘at the roundtable, what exactly is the question that Alex is asking us?’ RICHARD said the question is ‘what does the operational round table think is needed for that (limiting and mitigating smoke risks)?’ ALEX says it's about specifying the information requirements of assets to start the data collection process. RICHARD says they are going to be working on 2 possible scenarios: a fire door being painted and a carpet being installed. He asks the group if they can think of any other possible scenarios that could be used.

JACK WHITE thinks that thinking in terms of someone’s carpet in terms of asset management is nowhere near what we’re looking to do (considering that there are buildings riddled with holes/fire doors not working/disconnected combustible cladding etc.).

RICHARD asks PAUL and WILL ‘what do you think the question should be?’ WILL responds ‘what does BIM4housing want out of that roundtable event?’ RICHARD says ‘what do you think we should want out of it?’

ALEX says what’s clear is that ‘we’re trying to promote the work of BIM4housing at Digital Construction Week. So, the 1st object is, we want more members and participants, more discussion (everyone agrees with this). Also, to highlight the publications we’ve got. We have to put in place a process where we’ve designed and put the right things in place and make sure they’re operating in the required state: how do we do that? Maybe there are discussion points about low/medium/high budgets. The focus for the discussion will be about spread of smoke and compartmentation requirements and mitigating the risk.’

LYSA NICELY writes her proposed wording on the question via chat: ‘BIM 4 Housing has a suite of xxx to assist Operational Teams - What additional requirements do you think may be needed to mitigate smoke spread?’ ALEX thinks it's good and that the ‘xxx’ are technical publications.

Jiss Philip Mukkadan -BIM4Housing

Kelly Lee - Orbit

Paul Connolly -Mace Group

Jack White - Clarion Housing

Lysa Nicely - Originhousing

Will Perkins - SE Controls

Alex Oldman - Civica

Paul White - Ventilation Fire Smoke

Richard Freer - IceFire Portfolio

David Peacock - TÜV SÜD

Sharon McClure - Avestagroup

Christine Milling - L&Q

James Banner - Orbit

Patrick Flynn - Networkhomes

Glen Jackson - Swan Housing



RICHARD informs participants about the 5 live round table sessions on Thursday 19th May am at Digital construction week https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/3718963/D55D50E9082663F34ABF681B77D404BA. Each of the 5 working groups are included. 1 asset type (fire doors) will be taken, look at the work already done at fire safety round tables, each working group will look through the mitigation of risks. As an Operations group, what other information might you need that you haven’t got there? Compartmentalisation of each unit will also be looked at, there are 3 or 4 other asset types that come along with that. ALEX and PAUL confirm they will be attending..

Richard Freer -IceFire Portfolio

RICHARD wants to organise an interim pre-meeting between now and then to prepare for the round table. Invitations will be sent out.

Paul White -Ventilation Fire Smoke

ALEX OLDMAN talks about 4 working groups. He shows the BIM4HOUSING Teams page, a working document about the challenges of RetroBIM. He’s changed the name of retroBIM to Augmented Asset Management. It’s about the capture of digital information that relates to pre-existing buildings. ALEX wants the group to be able to provide a document that can be shared across relevant industries to help people understand what are the issues and how to go about collecting digital data to build digital models on these buildings. Why is it being done? How is it being done? Also, maybe a ‘lessons learned’ section.

Jiss Philip Mukkadan -BIM4Housing

ALEX asks group members to get involved in editing the document. He encourages people to get involved in the retrobim group and also for others to take responsibilities. MAXINE BEADLE from WILLMOTT DIXON says she will get involved.

Nick Isherwood -Accent Group

BEX GIBSON states that her company has opened a department to monitor the quality of information. KELLY LEE, in her company, is working on how they can keep their data updated within their current system (though they’ll soon be migrating to new systems in the future...golden thread requirements must be met now).

Bex Gibson -Livewest

NICK ISHERWOOD from Accent Housing will hold an initial meeting about BIM next week. He’ll take a companywide approach: MAXINE, BEX and KELLY will help him with this.

Alex Oldman -Civica

PAUL WHITE offers help for people putting together asset lists and if they want help with surveys – fire doors/ventilation/smoke control. He’s around to help on the practical side rather than BIM in particular.

Simon Bowker -Onemanchester

ALEX shows some documents with specific guidance on some asset types. He talks about the bim4housing.com website which includes a Black Box reporting system which allows people to share lessons learned from an incident in an anonymous way. PAUL WHITE says that very much relates to his role in the group, to help with technical issues that some may struggle to understand.

Richard Whittaker -Citizenhousing

ALEX gives an update on the other working groups. There’s no significant progress in the other three groups. One was to look at name tagging and file naming conventions issues.

Kelly Lee -Orbit

RICHARD WHITTAKER offers the information he has about BIM and the golden thread.

Maxine Beadle -Willmott Dixon

ALEX returns to the subject of working group B: name tagging and conventions. MAXINE BEADLE is happy to be a part of the working group (but not to lead it...no one volunteers to lead). RICHARD FREER suggest that, because naming conventions effect everyone right across the board, perhaps instead of forming a group from within Alex’s group it may be wise to make it a work stream with MAXINE and BEX and the other two members needed can be recruited from the other groups.

Marzena Odzimek -Tower Hamlets Homes

BEX GIBSON thinks it would be a good idea for this working group to collaborate re name tagging and conventions with the HAs working group. RICHARD FREER agrees.

ALEX says that MAXINE and BEX will be in touch regarding this.

Glen Jackson -Swan Housing

ALEX then moves onto notes for organisational change for BIM. RICHARD interrupts to say a work stream is being developed focusing on change management, which would cover this topic. If there’s a couple of people in Alex’s group that want to get involved with that it would be great.

ALEX will share a list of people who may be interested in getting involved in that work stream.

Neil Yeomans -Orbit

BIM USE CASES is the next topic ALEX talks about. He’s interested in what sort of questions people are asking of their BIM data sets e.g. topography, planning, servicing and maintenance operations, demonstrating compliance for the new building safety regulations...but how does that actually break down in practice?

James Banner -Orbit

FLEUR BOWEN is uncertain as to what the information will be used for in an operational management context: ‘if it’s fully noncombustible what is the risk of us NOT having that data on an ongoing basis and making sure we’re gaining value from it?’.

Calum Kerr -Balfour Beatty

KELLY LEE says what needs to be understood is what impacts what? What are the costings and the future costings? She gives an example of an older building that’s front has been pebble-dashed and overlaid the windows, therefore if the windows are replaced the external wall will be broken. This will double or triple the cost.

Lee Reevell -Halton Housing

ALEX says the ‘business case for building these digital models is if we can go in and look at the performance now, understand what the building performance is, make investment in it, you are actually then able to demonstrate the return on investment in terms of the improvement in the building performance’. This is particularly relevant in light of the rising fuel costs and its impact on occupants’ bills.

Dave Williams -Originhousing

BEX GIBSON (via chat) says her company is developing a sort of gateway contractor control system where no works can be undertaken in HRRBs until the Building Safety team approve and perhaps see efficiencies. Related to this, ALEX asks at what point does data need to reflect the real building and levels of trust?

Fleur Bowen -Notting Hill Genesis

PAUL WHITE (via chat) asks if the model could record PEEPS (personal evacuation plans)? https://www.devonshires.com/personal-emergency-evacuation-plans-peeps-for-building-owners-consultation-and-government-update/ ALEX says it could. BEX (via chat) says the problem is there’s a GDPR issue. ALEX agrees. RICHARD FREER says that, in a safety context, there are ways to deal with the GDPR issue. BEX (via chat) says that she will be incorporating PEEPS into her consideration of these digital models. FLEUR is waiting for the change in guidance coming soon.

Sharon McClure -Avestagroup

RICHARD WHITAKER has 16 sites utilising BIM (management, not modelling). He shows on screen and offers to share his BIM execution plan. He talks about dealing with a major fire in an apartment building and how important the golden thread, a single digital data source, is in order to respond to such an incident effectively. Richard said there were too many sections of information to be comprehended ‘whilst the tower block was burning down’ and also a dilemma of which format to choose to access information (word/excel/PowerPoint). GEORGE agrees that looking at all these different schedules is complicated and the likelihood of all the information across different sources being coherent is very low. GEORGE says that he’s working on a virtual folder structure. RICHARD wants ‘live’ documents, not PDFs.

George Stevenson -ActivePlan

Regarding PEEPS, NICK ISHERWOOD says that the National Fire Chief Council are working on a standard template which he will circulate amongst the group. GEORGE says they may be able to align this work with what’s been going on in the round tables and risk-based asset management (example: spread of smoke and how to mitigate risk). FLEUR BOWEN says there are disability codes that anonymise the information. GEORGE asks if PEEPS would be useful if a particular asset has not been operational for a week or so, is there value in realising which people may be vulnerable during that period so the building safety manager can alert that. ALEX is already doing using it this way. GEORGE says that identifying the relationship between assets can be done easily through the right data structure...it’s a proper digital twin.

Christine Milling -L&Q

Continuing with the subject of PEEPS, NICK ISHERWOOD says that (maybe) it’s going to be diluted down and what’s more important is the information sharing during an incident with the fire service EI...(emergency information sharing).

CHRISTINE MILLING clarifies the definition of a system as a group of components and you need to make sure what components you are including in a particular system and to see where failure of a particular component may have an impact.

GEORGE talks about the Template on the Bim4housing website, created within the GTI group, for all the documentation relating to the safety case. It’s available for everyone to access within the black box site/publications.

The next meeting will be on 22nd June.



ALEX OLDMAN this particular group is focused on the ongoing operation and maintenance of our buildings through the occupation lifecycle... at the end of the process and demolition, deconstruction of those buildings, so that that part of the life cycle. So, everything from handover onwards is our particular area of interest.

BIM is really helpful to ensure that the information that we need can be collected in an efficient manner so that we’re able to manage those properties properly right from the off as soon as we get that handover: that’s what this group is about.

ALEX OLDMAN: Here, we share information/ideas/(possibly) do research/sharing stories and problems, with the view to benefitting the industry. We’re going to form working groups to look at specific topics. We can publish information through https://bim4housing.com/

Today, let’s organise a STRATEGY: what are we doing for the next 12 months? What is it that we hope to achieve? And how to organise ourselves, including volunteers for specific areas of interest.

ALEX had previously sent out emails to group participants detailing challenges/questions.

Regarding the 6 points (from the email) are there any specific problems that we hope to resolve?

PAUL MARSH says there is a problem with BIM and legacy buildings: ‘how can the first dummy set of data be created? Can we come up with something basic to use as a standpoint?’.

ALEX acknowledges this is a problem with RetroBIM, difficulties of how to establish BIM information for existing buildings.

GEORGE the principles for the Operations group is what are the real business issues that we are wrestling with? Maybe we can get help from the other working groups (to solve these issues). (The next stage after that) is workstreams. The working groups are strategic, the work streams look at a particular task. EWe started with data standardization, working with HACT, then MMC, and the Fire safety group. We’re now working with the zero construct team in the sustainability group re operational/embedded carbon. Work on the Digital Record includes looking at existing buildings (this relates to Paul’s question).

Re existing buildings, we need the information to ensure the building is operating effectively, for safety and compliance issues, and operational carbon. Then, we need to make sure the digital record is complete and up-to-date.

DAVE WILLIAMS says that, in his sector in general, there is a lack of standardisation. Examples are the lack of standardised data dictionaries and the naming of components: ‘is it a ‘glazed window’ or just a ‘window’?’. This is particularly a problem with legacy buildings. Looking at Uniclass, it has gaps, and sometimes uses American naming instead of UK naming.

JOANNA HARRIS says that NRM3 from Ricks may deal with the labelling problem of components.

GEORGE says that the work he’s been doing with the golden thread and the data standards group addresses this matter.

‘If you look at what we’re trying to do, there’s a range of different standards that we’re wrestling with. In the BIM world the standard is IFC, which principally is driven by design. There is a building smart data dictionary which includes all of the individual properties as to what you call something, but coming at it from the view of BIM and design. There is also UNICLASS and BIMhawk. Then, there is NRM 1,2 and 3 which are driven from a cost or project management perspective. Lesser known is what the wholesalers use, called ETIM. All of these classifications are designed for a particular purpose.’

‘The approach we’ve taken within the HACT group is working with BRE and Templater. TEMPLATER is a neutral way of connecting with all of these different DATA DICTIONARIES...we can pull them into a common environment. (For example) a cavity barrier might me mapping to several different specifications according to what it’s being used for e.g., design/ cost management/ fire stopping. The NAMING of ‘cavity barrier’ is then CONSISTENT. Because this is a proper database, it’s also connected to the IFC component: therefore, there is a One-to-Many Relationship. The data dictionaries talk to each other. We can also see what information is needed at which work stage. You can also turn off things that you don’t need. Machine readable data templates which are machine readable can be created which can go into software applications.

We have 250 standardized asset types and people can also add synonyms, so we can have the one asset type with different synonyms included.

PAUL MARSH is interested as it will save him ‘a million hours of work’.

CHRISTINE MILLING It seems that if we’ve got legacy systems, we should be building our own digital twins. If we have digital twins we can then identify what data we have missing.

ALEX OLDMAN When do we start having a discussion about BIM in organisations? Is there anything that we need to do in terms of making it easier for board level people to understand the benefits of BIM?

LUKE HAZELWOOD When you go further down in the operational teams, those are the people who struggle to see the benefits of BIM. There should be a layman’s guide to what the advantages ofg BIM are. The two biggest hurdles (regarding BIM) are the initial cost and the training of operational teams to get the rest of the business on board.

PAUL MARSH says that many people at various levels do not understand just how much work it will be to try and get legacy buildings on BIM, because the data doesn’t exist.

ALEX agrees about this data quality issue and the fact that old data cannot be relied upon.

GEORGE considers that it's important that people are talking about BIM as ‘better information management’ and not 3D model. He suggests that the group could identify common problems in common scenarios that can me formed into questions. Information can then be tested against that from the angle of how a particular problem can be prevented.

ALEX, during the meeting, has picked up on some points applying to RetroBIM. He thinks it would be useful if more time was spent looking at how to use BRE Templater (and other tools mentioned by George). Another issue he identifies is the challenges being faced during the operational phases of buildings.

LUKE HAZELWOOD: ‘To actually get BIM working, you need both the development and the operations and IT working at the same time on the same project. It’s a whole company project. This (process) is often blocked by funding.’

LUKE HAZELWOOD says that recording data regarding repairs of assets is important because a technician will spend time and resources to fix something but never records the method of how it is fixed, so that knowledge is not spread. Consequently, the mistakes continue to be made resulting in many hours of extra work.

LYSA NICELY has been working on a QR code on the doors of all the blocks so it’s scanned and there is a data set that feeds back into BIM.

GEORGE thinks QR codes are an essential part of the process but it doesn’t address Luke’s point about the master asset information data set. This is where Active Pan comes in to offer and deliver information. All this information can be in an interconnecting virtual world so you don’t have to be constrained by any one software application.

ALEX says that QR codes are useful re data for fire escape routes and checks on fire doors function etc.

GEORGE raised the issue of residents/kids in schools prising off RFID Tags and sensors from doors/assets and hence jeopardising data collection/safety measures. ALEX says that in the fire brigade they tend to build these tags within the asset (so they don’t melt/get lost).

PAULINE says there’s a big factor in terms of operational teams buying into BIM, they have lost their initial enthusiasm for it (which they had back in 2005). The level of belief that BIM is going to be delivered anytime soon has diminished. Regarding the handover process, there’s no overall understanding of the various data points where information comes into the organisation. We need to look at where all the data points are when information comes in so we eventually get one underlying complete data set of information.

GEORGE agrees with LUKE’s comment about O&Ms, saying that people ask for access to the O&Ms but invariably cannot find the information they are looking for.

GEORGE shows the group slides of the BLACK BOX page that has been created during the round tables. He then talks about the Golden Thread questionnaire.

BRETT HIBBIT talks about the definition of a block in regards to the management system shown by George. PAUL MARSH has the same problem regarding the definition of blocks. DAVE WILLIAMS splits the blocks into sub-blocks.

ALEX talks about 4 activities for the next meeting: how we can aid organisations to apply BIM to existing buildings; helping with name tagging (BRE Templater); effecting change in organisations; creation of Use cases.

The next meeting is 27th April at 11am. ALEX is looking ofr people to co-chair and develop the leadership for this year, he’d like a team of 4 or 5 people to spread the load.

LUKE says he’s going to contribute Use cases to the group as they come up in the course of his work.

Alex Oldman -Civica

Lenesa Browne - Brockley

Jiss Philip Mukkadan - BIM4Housing

Richard Freer - IceFire Portfolio

Steve Wyper - Sovereign

Ian McLackland - Gateshead

Graham Cann - Catalyst Housing Limited

Stuart Thew - Gateshead

Brett Hibbitt - Aster

George Stevenson - ActivePlan

Calum Kerr - Balfour Beatty

Joanna Harris - Sodexo

Graham Kelly - BIM Academy

Paul Marsh - Metropolitan Thames Valley

Will Perkins - SE Controls

Harshul Singh - Ucl

Bex Gibson - Livewest

Glen Jackson - Swan Housing

Alastair Brockett - Hilti

Lysa Nicely - Originhousing

James Banner - Orbit

Kelly Lee - Orbit

Jack White - Clarion Housing

Pauline Tuitt - L&Q

Christine Milling - L&Q

Mike Richardson - PRP

Paul Connolly - Mace Group

Chris Hobbs - Graitec

Dave Williams - Originhousing

Mike Smith - Bailey Partnership

Luke Hazelwood - L&Q

Sharon McClure - Avestagroup

WordPress Image Lightbox