At handover, do you deliver data that clients both want and can use, or are you simply drowning them in useless information? Dalux consultant Craig Howell Jones demands change.
Let’s be blunt, shall we? For many of us immersed in the design and construction phases, the idea of a seamless digital handover to operations, enabled by BIM, sometimes feels less like a well-oiled machine and more like assembling flatpack furniture with missing instructions and a universal hex key that fits nothing.
The grand vision of BIM – a data-rich, digitally integrated project lifecycle – can be met with a healthy dose of cynicism, especially when we consider the potential for unwieldy data dumps at project completion.
But the truth is, the digital era of asset information is firmly here, and a strategic approach to data handover isn’t just best practice, it’s becoming a project deliverable expectation. Relying on outdated 2D workflows, or even poorly structured BIM, is simply not sustainable for modern projects.
The BIM methodology, in theory, is elegant. Design and construction teams meticulously craft federated models laden with rich data, intended to flow seamlessly into operational systems, creating the much-vaunted golden thread of information from inception to operation. This thread should guarantee that crucial asset data – from component specifications to maintenance schedules – is readily accessible for the operational teams who inherit the built asset.
The handover hurdle: from model to meaningful data
“The grand vision of BIM can be met with a healthy dose of cynicism, especially when we consider the potential for unwieldy data dumps at project completion.”
However, the transition from our project information model (PIM) to operational readiness often feels more like a digital obstacle course than a smooth handover. We, in design and construction, frequently generate vast quantities of data on modern projects, meticulously adhering to Level of Information Need and populating databases.
But the challenge lies in ensuring this data is not just delivered as an IFC or native file dump, but is usable and valuable for the downstream operational phase. This often leads to a frustrating trifecta that manifests as:
- difficulties for asset owners in extracting actionable insights;
- concerns about data accuracy and fitness for purpose; and
- the sheer complexity of managing intricate digital dependencies within the delivered datasets.
This situation is often compounded when clear digital delivery requirements, beyond basic employer’s information requirements (EIRs), are not embedded within project contracts, leading to a perception (and sometimes reality) that handover is treated as a final data dump, rather than a collaborative transition.
The handover hurdle is real, and frankly, we in design and construction often contribute to it. We generate terabytes of data, but how much of it is actually valuable for operations? We focus on geometric precision, but neglect the practical asset data – maintenance schedules, warranty details and operational parameters – that FM systems crave.
This leads to a further frustrating trifecta, amplified by our BIM workflows:
- delays for FM teams as they try to decipher our disorganised deliverables, often requiring significant rework to extract usable data;
- accuracy issues as data inconsistencies creep in between discipline-specific models and handover documentation, leading to questions of data integrity; and
- interdependencies that are lost or broken in the translation from our CDE to their operational systems.
We might meticulously model asset data, only for it to be stripped out or rendered useless during IFC export for handover. Are we creating beautiful models that become digital white elephants for operations? Are we simply exporting IFCs without truly considering their usability in CAFM systems?
Bridging the divide: beyond basic EIRs
While EIRs are intended to provide a framework for data delivery, they often fall short of enabling the full potential of BIM for operational asset management. Key areas for improvement include:
- building confidence across the project team in the value of operational BIM;
- implementing iterative and collaborative data validation processes throughout the project; and
- fostering true partnerships between design teams, construction teams and asset owners to ensure intelligent asset information delivery.
The data flow to operations needs to be viewed as a flexible and iterative process, tailored to the specific requirements of digital projects and the asset owner’s operational systems.
This demands active participation from all stakeholders, with clear ownership of data delivery milestones and feedback loops generated from data reviews and quality assurance processes throughout the project lifecycle – not just at the end.
Only then can design and construction teams benefit from a robust data delivery framework that clarifies data interdependencies and enables asset owners to receive a truly “ready-to-use” digital asset at handover.
Focusing on process and collaboration
“The crucial message for us is that we need to champion a proactive role in the data handover process. It can’t be a case of simply meeting minimum EIRs and assuming our job is done.”
Solutions and platforms exist that aim to streamline this process, but the core principle is shifting from a passive data dump to proactive data development. By focusing on collaborative workflows, clear data standards and iterative validation throughout design and construction, we can create BIM deliverables that genuinely support asset owners’ operational and maintenance functions.
This proactive approach necessitates early and ongoing engagement between design, construction and operations teams.
Furthermore, this collaborative approach empowers asset owners to become active participants in shaping their asset information from project inception. It means digital quality is addressed throughout the project, building confidence and ensuring data readiness for the operational phase.
Embedding these collaborative processes within contractual agreements ensures that all parties are invested in, and benefit from, a structured and effective digital handover.
The BIM professional’s role: shaping a valuable digital legacy
The crucial message for us, as BIM professionals, is that we need to champion a proactive role in the data handover process. It can’t be a case of simply meeting minimum EIRs and assuming our job is done. We need to actively engage with asset owners, understand their operational needs beyond generic checklists, and advocate for data structures, formats, and workflows that genuinely deliver lifecycle value.
This might involve pushing for clearer, operationally-focused EIRs, advocating for early engagement with FM teams, and even challenging traditional ‘deliverables-focused’ BIM approaches that prioritise model geometry over usable asset information.
But by taking ownership of the data handover narrative, we are not just making the downstream process easier, we are contributing to safer, more efficient and more sustainable buildings throughout their entire lifecycle. It’s about ensuring the digital promise of BIM is realised, not just within the design and construction phases, but throughout the asset’s operational life.
Let’s not contribute to a digital data swamp, let’s strive to deliver a truly valuable and usable digital asset legacy. The future of BIM is not just in design and construction, it’s in the lifecycle value we unlock. A seamless data handover is not just a nice-to-have, it’s our responsibility to deliver it. Let’s rise to the challenge and ensure our BIM efforts result in a digital goldmine for asset operations, not a digital dumpster fire.
Don’t miss out on information management and digital construction news: sign up to receive the BIMplus newsletter.
Comments
Comments are closed.
We need to remember the basics of information management and delivery. For information to be useful, there must be a clear purpose and defined requirements.
The core issue is that stakeholders often don’t know what data they need until they understand its purpose. Clients face time and budget constraints, making it difficult to define requirements upfront, leading to procurement barriers. Consultants and contractors face similar challenges.
There are two options to address this:
1. Fix the underlying industry challenges around procurement and costing to favor better information management.
2. Accept that we are limited by our clients’ constraints, especially in the public sector. By accepting this, we can adapt standards like ISO 19650 and take smaller steps to reach our goals, such as developing information requirements over time as we focus on milestones.
Many may think, “Yeah, that’s what you should be doing,” but it’s not what happens. We get EIRs filled with hundreds of pages at tender that don’t reflect any of the client’s objectives during construction or afterward. This puts the whole life objective at risk. These requirements are not updated; we still have the same set from day one. The main contractor may evolve their planned information deliverables, but this is largely based on the contractor’s purposes/requirements during construction.
As I mentioned in my BIM+ articles “Why it’s time for a BIM reboot” and “Why is the ‘why’ of ISO 19650 being lost,” the blame can’t be solely placed on the construction industry. Whole life is not a construction industry problem to solve on our own; we can only help work with those who truly want to solve it and develop solutions. But I see little evidence of this. Until this is recognised, which I hope the “Information Management Initiative” will focus on as one of the principal barriers, we are all still just finding shortcuts and managing expectations the best we can.
I agree with the analysis of the problem, but more process and technology is not going to address it. The way the industry organises to create, deliver and capture value is simply not fit for the digital age and the cracks are becoming more evident.
There are some major high level constraints on delivering value through digital, including in our economic and political system but even the way we make sense of and communicate these constraints is highly fragmented. I have seen massive leaps in digital technologies over my career but the underlying constraints remain.
Although I am encouraged when I see major asset owner operators employing more value-based procurement methods.
Being a BIM Manager for the Public Sector at the Operational level, I fully support this analysis. Where I see the inefficiencies and the challenges with a proper Life Cycle Asset Management handover scenario, is with the overall approach to contract language and trying to foster collaborative change management in the industry. BIM processes and workflows today form a large portion, if not the entire, overall project management workflow. We strive to create our IR documents and contract language to reflect our needs but without the collaborative philosophy being collectively executed from day one, the silo effect still remains with everyone looking out for themselves. Successful handover of data relies on all parties working as one big team to achieve, not only a successful delivery of the project, but a successful operations based life-cycle management deliverable to the owner.
Isn’t the problem a simple one. The point made in the original article states that we need to know what the clients CAFM system needs to function properly. If the client has a CAFM system then they can specify in the AIR’s exactly what they need delivered. If they don’t have a CAFM system for a new build then perhaps in the early stage of the project, the client needs to decide what CAFM system they need at the end of the project and once again specify what that system needs to function. This information should be separate from other information that is needed by the client at specified stages of the project delivery as PIR’s etc. or other purposes.