Skip to content
6D BIM for Asset Information Management - The Survey
How are you implementing ISO-19650 for digital delivery of validated Asset Information?
The following questions are based on ISO-19650-2. Preceding each question is the relevant 19650 clause in parenthesis
OK
*
1.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, have any Appointing Parties (i.e., various clients) issued the delivery team with a defined schedule of the asset classes for which maintenance, cost and specification data will be required (a.k.a. Maintainable Asset List)?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects requiring BIM have been issued with a Maintainable Asset List?
*
2.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, have any Appointing Parties (i.e., various clients) issued the delivery team with a defined naming/numbering convention for rooms (and/or spaces) that addresses both visible wayfinding signage *and* data import for computer-aided facility management?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled the requirement to use the client's naming/numbering convention for rooms (and/or spaces)?
*
3.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, have any Appointing Parties (i.e., various clients) issued the delivery team with requirements for zone attributes that enable grouping of spaces for both heating/cooling loads analysis and area analysis in accordance with industry standards for area measurement (e.g., RICS, BOMA)?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement to use zone attributes to group rooms (and/or spaces) for loads analysis and gross/net area measurement?
*
4.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, have any Appointing Parties (i.e., various clients) issued the delivery team with requirements to classify assets by system (e.g., Uniclass Ss), so that assets can be organised and isolated by the various building systems to which they belong (Chilled Water Flow/Return; Supply Air; Return Air, etc.)?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement to classify 'as built' assets by system (e.g., Uniclass Ss or other)?
*
5.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, have any Appointing Parties (i.e., various clients) issued the delivery team with requirements to provide contact data for multiple O&M 'use cases'?
(e.g., the contact for manufacturer’s after-sales parts and service differs from the supplier/installer’s sales rep)
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement to provide contact data via COBie for multiple O&M use cases?
*
6.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, do the Exchange Information Requirements that you use include all target O&M systems that the Appointing Party uses to manage manufacturer/supplier contact data (e.g., this could be the ERP or Procurement system, instead of just the Computer Aided Facility Management system)?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement to transfer COBie's contact data into multiple target O&M systems?
*
7.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, do the Exchange Information Requirements that you use include pre-defined conservation data parameters (e.g., attributes for architectural period, materials, significance index and condition index)?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement to coordinate heritage/conservation data via COBie?
*
8.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, do the Exchange Information Requirements include pre-defined maximum field-length for each COBie parameter to ensure that asset data isn’t truncated on import to CAFM?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement to ensure that values for all COBie parameter conform to pre-defined maximum field-lengths that prevent truncation on import to CAFM?
*
9.
(5.2.1) Across your various design/construction projects, do the Exchange Information Requirements include a schedule of permissible values for cost codes (e.g., NRM), specification codes (e.g., Uniclass) and maintenance codes (e.g., SFG20) that match the permissible values in the CAFM system?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement to ensure that asset data contains correct cost codes and/or maintenance codes for import to CAFM? (instead of just Uniclass or Uniformat specification codes)
*
10.
(5.2.2) Across your various design/construction projects, has the appointing party distributed an information container consisting of uniquely identified model parameters (i.e., for Revit, a shared parameters file)?
N.B. for all project participants to use a common set of shared parameters ensures that their respective COBie outputs will not need to be ‘normalised’ before they can be federated into a comprehensive schedule of asset data
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have fulfilled a client requirement for the entire design/construction supply chain to use a common set of shared parameters?
*
11.
(5.3.2e) Across your various design/construction projects, in accordance with level of information need, does the Lead Appointed Party require the supply chain to use model libraries that are *pre-populated* with 'real world' manufacturers' data?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects are producing COBie data containing mostly the generic names and descriptions that were added during the design phase?
*
12.
(5.3.3) Across your various design/construction projects, does each pre-appointment BIM Execution Plan include a provision for data quality assurance
training and for deployment of business intelligence platforms (e.g., PowerBI,
Tableau) that progressively monitor the quality/completeness of COBie data output from the entire supply chain?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects use a BIM Execution Plan that includes deployment of a business intelligence platform (e.g., PowerBI, or Tableau) for progressively monitoring the quality/completeness of COBie data output?
*
13.
(5.4.2) Has the lead appointed party included qualified maintenance engineers/specialists in the Responsibility Matrix who verify that the correct maintenance codes (e.g., SFG20) have been applied to mechanical and electrical assets in COBie?
Answer ‘no’, if someone without maintenance expertise is responsible for finding and adding this information.
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, what percentage of your projects have relied on qualified maintenance engineers/specialists to verify the maintenance codes (e.g., SFG20) in your COBie output?
*
14.
Across your various design/construction projects, has the lead appointed party (e.g., the main contractor) documented and demonstrated ‘real world’ workflows (involving delivery-side and client-side teams) and platforms and reports that enable the supply chain's asset data to be fully quality assured in readiness for handover?
(Required.)
Yes
No
Roughly, for what percentage of your projects has the lead appointed party (e.g., the main contractor) documented and demonstrated ‘real world’ workflows and platforms and reports for quality assuring the supply chain's asset data in readiness for handover?
*
15.
Finally, please name a few recent projects that you've worked on that exemplify your answers to the previous questions. Thank you.
(Required.)
Current Progress,
0 of 15 answered