Lesson 1, Topic 1
In Progress

The IM Process Map

The process comprises eight steps, numbered 1 to 8, and the requirements at each step are contained in the corresponding sub-clause of ISO 19650-3 clause 5 (for example, step 1 is covered by clause 5.1)

Step 1 of the process is where the appointing party (asset owner/operator) prepares for the rest of the information management process. This includes assessing what information they need at organizational and asset levels and preparing all the supporting resources for the process such as the asset information standard and establishing the common data environment.
Step 1 leads to three different pathways, shown as shaded boxes labelled B, C and D.

Pathway B is for foreseen trigger events, for example, regular maintenance or a regular inspection, where information collection needs to occur.

Pathway C is for unplanned trigger events, perhaps a pump failure leading to a flood. Information on new equipment such as a replacement pump and other damaged equipment needs to be gathered.

Pathway D is for the acquisition of an existing asset, such as with the purchase of new premises.

Which of these pathways is followed depends on the nature of each lifecycle event giving rise to new or updated asset information.

These events are called trigger events and are depicted in pathways B and C by a circle enclosing a pentagon.

The pathways are split because there are fundamental differences in the approach to information management, primarily around whether procurement and mobilization can be done ahead of the trigger event taking place or not.
The process is then split into 3 subgroups, primarily for pathways B and C:

The first is about procurement – of a tier 1 contractor or an in-house team to be responsible for some information deliverables (lead appointed party). ISO 19650-3 covers information procurement activities.

The second is about planning – the mobilization of the appointed contractor or in-house team and the appointment of any further parties within the delivery team (appointed parties).

The third is about production – when information is produced by appointed parties, reviewed by a lead appointed party and ultimately accepted by the asset owner/operator (appointing party).
The process has feedback loops

The first tests whether the appointment will continue following acceptance of a particular set of information deliverables from the supplier (lead appointed party/delivery team). This could be because a trigger event is complex enough to involve a series of information exchange points (such as the design and then installation of an emergency roof). Or because it is a call-off appointment responding to a repeated trigger event where each has its own information exchange (such as a 5-year contract to conduct yearly inspections).

The second tests whether the asset owner/ operator still has an interest in the asset and therefore whether the whole information management process should continue.
Trigger events are one of the key concepts for managing asset information according to ISO 19650-3. These are the events taking place during the life-cycle of the asset that has an effect on the asset and gives rise to new or updated information being needed by the appointing party (asset owner/operator). They provide the overall tempo for the information management process, in the same way, that plan of work stages do during a project. There are many different trigger events that can occur – some of them will arise on all or most assets such as planned maintenance of commonplace elements or equipment. Others will be very specific to the asset in question such as undermining of foundations for a structure near an eroding coastline.
By their nature, some of these trigger events can be foreseen and scheduled or otherwise planned for in advance of them happening, for example, regular maintenance or inspections. These are the trigger events that drive pathway B in the information management process. Planning for these trigger events means the appointing party (asset owner/operator) going through the procurement activities for information, and also for the works, and the lead appointed party (contractor or in-house team) going through their mobilization activities before the trigger event takes place.

This means that when the trigger event occurs the delivery team is already appointed and ready to go and can start immediately with their technical tasks and production of information

[PROCURE] then [PLAN] then [TRIGGER] then [PRODUCE]
Other trigger events are acts of God, random occurrences, or so infrequent or unpredictable that it is impractical to plan for them in advance, for example, a lightning strike or an increase in customer demand requiring an additional production facility.

These are the trigger events that drive pathway C in the information management process.

They include new delivery phase activities (new projects) to create new assets or refurbish/remodel existing assets.

When the trigger event does happen, the appointing party has to start from the beginning of the procurement process, the lead appointed party and delivery team to have to go through the mobilization activities before they can start their technical work and start producing information. This means there will of necessity be some delay between the trigger event occurring and the technical response work starting.

[TRIGGER] then [PROCURE] then [PLAN] then [PRODUCE]
Although the flowchart looks complicated, each of the process steps contains a series of required actions.
The ISO 19650-3 information management process is to be applied in a way that is proportionate and appropriate to the scale and complexity of the asset portfolio as well as the scale and complexity of the asset management responses to trigger events. Proportionality is demonstrated through the following examples.
Example 1

In preparing for their overall approach to information management in step 1, an appointing party (asset owner/operator) might decide only to apply ISO 19650-3 to its most critical assets, such as only to its production and warehouse facilities and not to its administrative offices, or only to life safety systems rather than all systems in a building.
Example 2

In procuring a new lead appointed party (asset contractor) to carry out a condition survey, an appointing party (asset owner/operator) could conclude that none of its existing reference information or resources is relevant and does not need to be included in the tender pack compiled for this appointment. This simplifies the paperwork of the procurement process.
Example 3

An in-house asset manager acting as appointing party and appointing an in-house works team to do small-scale work and information delivery will still need to go through the same information management process steps. But at each step, the details that need to be defined or the resources that need to be created will be much simpler or might not be relevant and so can be legitimately excluded.
The cost of implementing the process will ultimately have to be balanced against the benefit of having the intended information. Unless there is a statutory requirement to be met, this balance of cost versus value has to be made by the appointing party (asset owner/operator).
Some of the specific tasks in ISO 19650-3, such as the lead appointed party preparing the delivery team’s BIM execution plan, are deliberately scaled down from their equivalents in ISO 19650 Part 2. If more detail is warranted by the situation then this can either be specified by the appointing party in their acceptance criteria for the tender response or volunteered by the prospective contractor/in-house team (lead appointed party) in their pre-appointment BEP.
Proportionality also needs to be applied to the organizational and asset information requirements that are developed by the asset owner/operator (appointing party). Each information requirement must be able to be traced back to a purpose so that the appointing party is clear that it is only asking for information to be produced that it really does need.

This is part of the lean thinking that underpins a systematic approach to information management, and the result should be sets of exchange information requirements for each lead appointed party that focus on the information that really has value to the appointing party.