Golden thread
Pushing the responsibility of information management onto the supply chain is not a new phenomenon. This behaviour started back in the 1990s with the advent of the private finance initiative. This specific public procurement route shifted responsibility out onto the construction supply chains; meaning they were in charge of designing, building and operating privately financed capital projects. The government consequently cut their members of staff (construction information management professionals) who specialised in this field and outsourced responsibility to the fragmented construction industry. Moreover, ahead of the 2016 BIM (building information modelling) Level 2 mandate, government advisors noticed the significant inefficiencies in the industry and suggested that digitalised processes and standardisation of common naming conventions would allow 40% of construction project costs to be saved. Whilst ideal in theory, in reality it was
problematic to force the industry to take ownership of a 40% cost saving, especially when the industry is perpetually working off tight margins (Carillion’s demise highlights the dangers of shifting a focus on cost savings to the supply chain). To alleviate the burden of this mandate, the industry cut corners, which had all sorts of negative implications for building delivery and quality.
Outsourcing problem
If project and asset data is fragmented and then for some reason compromised – if the principal contractor falls into administration for example, all of the project information which it hosts and manages is locked in, while clients and other project parties are locked out from accessing it. The onus is then on the asset owner (client) and not the contractor to retrieve and reprocure the thousands of datasets from different parties involved in the project. As an alternative to repurchasing the data
from the design team or supply chain, the built asset may need to be resurveyed to establish the required data, which can incur further costs. What is lacking here is client ownership of a clear, accessible audit trail to ensure that all transactions throughout a project and an asset’s lifecycle are maintained. So rather than outsource the information management service, would it not be better for the asset owner to insource the data so they have access to the information and audit trail? Can pressures on the supply chain be lightened by providing a clear destination for data drops and information handover?
What alternatives?
Most organisations procure information differently and have multiple systems with different users
FOCUS
www.frmjournal.com JUNE 2020
33
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60
