Navigating the Complexities of ISO19650 Implementation in Construction
The Benefits and Challenges of Implementing ISO19650 for Information Management in Construction
TL;DR: The main arguments for the use of Information Management (IM) in construction include improved collaboration and coordination among stakeholders, increased efficiency and productivity, and enhanced quality and compliance. The main arguments against IM include high upfront costs, complexity and bureaucracy, and resistance to change. While IM can provide numerous benefits, it is important for construction teams to carefully consider the costs and challenges of implementing IM, and to address resistance to change through effective communication and training.
Why write this?
It’s clear to me that we have arrived at a cross roads for Information Management (IM) in Construction. There are clear supporters, and there are vocal detractors. There are benefits to be gained but equally problems to be solved.
In my work I see both sides. Clearly I’m one of the supporters, and I see the benefits. However, I’m no longer the wide eyed boy (aged 30😏) who first read about BIM in New Civil Engineer sometime in 2012.
I’ve seen the upsides, but when I think honestly about it, I’ve seen more problems. Anyone working to implement Information Management probably has a similar experience. Have a read of this Twitter conversation with thoughts from others in Information Management.
I wanted to write this article to put together my thoughts, try to resolve my thinking, and to plot my own path forward. So in the below you will read about my experience of the value to be gained and the issues that we face in implementing Information Management (IM) in accordance with ISO19650.
For and Against
There are many cited benefits and issues with Information Management. Below I will summarise these into what I feel are the top 3 either way.
The 3 arguments for:
Improved collaboration and coordination among stakeholders;
Increased efficiency and productivity, and;
Enhanced quality and compliance.
Improved collaboration and coordination
Adopting ISO19650 standards enables construction teams to share and manage information in a consistent and standardised way, promoting collaboration and coordination among project teams and stages. This can lead to reduced conflicts and misunderstandings, and ultimately result in better project outcomes.
Increased efficiency and productivity
IM standards provide a structured framework for managing information throughout the project lifecycle - from definition to use. It facilitates standardisation and gets end customers to think early about what they actually need. This helps construction teams streamline their processes and reduce time spent on manual tasks, such as document management and data entry, and promotes ‘right-first-time’. This leads to increased efficiency and productivity, and ultimately saves time and resources.
Enhanced quality and compliance
Working to the standards ensures that information is captured, organized, and shared in a consistent and reliable manner. This can help construction teams maintain high quality and compliant delivery, avoiding errors and mistakes that can lead to expensive delays and rework.
The 3 arguments against:
High upfront costs;
Complexity and bureaucracy, and;
Resistance to change.
High upfront costs
Adopting ISO19650 standards can require significant investment in terms of time, resources, and training. This can be a significant burden for projects and their stakeholders, who can struggle to budget for, or afford, the costs of implementation and maintenance.
Complexity and bureaucracy
The standards can be complex and bureaucratic, which can be challenging for teams to implement and follow. This can lead to confusion and frustration among team members, and ultimately hinder project progress. On some projects the maturity of IM is at different levels between teams, increasing frustration, and ultimately friction.
Resistance to change
This is probably my biggest downside. Most teams, or at lease some people within teams, will be resistant to change and reluctant to adopt new information management practices. This can be particularly challenging for larger, more established, firms who may have entrenched processes and systems in place - or for people who have worked longer under the old processes and systems.
IM is generally implemented by engineers or academic types. We tend to look at the benefits and build the processes and tools to implement. Unfortunately, the people are often forgotten until such a time there is an obvious issue with resistance to change.
So What?
Response to benefits
Whilst the benefits are clear there needs to be a level of pragmatism in the implementation of the standards. Organisations and projects will struggle to realise the upsides if they try to tackle too much, don’t identify specific outcomes, or fail to plan and resource.
Done badly implementation of ISO19650 can work against the overall performance and actually generate waste and confusion.
The focus should be placed on fundamentally understanding the specific outcomes required and using the standards to drive at those. Further, there has to be some recognition of the upfront cost and effort of establishing requirements, standards, methods, and procedures, as well as onboarding, education, training, and resourcing (software, hardware, and people).
Response to issues
Too often IM is badly thought through, and poorly appointed. The industry is on a learning curve. The issues are a signal of where people are on in their journey in Information Management.
Cost are high at the moment as nearly everyone is at the start of their roadmap - they’re figuring out what IM means to them, they’re struggling to pin down technology and interoperability, and they are having to upskill workforces.
At the heart of all of the issues is people. Usually it’s technical people who instigate and manage the implementation of Information Management. These are process minded people, who enjoy order and structure (me 🤓). These people suit this role but often it clashes with the vast array of great personalities we have in construction.
There needs to be a focus on behavioural change management, well thought through education and training, and platforms setup with simple user interfaces which help people deliver information as required.
Final Thoughts
Having reflected on this whilst writing this article I’m confident that there needs to be a change in my approach. I need to focus on the people. As I wrote in The Power of Subtraction, we need the experts and process people in the backend but we really need to simplify what we expect of the users of those processes, systems, and tools.
I also need to engage other professionals, such as behavioural change experts, to help me translate to a much wider audience. Only by getting wider stakeholder engagement can I maximise the benefits and minimise the issues.
What do you think about the benefits and challenges of implementing IM? Have I missed anything? How can I improve my thinking? Please reach out in the comments 👇 on Twitter, or on LinkedIn.
If you enjoyed this, please consider subscribing…
…and share this post and blog with a colleague or friend who may also find it interesting 👍