The field of Facility Management has undergone a revolution over the last ten years, thanks to new technologies and the introduction of new applications. Now that almost anything is possible in this field, when and where should we take things too far?
There is no question here of calling into question the enormous progress made in terms of maintenance, user services and the increased efficiency achieved in buildings thanks to technological tools that enable breakdowns, shortcomings, and inefficiencies to be detected much more quickly and accurately.
The question is more one of knowing when and where not to go too far in terms of engineering and technology.
It’s true that many specialists are fans - or at least very happy - to have these new tools and applications that allow them to visualise the building in 3D thanks to digital twins of the buildings, to have key indicators available thanks to a single control panel, etc. and thus to respond very quickly to the demands of users, demands that have grown exponentially.
The question is no longer how, but how much and at what granularity the information is and remains relevant:
• Do we need to have automated information available at great expense when demand is marginal or should it only be available once a year, for example?
• Is there any point in having a ‘digital twin’ of a building of little or no complexity, with ‘lambda’ users who have basic requirements?
• Do we need to maintain data on a permanent and costly basis to have layers of information that may be “pretty” but that don’t add any real value?
• Do we want to be able to trace every movement of every object in a building when a simple database can do the job?
This is the whole debate surrounding ‘BIM maintenance’ versus ‘BIM construction’. There is no longer any doubt that over time BIM construction has become “THE” essential basic reference. Is the same true for maintenance and operations?
When we look at the market in Europe (the Anglo-Saxon countries are much more involved in these areas), we see that the breakthrough of BIM maintenance is not as spectacular as we might think: the cost-benefit ratio has not (yet) been demonstrated for most projects. Only owners-investors-users have a direct interest in choosing this path, as they can exploit data in all its forms with a single effort. For the others, it’s a perfectly suitable tool, but one that consumes far too many resources.
When we talk about ‘BIM Maintenance’, we have only lifted part of the veil, because we should be talking about the BIS (Building Information System) first, i.e., the entire environment, the BOS, the lower and upper layers, the interconnections, the user applications, in other words the entire technological architecture of the building.
Complete mapping of a building from a technological point of view is often frightening, because it can quickly become a “monster” that generates input and maintenance costs that are totally out of proportion.
The only advice you can give in this area is to ask specialists who have no connection with a product and/or application to define your needs and the optimum architecture. That’s the price you must pay to hope for an optimal solution.
Happy thoughts, happy weeks and see you soon.