BIM
Twin
What is
What if
Files
Queries
Physical
Real
Asset
Function
Time stamp
Time graph
Transaction
Enterprise
Outputs
Outcomes
As Designed?
As Intended? (for discussion)
I wanted to share some early thinking with you, and please consider this a consultation not a formal announcement of direction.
Following the latency post from @DRossiter87 and some conversations with people in different markets. I have found a useful framework to separate BIM from Digital Twins.
There is a caveat with the following, this is not a statement of which is better. Both BIM and Digital Twinning have key benefits. Much like a chef has a collection of knives for different use cases. The same is true for BIM and twins. BIM as defined in the standards available sets out how data can be procured in a transactional model. This is where a client can set the information requirements for a supply chain to author and deliver information for a particular purpose.
The table above sets out a series of differences and I will work through them one by one to explain what they mean and how they differ.
1. What is vs What if
A BIM will tell you what something is, it cannot answer the question what if. The IMF sets out a pathway for askign questions of datasets. For example “What if I turned this value off?”.
2. Files vs Queries
Very similar to the above, but with a view on functionality. The BIM sets out the container of the data and the files within. These files include CSV files or a SQL databases for example. The query in the twin space is an operation on the dataset or file.
3. Physical vs Real
The BIM space treats physical elements as assets. Those assets would be on some form of register which lists 'tangible things'. Those assets generally develop over time in line with the level of information need. In the twin space this representation of the physical is abstracted up into its function. The real aspect is how the object interacts with reality. This interaction is physically within the system (a pump pumping water) and is broader service / organisational purpose (the pump provides a minimum pressure to supply water to customers and is linked to the revenue stream that, for example, is charged by the cubic meter of water.)
4. Asset vs Function
Related to the above, the asset focus is purely on the performance specification and range of the asset's performance in isolation. The twin considers the function the asset plays. @Simon Scott explained a great example of this. The function of a level crossing is to ensure two types ofmobile infrastrcture do not collide (please correct me if im wrong here simon), there is a difference between asking for a level crossing (an asset) and asking for two infrastructures not to collide (a function) are fundementally two differnt questions.
5. Time stamp vs time graph
Time in BIM is a time stamp against a transaction or digital snapshot of an asset. The twin aspect is the time graph, the status of a person over time changes. The queries from the twin understand the historical elements of an asset. For example, when searching for an actor on google it can piece together data of that person from a series of datasets that allows a comprehensive history of that a actor to be rendered.
6. Transaction vs Enterprise
The BIM standards describe a process for multiple parties to transact data. They set out how data can be procured, authored and delivered as a series of transactions. The twin represents an enterprise view where data flows with purpose aligned with agreed outcomes.
7. Outputs vs outcomes
BIM through its focus on transactions and assets can only provide insight on outputs, where twins focus on functions and enterprise it can provide insights on outcomes.
8. 3D Rendition vs Abstracted
BIM requires a 3D rendition of an asset as set out in the level of information need / requirements. For the digital twin, and to use @DRossiter87example of a BMS, there is no need for a full representation of the asset. All that is required is the data needed in order to execute a decision, either for a machine or human.
Of course, if the what if statement includes a spatial requirement a boundary condition for the geometry is required. A non-geographic example, is that the BMS wants to know which rooms to heat for the day for a school, a key input could be the lesson plans from the teaching staff to understand occupancy of a space.
On the other hand, a geographic example is if the AHU requires a filter replacement and the plantroom is tight for space. There would be a need for a physical representation of the space.
I welcome the discussion and feedack!
Following input from DT Hub members into a community-driven document, we have proceeded to reduce the number of use cases identified during the Pathway to Value Workshop from 28 down to 12:
Open Sharing of Data
Asset Registration
Scenario Simulation
Occupant/User Management
Environmental Management
Traffic Management
Process Optimization
Asset Management
Carbon Management
Resource Management
Resilience Planning
Risk Management
Using these use cases, we can begin to explore how the National Digital Twin (NDT) programme can support members of the DT Hub in realizing their value. One way of doing so is by identifying what parts of these use cases need to be developed via the Commons Stream as part of the Information Management Framework (IMF).
The reasoning being these 12 use cases are:
Horizontal. Meaning that they can be applied within several sectors and their respective industries; and
High-value. Meaning that they can achieve a return on investment.
Positively, these use cases have a strong synergy with a similar schedule presented by Bart Brink of Royal HaskoningDHV on a recent buildingSMART webinar on digital twins.
By identifying DT Hub member horizontal, high-value, use cases we hope that their associated tasks, key performance indicators and federation requirements can be recommended for prioritization as part of the development of the Information Management Framework (IMF).
At the beginning of June, CDBB released The Pathway Towards an Information Management Framework: A Commons for a Digital Built Britain, a report setting out the technical approach that will lead to the development of the National Digital Twin. Within the report it focuses on three key facets that will enable secure, resilient data sharing across the built environment:
Reference Data Library. A taxonomy describing a common set of classes to describe the built environment;
Foundation Data Model. An ontology outlining the relation between these classes or properties of these classes; and
Integration Architecture. Exchange protocols to facilitate sharing of information, using these defined classes and relations between digital twins.
As opposed to being released as a complete resource, we will likely see these facets developed organically as the NDT programme continues to follow its mantra of:
As such, the key question isn’t “what should these facets include?” but “what should be included first?”. We hope to answer this question using these horizontal, high-value, use cases.
EXAMPLE:
“Environmental management”. At the beginning of 2020, news reports focused on air pollution and its link with infrastructure. In addition, many building assets may wish to monitor air quality due to its known impact on occupant performance. As a use case that is associated to regulatory compliance, productivity, and applicable to a breadth of assets Environmental Management may be a horizontal, high-value, use case.
To support such a use case, the:
Reference Data Library. May need to include classes such as: Temperature, Wind speed, Humidity, CO2, and PM2.5 as well as their associated units to enable the consistent recording of this information.
Foundation Data Model. May need an ontology describing acceptable ranges and the relationship of air quality concepts to other classes such as Health and Productivity depending on the function being monitored; and
Integration Architecture. May need to facilitate the sharing of information from sources such as other digital twins, as well as datasets from the Met Office and local governments.
Simply put, by identifying these horizontal, high-priority, use cases, we may be able to begin accelerating the realization of their value by having the taxonomies, ontologies and protocols needed to facilitate them available at an earlier stage of the overall IMF development.
And there we have it. As DT Hub members begin to consider how the information management framework may support their digital twin development as well as the national digital twin, which use cases do you think are the most horizontal and high-value? How do you think these facets might support your ability to undertake these use cases?
Please feel free to add your thoughts below, or, alternatively, comment directly on the draft community-driven document which is, and will continue to be, progressively developed as member views are shared.
The Centre for Digital Built Britain’s National Digital Twin programme has launched an open consultation seeking feedback on the proposed approach to the development of an Information Management Framework for the built environment.
A new report, The Pathway Towards an Information Management Framework: A Commons for a Digital Built Britain, sets out the technical approach for the development of an Information Management Framework (IMF) to enable secure, resilient data sharing across the built environment. The publication of the report by CDBB, in partnership with the Construction Innovation Hub, is a critical milestone towards a National Digital Twin.
On the publication, Mark Enzer, Head of the National Digital Twin Programme said, “I would really like to thank everyone who has come together over the past 18 months to help develop this proposed pathway towards an Information Management Framework. It represents a huge amount of work and exemplifies the collaborative approach that will be needed as we seek to enable an ecosystem of connected digital twins – the National Digital Twin.
“The challenge is sizeable, but the promise is huge: better outcomes coming from better decisions based on better connected data. And, working with industry, academia and Government all pulling together we can deliver it. So, I’d urge you to join with us on this journey and help us build consensus on the way forward.”
The way that digital twins are connected is important to ensuring security and improving the resilience of assets and systems. The goal of the IMF is to establish a common language by which digital twins of the built and natural environment can communicate securely and effectively to support improved decision taking by those operating, maintaining and using built assets and the services they provide to society. Its development by CDBB was recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission in 2017’s Data for the Public Good report and HM Government’s Construction Sector Deal.
As industry leaders, DT Hub members involved in planning, creating and managing the built environment are invited to provide feedback on the report here.
The consultation questions are:
It has been proposed that the Information Management Framework (IMF) should essentially consist of a Foundation Data Model (FDM), a Reference Data Library (RDL) and an Integration Architecture (IA). Do you agree with this overall framework? In your view, are there any key elements missing from this framework?
In your view, is the proposed approach to the IMF consistent with the Gemini Principles? Are there any inconsistencies that should be addressed?
Section 3.4 lists the models and protocols that would form part of the IMF. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this list?
Section 3.5 describes key concepts of a Foundation Data Model. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this description?
Section 3.6 describes key concepts of the Reference Data Library. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this description?
Section 3.7 describes key concepts of an Integration Architecture. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this description?
Section 4 proposes a pathway for developing the IMF. Do you agree with the proposed overall approach? In your view, are there any key tasks missing from this pathway? Would you suggest any improvements to the order in which the tasks are undertaken to develop the IMF?
What do you see as the barriers to connecting digital twins within organisations and between different organisations/sectors? How can these barriers be overcome?
In your experience what are the reasons why organisations invest in the creation of digital twins? Why would they invest in connecting digital twins?
Do you have any other comments on the proposed approach to developing the information management framework?
What opportunities do you see arising in your business from being able to connect Digital Twins and share and integrate data across them?
The consultation on the IMF is open until 31 August and responses can be submitted here.
Read a summary of the report here.
the_pathway_towards_an_imf.pdf
As a response to the grand challenges, the UK Government provided funding for the Construction Innovation Hub (CIH) which is considering four key work streams:
Value;
Manufacturing;
Assurance; and
Digital
While the DT Hub forms part of the digital work stream, other elements of the CIH programme, such as the development of a value framework, are relevant to our discussions around enabling digital twins to realise value.
Of course, considering the breadth of organisations who are members of the DT Hub their approach to value will differ, as each organisation will have different social, environmental, and economic priorities. Having a value framework allows this variety to be articulated in a structured way so that all approaches can be expressed consistently. Shown below are the categories being considered as part of the CIH Value Framework, which was presented at a Generation4Change (G4C) event in May:
Based on The Five Capitals approach, each category within this framework is intended to be weighted to articulate an organisations’ definition of value. For example, an organisation such as the Environment Agency may wish to place a stronger weighting on natural values than an organisation that primarily operates within a large urban centre. Once the value categories and their respective weightings have been identified, the indicators associated with those categories need to be identified and measured. This is what we have tried to begin exploring within the DT Hub during June via our Pathway to Value conversation starters #1 and #2. These use cases were then developed into 12 horizontal use cases which can be broadly mapped onto the Five Capitals as shown:
Data Sharing
Asset Registration
Scenario Simulation
User/Occupant Management
Process Optimization
Asset Management
Carbon Management
Resource Management
Environmental Management
Resilience Planning
Traffic Management
Risk Management
NOTE: Data Sharing and Scenario Simulation are considered applicable to all value categories.
In turn, we did further research to demonstrate that these use cases can be attributed to performance indicators. For example, organisations who prioritise financial categories may wish to manage their assets. To manage these assets, they need to measure indicators such as:
Asset Utilisation;
Capacity Utilisation;
Mean time to failure; and
Mean time to repair.
To measure these indicators, several tasks will need to be undertaken; constituting a use case. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that, to realise value, each category that an organisation prioritises will need underlying use cases. It is these use cases that enable the respective indicators to be measured to determine whether value has been realised.
Value > Indicator > Tasks > Use Case
In addition, digital twins can themselves provide deeper insight into the value of multiple use cases. This is because of the way they connect to physical assets and systems, providing an ability to analyse and model what might happen next.
For example: Replacing a piece of plant within a system may impact on all of the five capitals as it may use less fuel (+ natural), perform to a higher efficiency (+ manufactured), reducing the operational cost of the asset (+ financial) with improved access and installation procedures (+ safety), but manufactured by an organisation with questionable ethics (- social).
It is only through the use of a digital twin that all of the indicators, for all of an organisations’ use cases, can be considered holistically. As the datasets develop they could even establish correlations that allow potential decisions to be measured against several value categories simultaneously to determine the outcome that provides the greatest overall value. These decision therefore will be data-driven; validating the value they intend to provide.
And there we have it. By determining which categories an organisation prioritises within a value framework, the associated indicators can be identified and measured to realise value. This helps an organisation to determine which of these indicators are most critical, which of their assets can be considered exemplar, as well a method of measuring the impact of future interventions and investments which in turn can support business cases. How suitable do you feel the CIH value categories are for your organisation? How does your organisation currently measure value? Are you aware of any alternative value frameworks that should also be considered?
In November 2019, we ran a workshop session with DT Hub founder members to discuss candidates for the first theme(s) to focus on. This was based on analysis of 1-2-1 interviews with each member, where we identified common opportunities, challenges and areas for collaboration.
The attached slides summarise the main areas discussed at the workshop, with high-priority candidate themes including: digital twin definitions and concepts; skills and culture; pathway to increased value.
Following on from the workshop, we are now focused on the first theme “Testing digital twin concepts”.
DT Hub Interview analysis and potential themes December 2019.pdf
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published over 22,000 formal standards supporting the dissemination of good practice to a range of sectors from agriculture to retail. Due to the breadth of topics covered it is difficult to conceive of a domain which hasn’t been at least partially standardized. In fact, as of 2019, ISO had four standards published which referenced digital twins:
ISO 14033 (Quantitative Environmental Information)
ISO 15704 (Requirements for enterprise-referencing architectures)
ISO 18101-1 (Oil and Gas interoperability)
ISO 30146 (Smart City ICT Indicators)
And, more interestingly, one of these saw the first definition for a digital twin included within an ISO document:
Within ISO, there are several requirements which need to be conformed to when producing a definition. These requirements are outlined within two standards:
ISO 10241-1 (general requirements and examples of presentation)
ISO 704 (principles and methods)
ISO 10241-1, which covers the structure of a term including how to structure a definition and referencing; and ISO 704, which covers the principles of doing terminology work. These standards state that when developing a definition, it should:
Be a single phrase specifying the concept and, if possible, representing that concept within a larger system;
The digital twin definition from ISO/TS 18001 does so by referencing other key terms such as digital assets and services. This provides a relationship to other related terms. In doing so, this definition makes digital twin a type of digital asset being used to create value.
Be general enough to cover the use of the term elsewhere;
This definition is specific enough to capture what a digital twin is in a generalist sense, while also being sufficiently generic that the same definition can be used in other standards. This is vital to achieve a harmonization of concepts across a disparate suite of documentation.
Not include any requirements; and
In addition, this definition doesn’t say what needs to be done for something to be considered a digital twin. This is important as definitions are meant to inform, not instruct.
Be able to substitute the term within a sentence.
Finally, and possibly the most challenging requirement, a definition needs to be able to substitute for the term within a sentence. For example:
This exemplar organization utilizes a digital twin to improve the effectiveness of their predicative maintenance systems
This exemplar organization utilizes a digital asset on which services can be performed that provide value to an organization to improve the effectiveness of their predicative maintenance systems
Within the Gemini Principles, there is also another definition to consider:
However, while this definition isn’t suitable for ISO as it wasn’t designed to meet these requirements, the inclusion of “realistic digital representation” might help enhance the ISO definition.
And there we have it. The ISO definition for digital twin is, technically speaking, a good example of an ISO definition. However, does the definition sufficiently capture the correct concepts and relationships outlined within the Gemini Principles? Following the criteria above, how would you define a digital twin?
UK infrastructure, like many industries, is going through a period of significant transformation with digital technologies underpinning much of this change. The current COVID19 situation will perhaps catalyse the pace of change as we consider a new normal. ‘Digital Twin’ in particular is emerging as a core capability that will underpin UK infrastructure as digital transformation continues to evolve.
Being a relatively new concept in the infrastructure sectors, the most common question I get asked is ‘what is a digital twin?’
Indeed, the more people I speak to, the greater my belief that there is a better question: ‘What could a Digital Twin be?’
The real beauty of Digital Twin is that the market is emerging, the ‘what’ is still being explored by those who will own and utilise them, predominately owner/operators of UK infrastructure assets.
You can, of course, speak to many organisations who can articulate a vision for Digital Twins that are tailored to their goods and services, and in my experience, these are generally valid examples.
Here are a few examples:
[Engineering Provider] Enabling clients to adjust parameters and assess the impact of real world behaviours to understand how an asset will perform over its whole life.
[Technology Provider] Allowing clients to integrate or simulate real world feedback to see how changing components within a system might affect overall risk profiles.
[Contractor] Allowing digital production management to evolve design data through the build process, ensuring an asset is ready for use in its operational phases.
[IT provider] Portraying a vision of enterprise systems being linked to real time information from sensors, leveraging internet of things capability.
All of the above are great examples of Digital Twin capabilities when considering the Gemini Principles definition ‘a realistic digital representation of assets, processes or systems in the built or natural environment’. What excites me most, is what would happen if we considered integrating all these capabilities to create a fully integrated enterprise, to include supply chains and perhaps even citizens?
Think of what could be achieved, a design change could be tested against real time data in a simulation to assess how it would perform in operational life. Not only that, the link to enterprise systems would mean the impact on cost, risk, supply chain and other business metrics could also be tested. The possibilities are endless. Importantly many businesses already have the component pieces, they are however isolated rather than being integrated.
Taking this very broad, all-encompassing view, is tough for businesses to digest as they identify likely investment needs, work through value creation and understand risks. This is difficult when thinking about things on such a grand scale. This is why a good first step might be to develop a roadmap showing what a Digital Twin could be for your organisation. This could be done by underpinning a high-level vision and working backwards to prioritise what to do now, in the mid and long term to help you get there. A roadmap should not be considered a fixed plan and must evolve with your business as it changes, however it provides direction and initial guidance on where to focus investments and create early value.
By taking this approach, digital twins can become part of an organization’s integrated enterprise. By developing an integrated enterprise utilising the framework as set out in the ICE Project 13 (http://www.p13.org.uk/) , organisations will not constrain themselves by worrying too much about ‘what is a Digital Twin’, and can instead focus on what Digital Twin could be. This approach is being promoted by the water sector regulator OFWAT, termed ‘systems thinking’. Systems thinking encourages a big picture mindset, identifying the pieces of the puzzle to create that big enterprise picture and approaching each piece of the puzzle in a structured way, towards a common goal.
The next big step for an integrated enterprise is to think about federating information across multiple organisations to create a National Digital Twin. It is this global opportunity that we should all be excited about, through collaboration between government, academia and industry the UK can be a world leader in the evolution of the digital economy.
To achieve this, we need to think big, be prepared to fail, not hold back and work together to evolve UK infrastructure to be a world leading centre of excellence.
Kevin Reeves is the Director of Internet of Things and Digital Twin at Costain.
I recently posed a question in this forum to clarify thoughts on the need for a digital twin ‘test’... a way of determining if a proposed digital twin is actually what everyone can agree upon and that matches expectations.
A test will serve as an invaluable tool for educating and up-skilling, avoidingconfusion and set a direction for implementation. This is something particularly close to my heart as we’re currently (still) experiencing this in global BIM discussions. Whilst on the topic of BIM, the test could be a great way of identifying what a typical BIM process deliverable is and how a digital twin might differ. This is particularly pertinent as we’re currently observing digital twin negativity and the misconception that digital twins are ‘just BIM’.
Take a look at the attached image, a snapshot of a Twitter Poll... this may be just a small sample, but of 113 people on twitter who responded to this tweet by a Canadian colleague, just over HALF of them think digital twins are software vendors marketing vaporware - a product that doesn’t come to fruition. The other half are of the impression that digital twins are a ‘technology’. Clearly there’s work to be done...
Personally, I think we need a mutually agreed distinction to engage and involve a wider group of professionals from within our sector and outside of it to really progress and deliver the benefits outlined in The Gemini Principles.
Comments you’ve provided so far suggest that a test could be helpful, although some of you share the concern that the time taken to form a test may be better spent developing a digital twin. Other comments have highlighted the need to avoid being short-sighted in the ‘boundaries’ of a test. If we are to develop a test, it will need to be flexible enough to cater for edge cases and to evolve over time as technologies and possibilities become more easily achievable - i.e. when the goal posts move!
Do we need to define a baseline case, so that all proposed digital twins are measured against it? If so, what are the fundamentals?
For example, which of the following might be considered a digital twin:
• www.lightningmaps.com (near real-time data visualization of weather systems);
• https://www.tidetimes.org.uk/ (log of expected highs and lows of a tidal system); and
• www.googlemap.com (periodically updated traffic system with patterns and disruptions)
Each of these are similar but constitute different fundamentals. LightningMapsuses weather station data, while TideTimes uses a database of pre-established tide peaks and throughs. Is the collection of (near) real-time data fundamental, or something that is only applicable to specific use case?
Once we have the fundamentals, which digital twins need to be tested? If we are ultimately aiming for a national digital twin, surely we need to test all of them to ensure compatibility and value if it is to be included/connected to it? If this is the case, then I’m talking myself into the notion that a simple yes/no or pass/fail will never be enough... We need to find a way to identify and celebrate the (positive) extremes, to encourage the development of borderline cases to become true digital twins and to seek new directions and measures of ‘what looks good’ as the sector integrates digital twins into its decision-making.
It looks like we have a LOT to discuss in the proposed workshop on the 17thNovember to explore why, what and how we should be measuring.
Outline agenda below, to be informed by the ongoing forum discussions.
The Why - Discussing the pros and cons of a digital twin test.
Objectives & Activities for looking at intuitive tests for digital twins
Summary of initial industry feedback.
A Yes/No, Pass/Fail or a Sliding Scale?
Existing 'test' examples that could be leveraged from other industries.
Discussing what elements make up a digital twin.
I hope you will continue the discussion on this thread, which will give us time to prepare the workshop materials and key discussion points and to do that, I have some questions to continue the discussion...
1. In YOUR role in either procuring, creating, maintaining or analysing/interacting with a digital twin, what should we be testing or measuring?
Please let us know what your involvement (current or proposed) is and what we should be measuring/testing to help in that role.
2. What, in your opinion, makes a digital twin - real?
Let’s keep this short, give me your top 5!
3. How do we best differentiate what we should typically deliver in a BIM process and a digital twin?
Digital twins are a huge opportunity for bettering the entire built environment design, procurement, operation and provide tangible benefits to society. What therefore can we do to promote the relationship (and a distinct difference) between BIM and digital twins?
The workshop will take place on the 17th November from 14:00 – 16:00. Register on Eventbrite to receive joining instructions. See you there!
C
The value of the twin: A tale for twin-sceptics…
Not so long ago whilst debating the use case for Digital Twins with a colleague I found myself passionately declaring, “just because we could, doesn’t mean we should!”.
As context my role within the built environment, either by accident or design, has always been to make digital methods of construction accessible for the boots on the ground. I, along with a whole sector worth of peers, had been fighting the good Building Information Modelling (BIM) fight for years. However, just as we were making progress and gaining consensus another buzzword clatters down on us, causing a whole new avalanche of ambiguity and confusion.
I figured that I could either plug my fingers in to my ears and become ignorant or jump on board and help to steer the ship. Reluctantly, I decided “better the devil you know”, and went off on a fact-finding mission.
This was when I came across the Centre for Digital Built Britain’s (CDBB) Gemini Principles. This paper sets out proposed principles to guide the UK’s national digital twin, and I was relieved by how much emphasis was placed on culture and collaboration, and that the document clearly states a digital twin must represent physical reality at a level of accuracy suited to its purpose. Essentially, do not twin just for the sake of twinning.
“what’s the actual problem we’re trying to solve?”
So, nurturing the right culture is critical if we’re going to develop digital twins that add any real value. Finding the “why” for every part of the process, and for every stakeholder, is essential if we want our workforces to collaborate and to trust not only in technology, but in the new procedures that underpin it. That is why the first question when implementing any new digital solution (at any scale) should be, “what’s the actual problem we’re trying to solve?”.
Unfortunately, this isn’t a question that we’re very good at asking, let alone answering. With procurement methods and forms of contract which enable a culture of blame and passing risk down the supply chain, our sector is damagingly siloed and rife with moral disengagement - a “this isn’t my problem” mentality. But successful digital twins are reliant on, and therefore enforcers of, better information management and increased collaboration and transparency throughout all stages of an asset’s life cycle.
An example would be a building owner struggling to meet green building targets because of an inefficient heating system. A digital twin which tracks room temperature, along with the times and days each space is in use, can help determine which zones are being heated unnecessarily. A more advanced digital twin could even manage the temperature of the building remotely, based on the knowledge it acquires during operation. However, to really identify the most appropriate solution for the problem, the building owner should also consider whether the heating system is fit for purpose, and the best way to do that is to understand the design, installation and commissioning process for that system. Essentially, they need access to a digital golden thread of information, introduced as a recommendation in the 2018 Dame Judith Hackitt report Building a Safer Future.
And so, the most basic requirements for the development of a useful digital twin echo the core principles of BIM. If:
· Standard naming (taxonomies), a classification system, and relations (ontologies) have been used
· A structured common data environment has been in place and properly utilised
· Clear and accessible methods of interpreting the information have been established
throughout the whole life cycle of a project, from planning to operation, then the development of that information into a digital twin will be a much more fluid and lucrative process. Only when we embrace digital as business as usual, will we be setting the right foundations for further digital development.
So, my advice for anyone sick to the teeth of all of this tech talk would be that digital twins are coming, and they’re coming to solve real problems, but a digital twin is not a “product” you can buy. The best way to prepare your business for the implementation of digital twins is to focus on collecting and analysing data more accurately, making commitments to follow industry naming conventions, classifications, and standards that already exist, and becoming digitally competent at the most basic level. This will provide you with a strong foundation to build upon. Most of all communicate, collaborate, and solve real problems. The rest will follow in time.
What a session!
Following the initial forum discussion querying the need for a digital twin ‘test’ and the subsequent post asking ‘what’ we should measure if a test is needed, we hosted a workshop to deep dive into the topic. With great interactivity and engagement with over 40 active contributors from across various roles in the sector, a few common themes surfaced which inspiringly, were echoed by a Digital Twin Fan Club event the following week.
After a brief introduction from the CDBB team, Dan Rossiter of BSI covered the meaning of the word ‘definition’ and ‘test’ before we dived into the workshop session where we asked several questions of the attendees. The themes covered the following topics:
Do we need a test for digital twins?
If there is a test, how should it be ‘scored’?
What makes a digital twin a ‘real’ digital twin?
If there is a test, what would it measure?
And then a quickfire yes/no round to determine if certain ‘things’ are digital twins.
Mapping of those results on a banded scale.
Spoiler alert! The first topic garnered a resounding ‘yes’. Observations within the group raised concern over digital twins and their use being driven by technology companies rather than the approach we’d rather take which is by purpose-driven solutions (culture, process and technology) to solve current client challenges. With ‘twinwash’ marketing often reaching clients and the supply chain masses before it reaches those with the real experience and capabilities, we really are perilously close to repeating what BIM has been through already – and we’re still battling against that!
Scoring was a longer discussion that saw real industry value of a simple yes/no result, but through the workshop, it became evident that being able to see how one particular digital twin compared to another was perhaps a useful checklist for the ‘lesser’ version.
We were steering clear of defining ‘what’ a digital twin is, that work is being undertaken in other CDBB workstreams. What we wanted to unearth was, for each attendee, for their particular use case, what made a digital twin ‘real’… needless to say that this began the real-time versus right time discussion (also previously discussed here and here on the DTHub)! There were wide and varied responses about interfaces, connectedness, insights and prediction and these are summarized in the upcoming report.
The quickfire round was useful, for a few reasons. Firstly, attendees were required to answer using their gut instinct. Secondly because it demonstrated that there is a clear consensus on a few digital twin examples. Finally, it was useful to expand a little on each of the examples to explore where the differences of opinion lie. I should point out that the examples used in the quickfire round are all taken from marketing / forums / discussions that are happening out there in the built environment right now… these aren’t examples that we, the workshop facilitators, defined as ‘being’ digital twins.
The results are as per the attached image and you can clearly see where the common trends sit. The interesting examples for the overall discussion are the items with a split in opinion… clearly an indicator for the need for a test?
The last exercise for the attendees was to place these above examples and their own contributions onto a graded scale, from red (not a digital twin) through amber and to green (real digital twins and ‘unicorn’ digital twins!). An interesting and revealing exercise, especially when given the opportunity to move the indicators that others had placed.
If we’re looking to draw conclusions from the workshop, I’d suggest that the many great conversations over 1.5hrs could have easily lasted several weeks, mainly due to the ‘is it’ or isn’t it’ nature of the discussions. This leads me to observe that:
As an initial exploratory task to determine the industry’s appetite for a test, linked to an accurate definition, this has been a revealing and thought-provoking exercise and one that I’m keen to continue.
To that end: Do you agree with the quick-fire round? Are you adamant about a particular characteristic that a digital twin must have? Let’s ensure that the workshop is the beginning, not the end, to this discussion!
Following the successful webinar / online discussion last month, I have now posted an article version of "Towards a Web of Digital Twins".
The document summarises the research conducted by the team at the ODI (Open Data Institute) on what it means to connect digital twins and how the concept can scale to a "web" of twins across domains, sectors, and geography.
The synthesis of our research is also available as an annotated deck, released under an open licence.
Learn by doing, Progress by sharing: DT Hub and The Information Management Framework
The DT Hub was launched at the end of March 2020 and now in August has grown to over 500 members. That’s over 500 people and organisations interested in developing digital twins across infrastructure asset owners, local authorities, architects, engineering consultants, construction companies, software developers, AI companies, big tech and more. We’re discussing how digital twins do mean different things to different people but what we all have in common is the need to share data. Connecting digital twins to reduce the level of carbon use in a city will only be possible if we can share data across digital twins.
That’s why behind all the really exciting digital twin developments lies a framework. An information management framework for organising, labelling and sorting data. An information management framework for setting standards for how we share data. Because if we don’t have that framework our digital twins will all speak different languages.
The approach to developing this framework is set out in the Pathway to the Information Management Framework (the technical document) and the summary. This approach is open for consultation and feedback until 31 August and we really encourage you to respond, even if it’s with a “we like it” or more importantly, if you want to provide some feedback that might impact the approach. Our ontologists are busy building the foundation data model because we need to get on with building the framework but that doesn’t mean it can’t be adapted or improved and we need your input to ensure we get the best version possible.
With the possibility of different types of information management frameworks emerging across the economy, our focus if very much on consensus and consultation to ensure we are able to share data in a secure, interoperable way. A good example to drive home the important of interoperability is the evolution of mobile phone technology, two different standards emerged, GSM and CDMA. GSM was driven largely by the political will of European states to have a standard mobile technology across Europe. CDMA was privately driven and proprietary, out of the States. Whilst each had their technical merits at different points in the evolution of mobile phone technology, eventually GSM became the most widely adopted technology. Interoperability in mobile phone technology is really important because people want to be able to use their phones wherever there is network coverage. Scale in networks is important where we all benefit from being able to interconnect. Imagine a different version of the internet where we couldn’t access public websites from certain computers?
Scale and quality of networks are really important where public benefit is involved. We all benefit from one high quality network rather than many small, inferior networks. In this way, getting the best input into developing the Information Management Framework is crucial. The Information Management Framework will lay the foundations for sharing data about infrastructure and the built environment globally as we ensure it emerges as the best set of standards. The foundation data model is currently being developed by a set of experts and whilst good theories are developed in the lab they need to be tested out in the open. The DT Hub provides a forum for testing. The motto of the DT Hub is “learn by doing, progress by sharing”. There is no definitive guide to Digital Twins as yet, I believe you are all co-developing it. We are all learning what is possible with digital twins and what we need to do to make them work. The National Digital Twin programme at the Centre for Digital Built Britain which is supported by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is open to your suggestions and input on developing the Information Management Framework. In order to develop the best set of standards for sharing data, we need the best input, so please respond!
Sarah Hayes is the Change Stream Lead of the National Digital Twin programme.
Read more...
Finally, we will aggregate the DT Hub members’ scores and use the insights provided by the Index to produce a report about current digital maturity in our journey towards a national digital twin.
The index measures the digital maturity of organisations and as members you will shortly receive an invite in your DT Hub inbox inviting you to take part on behalf of your organisation.
We hope you will join us in this opportunity. If you have not received your email with the link to the survey by the 17th July, please contact enquiries@digitaltwinhub.co.uk.
It’s been clear from the start of the National Digital Twin programme, that to make it a success we really need to work closely with users and early adopters to share best practice and create a framework for others to build on. In practice this has meant a lot of research, evaluation and collaboration.
November has been an exciting month in that respect and we continue to build momentum by marking several more milestones. The first is the publication of two great survey papers, that really boost our technical core: ‘A survey of Top-Level Ontologies’ and ‘A Survey of Industry Data Models and Reference Data Libraries’. They are ground breaking in both their extent and detail. It’s also important to note that they are very useable –these are not just theoretical exercises.
Essentially, these survey papers identify the requirements and inform the ontological choices for a Foundation Data Model (FDM). The FDM, built upon a top-level ontology, is a major component of the IMF and a basis for ensuring consistent data across the National Digital Twin. By sharing all these surveys we hope to give an in-depth analysis and inform rather than dictate.
Informed by diverse expertise
These are the first papers from the NTDp’s technical team, headed up by Matthew West, one of the lead authors on ‘Pathways to IMF’. Matthew has over 30 years industry experience and is complimented by a team of 6 core members, who each bring their particular specialisms from cyber security to reference data libraries, to the table. There is a further group of around 30 to 40 who also feed in their expertise. Having a group of diverse voices, with industry experience, has really helped produce papers that are practical, useful and understand what the end user needs.
However, we are keen to add more voices to the mix. We want the process of development to be accessible and inclusive to all and invite you to give your join and give feedback through the IMF Network. The technical team will be monitoring the network and can get back to you on any questions you may have.
We’re encouraged by the positive feedback we’ve received so far, with readers saying that they are the most comprehensive surveys they have come across and there is no other work that covers the landscape as well as this. So congratulations to our technical team!
Other activities from November I would like to highlight are:
Skills to implement the IMF – We’re excited to start a new project seeking to understand the breadth and depth of skills and roles required to successfully develop, implement and operate an IMF. The delivery team is led by David Plummer, Digital Transformation Lead at Mott MacDonald and they will be creating a new “IMF Skills Network” to share with the community.
BIMF to IMF – We also kicked off another project to identify and strengthen the connective tissue between BIM Framework and the Information Management Framework. It’s part of our wider mission to create an IMF that aligns industry, academia and government. The delivery team led by, Simon Evans, Digital Energy Leader from Arup will be organising a series of roundtables to discuss topics such as interoperability, whole-lifecycle integration and socio-technical changes.
NUAR case study – The National Underground Asset Register (NUAR) Pilot Programme tested the Gemini Principles and published a new case study, with an emphasis on purpose and trust. It was an ambitious undertaking in terms of the number of asset owners required to collaborate on delivering a connected digital twin with improved safety of operations, especially those associated with underground assets.
Smart Infrastructure (SI) Index results – The results of the SI Index survey on digital maturity have been released and Chair of DT Hub, Sam Chorlton, and Tom Hughes, DT Hub Delivery Lead, have been looking at what the results mean to the DT Hub. Watch the interview and read a summary of the report.
Digital Twin Hub refresh – The DT Hub are planning a new release of the DT Hub website that will bring some much needed improvements to accessibility, usability and new functionality. The new website will be released on the 11th of December.
Standards roadmap published and event – The DT Hub together with BSI have conducted extensive research into the current standardisation landscape to identify what existing standards already support digital twins and where there may be potential gaps. A consultation with members of the DT Hub and the wider community to discuss priorities for standards to support successful digital twins will take place on the 3rd December at 10:00. REGISTER to take part.
Before I sign off, I want to take a final opportunity to encourage you to take part in these activities. As we establish these strong foundations, we really want them to be built on consensus, so do please join in.
Read more...
This month I’d like to highlight a new piece of BSI research exploring the standards landscape for built environment digital twins and invite you to an online workshop where your input can shape the priorities for standards.
The Research
Standards enabling secure data sharing provide a catalyst for the development of digital twins at scale that, when connected, will enable the National Digital Twin. As part of the National Digital Twin programme, the Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB) has tasked the British Standards Institution (BSI) to research current standards to identify those relevant to the development of built-environment digital twins – and detect any gaps in existing standards needed to make developing, maintaining and sharing digital twin information easier and more consistent.
The initial scoping exercise is now complete, and a search matrix developed from this research has been applied to the existing standards landscape to pinpoint potential standards of interest and grade them in relation to relevance to connecting built-environment digital twins.
BSI and CDBB are now reviewing the results of this exercise to identify if and where standards are needed to overcome a specific challenge or fulfil a purpose on the road to the National Digital Twin. This also involves exploring existing standards in other sectors to consider if that same solution can be applied to the built environment – or if an existing standard may be modified or extended to capture our own use case and form part of the digital twin fold.
Following the standards landscape scoping exercise, a roadmap has now being created to visualise the results of the research and make recommendations prioritising standards to be developed. The document will be accompanied by a report to include the narrative, justification and rationale behind the roadmap.
How you can be involved
We are excited to sharing this draft with members of the DT Hub to interrogate the findings and further develop the roadmap. BSI will lead a workshop on the 3rd December which will invite input from members to both critique and verify these findings. The workshop will take place from 10:00 – 12:00, REGISTER your place to receive details for how to take part. The DT Hub’s mission is to bring together the digital twin community to share experiences, challenges and opportunities and we want our members to be stakeholders in shaping the direction of travel of these important developments – we can’t do it alone.
The standards landscape work is significant in paving the way for future prospects. In the early 1900s, the BSI developed a standard for tram gauges at a time when, in the UK alone, there were 75 different widths of gauge; reducing it down to five recommended widths. Using the standard resulted in increased compatibility between networks and rolling stock and boosted the industry’s fortunes. As the British standard was adopted abroad, the UK tram market enjoyed more opportunities to trade and business flourished. The vision of the National Digital Twin programme rests on the ability to connect an ecosystem of digital twins and share information to unlock value and efficiencies that bring financial and social benefits for all. Realising this vision requires an Information Management Framework that contains a level of consistency and compatibility to facilitate the secure exchange of data, and it is standards that provide the guidance to establish a common digital language that will catalyse the collective data management and analysis required for better decision-making.
Digital twins are already being designed, built, bought and sold but a National Digital Twin is still in the making. This is precisely why considering the standards landscape in relation to built-environment digital twins is critical now. Ahead of businesses and organisations making increased investment in IT and infrastructure for digital twins reaching critical mass, it is imperative to ensure the foundations and framework supporting the growth of digital twins will sustain the end goal of secure data exchange and interoperability.
Standards are, of course, not compulsory but they can help us to minimise risk and investment and streamline development by providing tried and tested good practice that is industry-ready to adopt. Fostering communities of good practice is an important tool for accelerating learning and building confidence and competence collectively. I hope you will join our BSI-led workshops to explore the digital twins standards landscape, securing your organisation’s place at the starting point of these important developments.
