Gemini Call Q&A Thread, Tuesday 1 March 2022

[Claire Dowdall]

Post your questions here from the Gemini call taking place on Tuesday 1 March 2022, and they will be answered live on the call. You can also upvote any questions on the left of the page. This post will be unlocked at the beginning of the call.

If you are not yet registered, you can do so here:

Please note this this is to replace Slido going forward.

[Peter van Manen]

Developing vision & value is the biggest blocker.  My sense is that we need to provide more help and clarity in putting together the business case to get things started.    

[Deeyesbee]

On 01/03/2022 at 10:42, Peter van Manen said:

Developing vision & value is the biggest blocker.  My sense is that we need to provide more help and clarity in putting together the business case to get things started.    

Yes I agree @Peter van Manen. My suspicion is that the vision for DTs comes from the bottom or middle of organisations rather than the top. Top managers listen to business cases more than technical enthusiasm! 

[francesco]

@Xiang Xie In the Adaptative City Platform (ACP), how do I subscribe for a service connecting my platform to a set of IoTs?

Edited March 2, 2022 by francesco

[Xiang Xie]

On 02/03/2022 at 10:46, francesco said:

@Xiang Xie In the Adaptative City Platform (ACP), how do I subscribe for a service connecting my platform to a set of IoTs?

Hi @francesco,

Sorry for the late reply. In the ACP, the sensor data is first published to the eventbus through the MQTT broker, and then a MsgRouter is configured to post messages to URL destinations. 

You can find more info here: https://github.com/AdaptiveCity/acp_local_mqtt

Edited March 3, 2022 by Xiang Xie

[Mark Enzer]

A question for the Gemini people: who is up for doing what 100% Open recommend?

[Deeyesbee]

On 03/03/2022 at 12:30, Mark Enzer said:

A question for the Gemini people: who is up for doing what 100% Open recommend?

thanks @Mark Enzer. Here is the link to the poll directed to the whole community to tell us what the TOP THREE actions should be. 

Recommendations posted here for convenience. 

1. Form a digital twin accelerator programme. The DT Hub would benefit from moving from ‘open sharing’ to ‘active collaboration’, therefore seeking or pooling resources for practical programmes on individual blockers. This would seed an Accelerator programme that encompasses all the elements of Open Innovation Challenges - a challenge platform, prize challenges, hackathons, investments, and commercialisation/scale-up services.  
2. Review the online community platform. The DT Hub has significant value for its membership, its unique selling point being a domain focused on digital twins and the built environment while overlapping with most other sectors. The platform itself has clearly developed organically to the extent that navigation is compromised and some members do not appear to be aware of the resources contained within it. A platform service design programme is recommended, with the resulting blueprint used to redesign the platform and community to incorporate better collaboration capabilities.
3. Leverage the convening power of the DT Hub for engagement with others. With over 3,000 members, the DT Hub is at the centre of a powerful network of common interest. There is potential to engage and partner with other public bodies and companies as the ‘digital twin ally’.  
4. Lead on the development of vision and value for digital twins. As this is the key problem space, CDBB and the DT Hub would provide value to the community and DT digital twin sector in creating deeper insight and practical techniques for creating a vision for digital twins. 
5. Evaluate and progress the Strategy Jam ideas. The ideation process generated 192 ideas across the problem spaces, with Readiness, Data Issues, and Governance and Guidance generating the most ideas. Those ideas are ready to be evaluated and progressed. In terms of the selection of future collaborative innovation projects, it is recommended to both play to strengths and to address weaknesses. The project selection criteria need to be transparently agreed in advance. 
6. Introduce a problem-solving toolkit. There is an opportunity to create a tangible and useful product to help members overcome digital twin blockers, widening the scope of the existing Digital Twin Toolkit. 
7. Conduct a meta-analysis. There is further information to be gained from comparing this research with other findings and DT Hub resources. A Gap Analysis would review the content and outputs of three years of previous research and map any existing blocker solutions. A Dynamic Analysis would compare this research with results from previous workshops.  

[Stephen Browning]

Digital Twins can revolutionise the way our systems operate - as I know from first running the Generation Scheduling models from 1976 and getting the first one into full service in control by 1985.   Using basic Visualisation (in those days) to convince our Control Room Engineers and management.  So, getting the message across simply to the Community and wider public is needed?   

[Deeyesbee]

On 03/03/2022 at 12:40, Stephen Browning said:

Digital Twins can revolutionise the way our systems operate - as I know from first running the Generation Scheduling models from 1976 and getting the first one into full service in control by 1985.   Using basic Visualisation (in those days) to convince our Control Room Engineers and management.  So, getting the message across simply to the Community and wider public is needed?   

@Stephen BrowningAgreed, especially simplicity of communication and you chose a nice example that is visual. DTs are as complex to understand by the layperson as they are to build! Should the industry appoint a branding/comms agency?! 

[Elvin Box]

@DeeyesbeeCould / should we encourage physical meetings to enhance our learning and knowledge sharing of Digital Twin?

[Deeyesbee]

On 03/03/2022 at 12:44, Elvin Box said:

@DeeyesbeeCould / should we encourage physical meetings to enhance our learning and knowledge sharing of Digital Twin?

Hi @Elvin Box, any social activity that is focused on DTs has to be a good thing whether virtual or face-to-face.  Having said that I have been impressed with DT Hub members willingness and ability to interact online and on balance don't feel that we would have got better or different results with physical workshops. The next phase of activity that we're recommending following the Blockers research is all about working together more closely however in project teams so there may be value in having a specific team space especially if physical tech in involved. 

What was effective about online in this case is that it had low barriers to participation (doesn't exclude those without travel budgets!), efficient (it's much harder to commit a day to a workshop than a few hours, especially for entrepreneurs) and inclusive (accessible and suits different personality types). 

So it depends on the type of interactions you need. Clearly, 192 ideas came out of a short online session and their prioritisation was transparent and democratic - sometimes harder in person...  So idea generation doesn't need physical proximity and neither does proposition development.  Our experience shows that the more a real collaborative project (e.g. a joint venture) develops the more benefits hybrid team working brings.  

[David Peacock]

@Xiang Xie Many thanks for your informative presentation Xiang Xie. Rather than looking at the outdated BIM Level 0, 1, 2 etc that are no longer relevant, I suggest looking at the UK BIM Framework & ISO 19650 which has more upto date processes/procedures with Asset/Facilities Management and Digital Twins in mind.