The new Industry buzzword causing confusion, #DigitalTwin
The industry is abuzz with talk of digital twins, reminiscent of the excitement around Building Information Modelling (BIM) in 2011. Back then, promises of significant savings prompted a mandatory adoption of BIM processes. Similarly, today, digital twins come with the promise of substantial savings, such as the touted ￡7bn from the National Infrastructure Commission.
Yet, digital twins aren't solely an AEC industry affair; they demand clear articulation of needs from various stakeholders, diligent use, and maintenance of information.
So why are some in our industry making such a big deal out of this when the primary output doesn't directly benefit AEC?
And has "BIM" become so tiresome now that our industry craves a new term to get excited about, even before resolving issues of information management/modelling? (Yes, we still have many more issues to resolve!)
While the digital twin concept isn't new – we've had such systems in operation for over a decade in highways management, water treatment (my personal favourites from experience), power generation, and even some sports – there is significant confusion around it and its definition. Many believe BIM & DigitalTwins are one and the same so long as you have a 3D model replicating the eventual or existing building which is grossly incorrect. If you want to know why, ask in the comments below ??.
领英推荐
This confusion needs resolving in the form of a common definition and clear example use cases before people become entrenched in their own understanding, requiring re-education later, similar to the issues with BIM. Perhaps this confusion fuels its current popularity, as there is money to be made in confusion and why people keep touting it towards AEC rather than towards clients who are most commonly the end users if we are talking about physical assets.
Although The digital twin idea holds promise for our clients, its realisation still depends on good old-fashioned, boring information management before and during operation. Stakeholders need timely and relevant information about their assets, enabling data to traverse and decisions to be made during operation.
I believe we should learn from our mistakes in BIM education and the use of confusing terms, focusing on speaking plainly especially as there isnt official consensus on the definition or what makes a digital twin yet which I hope BSI/ISO solve one day!
Otherwise, we risk organisations and products jumping on the term as a sales pitch or incorporating it into their branding which doesnt help.
P.S. I hereby copyright "UKDigitalTwinAlliance." ??
John Ford thanks for sharing your article. I agree with your points on not getting the basics right before jumping to fringe technologies (the same could be said for the XR movement). But I felt the article was too focused on using the minutiae of standards from the perspective of the purist which I’m sad to say are not the be all and end all of gaining value from data. “Digital Twins” (odd phrase) is a consequence of evolving digital technology that would have happened with or without the BIM movement in the same way that electric cars have arrived and driverless cars will arrive with or without equivalent information standards in automotive. Connecting digital to physical is a reality largely as a result in the rise of free access to technology which we have more to thank amazon and google for than BIM. This is evidenced by the same technology being pioneered in healthcare, retail and motorsport. There is a lot of value in connecting multiple data points even if the data is only 80% clean. Poor data literacy doesn’t necessarily deny the opportunity, it just makes it harder to do. BTW, don’t take this as a criticism as you’re right on the order of priorities. I just take the pragmatist view. We may never achieve 100% data literacy with us humans!
Construction and Projects Lawyer at Dentons UK and Middle East LLP
5 年Another really good piece John!? The negative issue of jumping on the buzzword bandwagon ("this shall be a BIM Level 2 Project" "Digital Twin must be delivered at PC") aside I do wonder if the recent interest generated in the digital twin concept is potentially helpful long term? A major drag factor is that clients are failing to see beyond the bog standard Health & Safety file in terms of post PC deliverables.? The view is that BIM is some form of rocket science that produces incomprehensible tables that are only meaningful to designers - proper specification of the AIR rarely happens unless you have a particularly sophisticated and switched on client.? If clients become aware that a platform can be handed over towards the end of the construction phase that can actual assist with the maintenance / operational phase then that should in turn facilitate a much clearer understanding as to what should be going in to the AIRs (and therefore EIRs). For all the reasons John has pointed out, the digital twin concept publicity is definitely a very blunt tool in achieving that.? ...?but when you really want a nut and you've only got a sledgehammer all isn't always lost.
Sr. Technical Specialist e Líder de Sustentabilidade na Autodesk | Pesquisadora & Expert BIM
5 年Straight to the point. Without a cultural change we miss the foundations. There is no home to scale this sort of digital trend yet in the majority of companies, not only in UK that already has a mandate, but globally.
FICE | Systems & Collaboration Lead
5 年Spot on again John
Senior supplier Development Manager - Roads Academy
5 年Thanks for sharing John, i may add the various anthologies in the industry is making a mess in all of that digital world, the problems that you have mentioned here is similar to big data; companies started to collect all sorts of data without knowing how to use it and what is the need for it and indeed how to link that with organisational performance improvement.