Do we have it all wrong? Does the Asset Information Model actually provide value?

Do we have it all wrong? Does the Asset Information Model actually provide value? Has this concept created confusion in the industry? Should we skip this stage and move directly to the spatially connected digital twin instead??Do we actually need continuity of the BIM model through the project delivery stage?

Digital asset management driven by the spatial node. Let's move past metadata standards and schemas to provide actual value to asset owners.?

I raised this question in a conversation with a colleague the other day, do industry information management standards and rigorous metadata audit mandates actually provide value to the end client and asset owner? Don’t get me wrong, I do believe in the value of structured data, but is this the only path to success for digital twins and digital transformation in the asset management world. Does a long drawn out expensive process of metadata reviews, class libraries and audits actually provide value in the long term? Should we actually be approaching this topic from a value driven perspective and think of the value creation at the end of the project or asset lifecycle and work our way backwards. Do operations actually use much of the data that is handed over from the project? And if they do, how much is utilised throughout the asset lifecycle?

This is where the definition of an asset information model and digital twin comes into question. A digital twin is very much a cyber-physical replica of the operating asset that enables optimised business process (the convergence of data science and digital engineering). As we know, this will inevitably add value in the long term to the operating asset due to the increase in data created and consumed by the various sources and nodes that either exist now or are to be added when the technology becomes commercially viable. This will require a complex digital ecosystem framework that is connected by a digital thread and in most instances using the spatial reference to connect multiple disparate data nodes to a point in space and time. The introduction of the complex digital twin will grow in value over time and not depreciate due to change management activities but be embraced by future technologies and ideologies. Asset Information models, unfortunately move the opposite direction. They depreciate in value over time, due to the lack of change management investment. At the end of the day, an asset owner will only continue to invest into something that will either ensure compliance, reduce operating cost, enable ESG aspirations or increase productivity. If the project information that is handed over doesn’t directly assist in any of these KPIs, it will inevitably loose integrity and credibility over time.

Is this the reason why BIM was never embraced and well adopted in the asset management and operations world? The lack of value creation through a fixed information management model that didn’t actually represent the physical asset, nor efficiently change or adapt over time. I feel we are now seeing the BIM and digital engineering world from a different perspective in relation to O&M and asset owners. No longer is this about the information contained within the model from the project stage, but the spatial reference and the connectivity enabled by the unified spatial digital thread.