Single use Spatial Information...How do we progress from single use Spatial Information as an Asset Owner?

I recently visited a gold mining site in remote Western Australia and was amazed with the scale of opportunity regarding spatial information management at the ground level. My scope was to provide laser scanning services and support for a major refurbishment of their slurry piping systems. Even though this site was only a couple of years old and had a relatively good quality 3D geometry as constructed model. There was still a lack of understanding and trust regarding the geometric integrity post commissioning and handover. With all this known, the maintenance department raised a purchase order to scan and back model a large percentage of the process plant, two years after the plant was built, even though when reviewing the 3D model, the model hadn’t actually changed. I’m sure for anyone who has been involved in the industry, they would understand this is not a rare occurrence. If only we could measure or calculate the additional cost/wastage on spatial information due to the unnecessary acquisition, creation, and management of spatial data over time.

Single use spatial information could be perceived similar to plastics. Wasteful, expensive, misunderstood and distracting. Due to the immediate project requirements, we typically make decisions that will satisfy the scope without taking a step back and understanding what opportunities there might be broader than the immediate. ?And this is ok and expected. Without a level of education on how we manage spatial information as an asset owner, we may never be able to make an informed decision on what other potential use cases, business value or the total cost of spatial information ownership might be for the organization.

Whilst I was on site, I noticed 3 other survey company targets installed next to each other in the same section of the plant. After further investigation and talking with the engineering team, I determined that the same section of the plant had been scanned and modelled three times in the last two months for various reasons. Based on this information, could we assume the cost of this spatial information is three times the actual cost to capture, process and manage? Is this not an opportunity for the spatial information market? Should this not be the focus for spatial technology startups? Not so much scan to BIM or segmentation/classification AI but providing a simple and intuitive process for spatial data aggregation, change management and processing for use. ?As we know, simplification of complexity is hard, and management of spatial information is far more complex than 2D drawings or even 3D geometry alone. The process to manage survey control, registration, fidelity, quality, etc all complicates the upstream simplification opportunity. However, for asset owners to fully embrace the concept of the spatial digital twin and in some respect data process optimization and removal of unnecessary operational costs, there needs to be a change.?

Example Business Case:

Due to the nature of this type of work, a definitive business case and cost to the business is hard to accurately calculate. However, based on known cases we can extrapolate at a conservative rate. For example, there was an example at Process Plant A, where a contractor conducted the same laser scanning activity on site 3 times in one year for various projects and use cases. Although capturing the same area.

Each time the field scanning activity cost the business between $30,000 to $150,000 respectively (Average $60,000). Therefore, costing the business an additional $120,000 for that dataset (or lost cost saving opportunity). This case is not in isolation and many similar cases are known across the operations, however not documented to date.

If we were to extrapolate this as per below:

Excess (Additional) Cost: $120,000

Number of Sites: 4

Instances at each site per year: 5

Total cost saving opportunity to the Asset Owner based on the introduction of a centralized spatial information management system for fixed plant and a structured change management process: $2,400,000 / year