Why UK`s approach to COBie is making it unpalatable

This article discusses how the UK took an open exchange standard...and took away the standard elements to form a UK varient that doesn't include a new supporting standard, just a code of practice that creates several major problems with no solutions, and this is why I argue COBie has fallen on its face in the UK. Because its no longer COBie!

How many times in the past 7 years have you heard "COBie is a subset of IFC", "COBie can be used for anything", "COBie looks like this", "COBie can be used for any purpose"......and you still have little clue what it is beyond what it looks like in its finished spreadsheet format?

I have given several seminar presentations on COBie & I can guarantee that everyone in that room went away with a different view of what COBie is and understood it a lot more than they did before. So do I use random terms to seem like I know what I am on about like "COBie is a subset of IFC" which I can guarantee only a few dozen people in our industry truly know what that means leaving 10s of thousands of others more confused than they did before they went into the room.

So how do you explain that`s better than others?

You will hear me say in many of my articles that context is our greatest enemy when it comes to BIM and other digital approaches being adopted. We use complex terms, complex analogy and don't put it into context. Take the "MIDP" which I use in examples every week, did you know this tool existed 20+ years ago, but in old money language was just an "Information Required/Release Schedule"? Something any design manager reading this article will understand instantly. And because I placed this old standard term & method into context with its new term "MIDP", they can instantly see what it is and why its important?!!! Same goes for COBie!

COBie in over-simplistic terms is a combined standard format asset register with the real potential (if adopted) to replace traditional structured O&M entirely too. On the face of it, its a schedule of project particulars, spaces, equipment, contacts and a few others, linked and combined with associated documents with the added bonus of having an inbuilt (EIR) embedded along with rules and instructions that dictate how it is put together for human and machine-readable exchange and quality control.

You will see what COBie is trying to replace if you have used any of these old bespoke registers on past projects, especially if you have ever compiled an O&M before. If you have never been involved in reviewing design information or O&M compilation, COBie may remain a mystery to you because you never had a grasp of the traditional approach, and so you may struggle to understand a more modern one based on standard principles thus you have no contextual grounding for COBie to sink into!

However, take a look below for a more in-depth explanation for why COBie is not just a spreadsheet, that is merely the final format step of exchange.

Why has COBie been waning in recent discussions and even requirement documents?

There are 4 key reasons why COBie has been waning.

1. In the UK, we have twisted the purpose of COBie and tried to use it for something it wasn't designed to be used for and left it to the uninitiated industry to try and work out the problems themselves....and quite frankly they are fed-up with it and tired!
2. The industry as a whole has still not got past the first hurdle of understanding what COBie is thus not understanding the value. And its become even more complicated by the way the UK has approached it specifically.
3. Because of point 1 and 2 above, clients incorrectly apply COBie in contracts meaning the whole thing gets alot worse, Trust Me!
4. Technology hasn't helped make COBie an easy thing, unfortunately. But, this has been slowed down by the above 3 because technology providers are getting multiple requests for different ways to tackle COBie rather than the single way they should be approaching it as defined in the original COBie standard!

Why do you say the UK as twisted the purpose of COBie?

To answer this, you do need to understand what COBie is in more detail and I can explain this for you very simply. I have already said that in very simple terms its a standardised Asset Register with the potential to replace O&Ms entirely. But to create a standardised asset register, and compile it as 1 document so people and machines can read it is difficult. You have to consider so much:

1. You first need to justify why you want to create a standard asset register and the value it has over non standard approaches we see on every other project. You also have to take into 1 key consideration, what if clients dont know what they want?
2. You have to come up with a standard set of minimum requirements that you see in the bulk of non-standard approaches e.g. I want to see room and equipment data, and of the room data i want to see the room name, the floor its on etc etc.
3. You need to come up with a minimum standard set of assets the standard register is to cover. No point having a standard register and then having huge difference between what goes in each one when clients try to understand their need in short tender windows (because they never bother considering this any other time)
4. You need to have rules for how the data in this standard asset register must conform too. For example, you cant have different ways of putting in values like 10/10/19 or 10/10/2019 or "Room 9" or "Room 9 - Closet" etc etc. There are also rules around what data must be provided e.g. that any Systems you define must have its embodied components defined. Standard data structuring allows validation and machine import without issue.
5. a process that defines how you collect that data and when its best to do so.
6. a structure for how the data is exchanged after you compile it. How you can map it to a human and machine-readable format like a spreadsheet. Where in that spreadsheet the data needs to go exactly and using this standard practice, allows machines to auto push and pull that data from the right place as it understands where its going to be. Allows you to then map to non-standard formats too!
7. And a way to reduce duplication of data. You cant keep repeating values and so picklists and cross-referencing avoid errors.

All of the above was then defined into a single standard. This standard provided all the above as demonstrated by the below diagram

The above shows that COBie isnt just a spreadsheet, a subset of IFC or any other loose description people assign. Its all of the above. Its an asset register that has a standard approach to conveying asset data through the above standard considerations, all based upon IFC for its foundations. How many people new that COBie comes with an inbuilt EIR for asset data meaning any clients that dont know what asset data they may need, can simply quote the standard and their supply chain need only consult the standard to obtain the minimum requirements! No more bespoke AIRs/COBie Demand this and that... on every single new project. Not unless the client really does know what they want, then the standard allows for tweaking here too.

But this is a problem in the UK, because several UK "Experts" dont tell you that clearly (Not because they are ignorant, but because they assume 90% makes sense already inc why you need it and how to do it". Nor do the UK guidance documents! COBie 2012, and then the later BS1192-4 focus mainly around "point 6" above meaning everyone thinks that COBie is that excel sheet you see so much meaning you have to define all the rest yourself! The rest of the UK guidances are largely focused on how to change the standard meaning points 1-5 are done in non-standard ways on almost every project in the UK because we don't bother to use the hard work someone else has already done, we keep reinventing the wheel before we even tried the original design to see if we could get it to work.

The Experts who implemented UK COBie decided point 1 above (also as shown in the illustration above) wasnt that important to cover in as much detail for the UK approach now that the decision was made to move away from the standard (because again, assumption is made its easy to resolve when ), we should just extend the use of COBie to cover multiple use cases without writing a detailed business case thats understandable by the masses and so people do it because they are told

The Experts who implemented UK COBie decided point 2 and 3 above decided its better to have different data requirements for each project through bespoked requirements. Leave it to clients to have to do all this hard work again and try and define standard asset lists and data requirements for each project when they themselves are on a journey and their people have varying degrees of understanding....on comes the "BIM Consultant" and additional fees and complexity

The Experts who implemented UK COBie even decided to change the standard`s point 4 and 5 above by changing some of those rules and the process for which it follows and so now some values don't follow standard rules. For example, you no longer have to ensure systems have defined components so the below image, with missing components, is completely acceptable in the spreadsheet representation of UK COBie:

How can we expect to implement an already challenging standard when that standard isnt being recommended for use in the UK, rather clients are being told to do it bespoke on each project and to apply different governance and processes without major guidance and support? BS1192-4 doesn't provide all the answers to these challenging questions

Come on then, how should have it been approached in your opinion?

On projects today, if COBie is a requirement, you will see lots of horrible migraine-inducing documents produced by clients or their consultants that completely turn off the industry to COBie because the supply chain know they have to reinvent the wheel for how they collect data. Huge schedules that list sometimes hundreds of asset types (often not even associated with the project type using loose Uniclass descriptions) and then list dozens of columns for what data is to be collected! Sometimes, this huge list is already within 95% of the requirements already defined in the COBie standard....but the client doesnt know that. They are told they need to produce these schedules and reference BS1192-4. Thats its.

Well I tell you today that you dont need any of those schedules! A client can just say "I want my asset data using COBie version 2.4!"

Thats it! believe it or not. Then if I was the designer or contractor, I can see in the standard set of instructions for how I give them their asset data using COBie 2.4`s standard. It defines to me all of the above 7 points (Standard asset list, standard asset data, the rules, the mappings EVERYTHING). So now, as a contractor, I only have to invest in my people and processes ONCE. Making sure we write standard processes to ISO 9001 standards for how I give clients COBie 2.4. The supply chain can do the same!

BUT, we dont. We get different requirements on each project meaning I cant invest in standard procedures and processes meaning COBie remains a blight for my organisation and I dread to see what the next 20 page requirement schedule will look like that takes 3 experts to digest and interpret and the client doesnt even want half. The whole value from COBie is nearly lost too because its bespoke, I cant create a standard quality control tool like those freely available online and in books and so the data is more prone to errors :-(.

So, what now for COBie?

There are very few of us in the industry that understand what COBie is enough to be able to realise the issues above are not caused by COBie, but by our approach to it. And this is a real problem. The majority of the UK industry now dont trust COBie because its been made into something its not. I have seen individuals take COBie for purposes outside of the "Asset Register" purpose too. Turning it into old fashioned distribution sheet likes what we used 15 years ago before EDMS replaced it. And I have seen much worse.

Unless more true experts come to to realise this fact, COBie will either continue as it is, become a considerable cost and often error filled output that no one can use or want to use or it will be replaced in the future by another concept that even more difficult because there is no standard at all and so its all left to clients to define each time on a project.

Investment in true COBie education continues around the world. Books are still being released that show practical guidance, papers being produced that proves its value if used correctly and a few organisations that have mastered it are producing better value decades ahead of others. And it will be these that have a true headstart when their regular clients catchup and figure out how to completely use it all.

How can the industry help turn this around?

I ask you all to consider simplifying COBie. Go back to what it was designed for. Dont re-invent the wheel. Stop producing huge documents that define asset types and data sets (related to asset management).

Simply start from the basics and place "I want asset data to be handed to us using COBie 2.4". Use only some basic inputs which the COBie standard allows like defining what classification system you would like e.g. Uniclass tables. Then as you come to understand COBie and the minimum set, you will start to see how you can use the standard`s recommended approach to tailoring the standard (Remove asset types you may not be interested in like grilles or data ports etc) and add any extra requirements in like performance data or document associations......all of which the standard allows you to append to the standard. But the standard again provides you a way of doing this. Not by creating 20 pages schedules but through simple statements. I can provide examples if you want to know more.