As most are aware by now, there is a coming revision of ISO 19650 (Parts 1–3) due to be published in the course of this year. One of the most important propossed changes seems to be the use of IM (Information Management) instead of BIM (Building Information Modelling), which causes a cascade effect of conceptual changes and challenges.

While, at the core, this seems a rather small change, it can potentially generate a different series of challenges tied to contracts and their application. 

To begin with, rarely are all standards updated in unison, which means that the system will become non-compliant again as soon as the revision is released, and is the reason why we refer to the year of the standard and not only to the number.

This is understandable; standards are living documents reflecting the best practices of an industry and are, by default, subject to change. However, when it comes to terminology, it might be a good idea not to dwell too much on the issue and to try to limit it via contract forms and job descriptions.

While a general level of understanding is desirable, it’s not really necessary to expect the same understanding from everyone involved in one way or another in the field. BIM, after all, can be understood in many different ways by practitioners and all sorts of clients. A historical combination of marketing around the tools has bound the concepts and their understanding, for the vast majority of them, to particular tools; and that is not going to change. 

This is not really a big issue, as long as the deliverables and the responsible parties are all informed of the expectations. Better contract definitions might work more effectively in the long run than trying to challenge a cultural phenomenon by means of standard application.

Most of these things are, of course, tied to generational phenomena. A good example is a parent referring to all consoles as “Nintendo,” or when we say “Google” instead of “search,” no matter the engine we are using. It might go away, but real impact on production environments should not really be defined by popular interpretations (or the lack thereof) of a concept.

The real question should be in terms of cost–benefit for the general population when applying these documents. For instance, in my particular local context (Norway), we still have some of our own standards (The NS/Norwegian Standards). 

Government documents will normally take a bit more time to update, which means changes might require even more time to permeate into the contractual terms of reference (normally tied to budget cycles and approvals), and by the time they reach practitioners in the public sector, some of the proposed value has already been lost since the time of release.

Additionally, public building projects usually span over many years at a time and can easily exceed the revision time of a standard, which would make it more difficult to integrate the best practices earned from that experience. 

Perhaps we should consider a moratorium to let the industry catch up. If standards as a whole still need broader acceptance, then moving the line isn’t serving the purpose it should—only increasing non‑compliance. But alas, standardization might be one of those ideals we all wish for but can only hope to see fulfilled.

---

The Pocket AI Guide is out!

📙 Amazon US: https://a.co/d/gCHHDax
📗 In Europe Amazon Germany: https://amzn.eu/d/3cmlIqa
(Available in other stores Amazon stores too in Europe)

Check the free resources in this website!