It is not every day I get to consult with the Owners or Operators of built assets. They are typically not that interested in the technical details of managing their Digital Twin portfolio. Instead, their Appointed BIM Representative manages the process. Sometimes this can be their own BIM Specialist (to my mind the preferred option).

Other times they delegate responsibility to the Principal Agent or Project Manager. Sometimes the decisions made while initiating and running the project on the cloud impact the Owner / Operator directly.

Transfer of Ownership

Consider a large construction project, of say, a 1.5 billion Rand skyscraper. This might represent a 30-storey tower with 52 000 m2 (560 000 ft2) of office space with 1 400 parking bays. In the modern era the digital twin of this skyscraper is also part and parcel of the built asset. Should the owner wish to sell the built asset only makes sense to also transfer the ownership of the digital twin.

This digital twin will include the building information (BIM) model, the project information model (PIM), the asset information model (AIM) as well as any other information necessary for facilities maintenance and operation. In my opinion, while there is an ongoing effort on the part of Autodesk to define a transferable deliverable at the end of the project, the complete digital twin represents a richer environment for a prospective new owner to have at their disposal for future reference.

The Autodesk construction cloud is a cloud service. This means that it is impossible to recreate the data that is recorded in real time in the databases on the Amazon servers. The downside of this is that you can’t just create a backup from which you can recover a project. The upside is that the information is impervious to tampering and it can be presented in a court of law should a dispute arise.

An owner operator might be enticed to host all their projects on one singular hub (an Autodesk cloud license provides them unlimited storage space for this purpose on Amazon servers). Unfortunately, it is not possible to detach a project from one hub to another even if they were in the same geographic region. Therefore, it would not be possible to transfer the ownership of a project from one hub to another.

However, there is a chance, subject to Autodesk approval, that a hub might be transferred from one owner to another. Note that a hub is associated with a contract for subscription licensing with Autodesk that could include multiple products subscriptions and seats. Regardless of the subscriptions used to compose the digital twin, a single Docs subscription is sufficient to archive the information the other subscriptions generate. When the information needs to be accessed again in future, the relevant subscriptions could be purchased.
Different regions have different data laws.

The Autodesk construction cloud is currently available in Europe, America and Australia. It is neither possible to transfer a project from one region to another nor to create bridges (an Autodesk mechanism to protect parties’ intellectual property amongst other things) between the geographic regions. If you are uncertain in which region to establish your project, consider a region with stricter data laws than your own so that you at least fall within the given parameters.

My recommendation to an Owner/Operator of a significant and transferable asset is the following:

Purchase a contract and establish a hub in the region most aligned with the data laws of the country the asset is located in.

• Create only one project on that hub representing the built asset and maintain the contract for the life of the built asset (this might easily represent a time horizon of 80 years). There is no guarantee that the technology would be available for that time duration, but it does give one the best opportunity to migrate if so required.
• Request a change of ownership of the contract (hub) from Autodesk on the sale of the asset, transferring the contract to the new owner of the built asset.
  I have found various reasons why the above method is typically not followed.
• Autodesk does not market its product as above, preferring instead to focus on what deliverables can be exported from the project. While this may be sufficient in most cases, it does not represent all the data captured during the project.
• The purchase of multiple contracts for built assets imposes extra costs (all the built assets could be hosted on one contract if they were not to have their ownership transferred individually. However, it could be argued that the value of digital twins justifies the purchase of these contracts and could be added to the value of the asset when sold. When the decision not to create a transferable digital twin and is knowingly made by the initial Owner, the result is acceptable. If the hub is in the Owner’s possession, this might point to a lack of long-term planning or even ignorance. However, if the hub belongs to the Principal Agent, then the question must be asked: did they do so to keep control of the project after it was supposed to be transferred to the owner? This does happen (the thinking is that this will force the client to become a return-client). I believe this question must be clarified before the award of the contract so that the Owner gets the best value for their money. There are probity agreements that can and must be put in place to safeguard intellectual property rights (ultimately one can revert to the courts for judgement).
• What is the best mechanism for Owner/Operators to follow? I would suggest that mandating the ISO 19650 standard on a project is a good idea. Specifically, retaining an appointed party that is in no way compromised by being part of the supply chain. Then providing the Exchange Information Request is the next most important document. This is the document that will determine how the supply chain is sourced and contracted, and how the information is delivered.

I believe it is in the interest of Owner/Operators to seek advice from experts outside of the supply chain to advise them. It does not take a lot of time. Depending on the demands of the project, anything from 30 minutes to a few hours should do. Specifically, Autodesk Revit is the most prominent BIM authoring software and is integrated with the Autodesk Construction Cloud.

Micrographics are Autodesk partners and are therefore uniquely positioned to give unbiassed advice regarding the technical capability of the BIM Authoring platforms. Our staff are trained on the Autodesk platforms, keep up to date with the latest trends, and have extensive experience of being involved on projects as participants and advisors throughout their careers.

The decisions Owner/Operators make at the beginning of a project are some of the most important. This can clearly be seen in the well-known McLeamy curve. The earlier the decisions are made, and the less decisions that must be made later in the project, the better for all concerned.

Now, with artificial intelligence and machine learning, the curve is evolving, making the initial phase of the project even mor important. The Owner/Operator cannot afford not to make the important and consequential decision with forewarning of their effects downstream.

If you need help adopting the AEC Collection or the Autodesk Construction Cloud in your practice or if you are looking to invest in hardware, please contact Micrographics so that we may be of assistance.

Still looking for answers? Start a discussion with other professionals in your industry!