Homepage › Forums › General Discussion › Describing digital twins – seeking feedback › Reply To: Describing digital twins – seeking feedback
-
On 30/07/2021 at 09:37, Peter Parslow said:
I could envisage a sort of maturity level for city digital twins, ‘starting’ with those which try to keep up & working through to those which actively manage agreed aspects of the city.
Hi @Peter – thank you very much for the comments. I fully agree on your point earlier that the scope of a twin for a city is a social/governance question. I also extend that to say that a core part of the governance is the governance of information quality.
I would be interested in your thoughts on a city digital twin maturity model. If I understood the quoted sentence correctly, the ‘maturity model’ is linked to the maturity of organisations within the city to manage digital twins; this might include defining/managing/assuring/optimising digital twins and the links to the physical world.  This makes sense. Going further it might be fair to assume that the maturity of a city in managing digital twins is the same as the maturity the organisation in this city with the lowest maturity (bad data lowers the standards for everyone).
One motive for developing the diagram shared in this thread (https://digital-twins.kumu.io/describing-digital-twins) is that digital twins themselves should be described on a spectrum of complexity dependent on the purpose of the twin which would determine how many parts and links the twin needs. This diagram is mentally built on the idea of an organisation’s maturity (for information management for example) determines what complexity of digital twins it can support and manage efficiently. And from that angle I feel that it links well to [my] understanding of you sentence which I could have misunderstood!  Have I missed your point?Â