The ‘What’ Paper

  • Lee Chapman

    February 8, 2022 at 5:05 pm

    Hi, read this one first and I think it does what it sets out to do.  Comments are really just about moving things around for maximum clarity:

    P2: Combine the 1st and 2nd paragraphs and actually start with the 2nd to get the WHAT clearer.  Dropping the connected part is fine here as you do come to that later.

    P2: The example of climate change feels a bit isolated (1st para) – maybe add a couple more

    P3> It could be clearer if you stick to the headings in the preceding figure when introducing physical and digital twins.  The data section for the physical twin may not seem logical to some with the data being discussed in more detail in the digital bit.  You could also mention AI in the modelling section of the digital twin.  Finally, would interventions be more logical to be discussed in the connected section that follows?

    P7> Systems of systems – too many headings!  I think you need different different levels of headings to make it easier to follow.

  • Glen Worrall

    February 9, 2022 at 4:01 pm

    I observed some small changes and perhaps some reworking of a single section as well as perhaps an omission



    By increasing the openness and availability of shared data between … could this be clarified to “By enabling an openness as defined in the Gemini principles for sharing data between …


    Is the question on climate change the purpose of the connected digital twin, or is that referring to an holistic view ?  Are we saying that national digital twins are critical to alter the course of climate change ?

    Suggest stopping after holistic view.


    What do we mean by a digital twin ?

    Would we really have a digital twin of a “person”


    This results in faster, better and often more cost-effective decisions.

    Better is a “subjective word”

    This results in more informed decisions, which can result in faster decision maker and often enabling cost effective actions.


    fundamental principal …

    If principal is the noun here then it perhaps should be fundamental principle.

    Ie it would read correct as fundamental proposition, but not fundamental first



    The intervention can be a preventative measure to avoid an issue highlighted by the twin, rectifying an issue or a reaction to an external action on the physical twin.


    Which twin highlights the issue, is this the digital twin.  Perhaps it should be clearer, ie we mention physical twin, but then just use twin.


    Build Environment Systems

    The built environment is made up of economic and social infrastructure. However, built environment systems will never be complete. Buildings and infrastructure are constantly being adapted to cope with changing demographics, demands and a growing population. 

    Two main areas, economic and social infrastructure, involve political, institutional and commercial structures where ideas and information can often be siloed, preventing collaboration and cooperation. Reducing barriers, especially cost and time, or sharing information within the built environment presents opportunities to drive innovation, optimise services, tackle climate change and enable sustainable growth.iv


    I am not sure what this paragraph is trying to say.  Paragraph 1 is OK, but then we try and make what statement are you trying to make.

    Sharing information include cost and time within the built environment represents opportunities to drive innovation, optimise services, tackle climate change and enable sustainable growth.  Was the statement lifted from the Arup paper ?  The second paragraph I think is trying to say that the various owners of infrastructure have different drivers, such as economic or social impact, enabling a common platform to drive innovation, optimise services etc requires a change in the collaboration and cooperation …


    There is no discussion on the commercial barrier or stake holders are.

    Ie if we want a digital twin of a town, who is responsible for that digital twin, the local council, the builders, the homeowners etc.  There should be a discussion around stakeholders, there is some start of the discussion in economic and social infrastructure, but the complexity should be stated as problematic so it can be addressed in the how, or listed as still a problem if it is.

  • Khezar Khan

    February 9, 2022 at 6:02 pm

    Hi Tammy,

    I commented directly into the Google document. On the whole I found the paper to be a good definition but lacked the links with the other papers produced. Examples of these and some points suggested for inclusion (even following a reword) are saved in the file. 

    There is an element about the ‘goal’ of a digital twin which is missing but I have captured this amongst other things in my comments. 

    Kind regards, 


Log in to reply.

Stay Connected

Stay up to date on the latest news and events in the DT Hub Community

Terms agreement(Required)