[Lee Chapman]

I like the structure of this and especially the link to the SDG’s.  I also like ‘purpose-led technology’ – spot on!

My only comment would be that it refers a few times to a paradigm shift – a term which is frequently overused but I do think applies here, however does it explain in sufficient detail early in the document why it is such a shift?  For example, I am thinking of the modeller who has used observations for many years for asset management – will they get the full transformative potential of what is proposed compared to current state-of-the-art?  It is clear as you read through it, but I do think you need to be careful when using the paradigm word (and phrases like game-changing) to to keep the reader on side early doors.

[Glen Worrall]

Would be interesting to see inclusion on the cost of the data silos and duplication of data (digital waste)Do we know how much digital waste we create in the UK and how this can be prevented with open data sources. indicates this for the US, but most infrastructure projects start with “their” copy of the asset.

[Khezar Khan]

Hi Tammy, 

Commented again directly on the document. There are elements which I believe could help if included. Such as the exploration of productization of the built environment, cumulative value benefits post-occupancy, risk management and access authority levels. 

Not sure if this has already been discussed (pardon me if it has) but has the ‘Virtual Bradford’ case study been explored? It would be a good example. Some elements have been lifted to demonstrate and added to the Google document.

Kind regards, 

Khezar

[Sven van den Berghe]

Interesting document. I think that is is more a manifesto than an exposition and so would be improved by changing statements of “proof” to belief or vision.