Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Concept and principles'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Themes

  • Member Forums
    • General discussion
    • Testing digital twin concepts
    • Digital twin competencies
    • Pathway to value
    • IMF Pathway
    • Videos
  • IMF Community's Forum
  • DT Toolkit's Case studies
  • DT Toolkit's Business case
  • DT Toolkit's Use cases
  • DT Toolkit's Roadmap
  • DT Toolkit's Network feedback
  • DT Toolkit's Toolkit
  • Data Value and Quality's Forum

Categories

  • A Survey of Industry Data Models and Reference Data Libraries

Categories

  • Public Resources
  • Guidance
  • IMF Community's Files
  • DT Toolkit's Files
  • Data Value and Quality's Shared Resources

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Found 14 results

  1. Digital Twin for co-creators of innovative social solutions It is time to align people and environmental needs through new interconnected collaborative organizational models. Establish the bridge between the virtual and offline world as well as connect academics and communities to focus on social impact by providing the missing valuable functions of the social technology for the common good. We want everyone to be able to share and take joint action on everyday experiences and quality of life concerns; at a local, national and global level. Humans are keystone species in whatever environment they inhabit. - We have known as human beings that our planet is small, fragile and interconnected. THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE LACK OF A COLLECTIVE DESIRE FOR A POSITIVE FUTURE BUT THE LACK OF A COLLECTIVE VEHICLE FOR POSITIVE ACTIONS. How Can Technology Accelerate Social Evolution? Digital collective intelligence We sorely lack more concerted support and action to assemble new combinations of tools that can help the society think and act at a pace as well as scale commensurate with the problems we face. We need an entirely different model of dealing with reality, a new frame of mind, a collective intelligence. This is an ability to come into communion with a group and act as a single unit of intelligence. Citizen Social Science in the age of the ALPHA GENERATION To do this by holistically connect the disconnected and isolated dots with each other and communities of GLOCAL society to use technologies and methods to collectively solve problems by holistic approach and Eco-System Design thinking to improve the.. Humanity’s relationship to its environment Humanity’s relationship to technology, and Humanity’s relationship to itself Humanner's system work with a MULTI FUNCTIONAL holistic multisolving approach so that make the investment more impactful. Single investment of time and money - Defined as a way of solving multiple problems with multisolving approach brings together stakeholders from different sectors and disciplines to tackle public issues in a cost-efficient manner 1/ "Normal" days (GLOCAL) - Collective Social Innovation Network 2/ In Crisis situation can turn into - Collective Crisis Management System SOCIETY - ISO 37105 Descriptive Framework for Cities and Communities - provides a framework to describe the key entities within a city. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/citizen-social-science-age-alpha-generation-humanner-/
  2. Firstly, thank you to everyone who joined the concepts and principles standards workshop on the 11th of February. With 70+ attendees and a wealth of engagement, I feel that we managed to make some real progress in establishing the DT Hub community's views on the future BSI Flex standard. As mentioned during the workshop, the slide deck presented will be given to the technical author and advisory group for consideration, acting as a seed for further standardisation development. A copy of the slide deck used with the comments and changes incorporate is available here. In this article, I wanted to highlight some of the key insights that came from the workshop as well as provide you with the ability to keep track of this work as it progresses. Scope: Generally, the community appeared to be content with the draft scope, which had used the scope of ISO/DIS 23247-1 (Digital Twins for Manufacturing) as its basis. The comments received focused on types of assets, systems and processes which should be highlighted. Of particular note was the desire to include information assets, natural assets, and safety and control systems which have all now been included. There was also a strong desire to highlight the relationship to information and information management. A comment has been included to ask that this is done within the introduction as opposed to the scope. Concepts: After I had introduced a series of different conceptual diagrams, I was surprised to see a preference for the figure within ISO/DIS 23247-1. However while this figure appeared to be preferred, several attendees pointed out the need to articulate the scalability of the built environment; with mention made of effective visuals previously used by @Mark Enzer to explain the relationship between components, systems, and systems of systems. In addition, previous comments around the need to highlight the natural environment as a distinct facet were echoed. This led to the introduction of another figure from Flourishing Systems which highlights the built environment as economic infrastructure, social infrastructure and the natural environment. Principles: Having discussed the overall concept, we moved to the principles that should govern digital twins for the built environment. Using the original Gemini Principles as a basis, the community did not challenge the existing principles but did suggest a potential 10th, Provenance. Distinct from Quality, provenance would focus on the origin of information to enable someone to assess its potential accuracy or trustworthiness. Terminology: After discussing observable elements and references we concluded with Terminology. Using the existing terms on the DTHub Glossary as a basis, the community suggested several additional terms such as: interoperability, asset, system, process, system of systems, semantics and syntax. In addition @Ramy, a Northumbrian University PhD student, shared a figure and thoughts around Digital Twin uses and a “DT uses taxonomy” which he has also published on the DT Hub, here. It is this sort of engagement that makes the DT Hub a community, thank you. As I mentioned, the outcomes of this workshop will be fed into the development of BSI’s Flex standard around digital twins for the built environment. And there we have it. Please feel free to keep the conversation going by commenting below or directly on the slide deck. Stay tuned on the DT Hub for more news, updates and ways to get involved in the development of BSI’s Flex standard.
  3. Hi IMF Community, You may find this workshop interesting: "4-Dimensionalism in Large Scale Data Sharing and Integration" Full details and Registration can be found at: https://gateway.newton.ac.uk/event/tgmw80 . The workshop will feature six presentations on state-of-the–art research from experts on 4-Dimensionalism in large scale data sharing and integration followed by a chaired Presenter's Panel. Each presentation will cover aspects of 4-Dimensionalism from the basics to Top Level Ontologies and Co-Constructional Ontology with each answering the question posed by the previous presentation.
  4. University College London’s (UCL) Infrastructure Systems Institute is working together with the DT Hub to collect academic, industry and government knowledge and experience on digital twins. This survey is an activity that contributes to our research portfolio in economic infrastructure (energy, transport, water, waste, telecoms) helping to deliver public and environmental good through self-healing and anticipatory systems, sustainable innovation and resilience. For this survey we want to determine the scope of a digital twin and to hear about your examples - both real and planned! Here is the survey link https://ucl.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/digital-twin-survey. In preparation for the survey we have conducted a literature review and a small number of expert interviews. This survey provides a way to validate or challenge our preliminary findings and collect up-to-date examples which is important given that this area is evolving rapidly. You will be able to respond anonymously to the survey but if you want to provide text or examples you should anonymise unless you are happy for these to be publicised. There will be a chance to provide your email if you want to get move involved in CDBB and the National Digital Twin programme or you want to be notified when the results are published (planned for end Dec 2020). Thanking you in advance! Liz Varga, Professor of Complex Systems, UCL
  5. On the 17th November, the DT Hub community came together to share their thoughts in a webinar led by BSI on an intelligence test for digital twins in the built environment. Watch to find out what the community thought.
  6. The National Digital Twin Programme has initiated work to create a thin slice of the IMF for the Construction Innovation Hub, to support the development of CIH’s Platform Ecosystem. This thin slice of the IMF is called the FDM Seed. Fig 1.General classification of the TLO – taken from A Survey of Top-level Ontologies The first steps of the FDM Seed project is to survey the landscape, to investigate what ontologies and Data models are already in use out there; what they can do, their limitations, and assess what tools may be useful as a starting point for the FDM and the RDL. The NDTp Commons Technical team have undertaken the landscape survey and have now published two reports: • A survey of Top-level Ontologies (TLOs) • A Survey of Industry Data Models (IDMs) and Reference Data Libraries (RDLs) The final survey of top-level ontologies is, we think, the first of its kind. To take part in the discussion on the surveys and their implications, we invite you to become a member of the Digital Twin Hub and join the Digital Twin Hub IMF Community Network What next? The Programme is now in the process of gathering recommendations for which TLOs to use to start the work on the FDM Seed thin slice. We anticipate basing the FDM development on one of the TLOs, bringing in elements from others, based on the survey & analysis.
  7. The National Digital Twin programme is a national programme, built on consensus. As the open consultation on our proposed approach to an IMF draws to a close, Miranda Sharp IMF Engagement Lead at CDBB shares how the DT Hub members can continue to shape its development. We believe the IMF is the key to enabling secure, resilient data sharing between organisations and sectors in the built environment and want to work with you to devel0p it. Greater use of digital technologies and information in the built environment increases capacity, efficiency, reliability and resilience. This in turn enables existing assets to enhance service provision for people, as well as improving efficiency in design and delivery of new assets through a better understanding of whole-life performance of those assets already in place. We know that by working collaboratively with members of the DT Hub, who share in that vision, we will end up with a better end result. My role within the programme is to help make your voice heard, and to open conversations where you can ask the challenging questions we need to find answers to. During the next phase of the consultation we will be running in-depth interviews with practiti0ners to understand the challenges the proposed approach faces, and how these could be resolved. We want to know if the approach be top down or bottom up – or both? We want to hear your thoughts, ideas and reflections, both positive and negative. In working collaboratively to establish the IMF we will enable a National Digital Twin that is implementable and usable, in order to enable society to tackle the urgent and cross-silo challenges of achieving carbon reduction targets and effectively coordinate disaster response. We will also be able to derive the greater benefits of securely connecting our data assets. This process will require debate and deliberation along the way and invite many questions to which answers might not be immediate or clear. That is because our vision to create a digital built Britain is not complete or static; it is an evolving development emerging from multiple voices and viewpoints across a wide range of organisations – big and small, public and private, clients and contractors. Our webinar marking the publication of the report attracted a range of questions and this is precisely what is needed to interrogate the approach, to challenge its strengths, identify weaknesses and test resilience. Some people are keen to know if CDBB has started to build a prototype to demonstrate the framework but, as the pathway document explains, we must first build consensus on the prosed approach to an IMF – one cannot happen without the other. Work is underway to create a thin slice of an IMF to start to establish and test a common language and apply this early framework to a platform being developed by the Construction Innovation Hub (CIH) and put it under scrutiny. But first we need to map out the approach that will enable a demonstrable piece of the framework. The top-level academic contribution to the developing framework will also be studied closely to ensure it is robust and resilient, able to withstand change, to grow and expand. Challenge will simultaneously come from the bottom-up when organisations will input to test competency. The IMF is designed to make connections between digital twins and provide operators and decision-makers with resilient and secure verified data sharing to enable a wider view of the implications of decisions and insights that invite timely interventions and potentially better outcomes. The decision-making and the form it takes is the responsibility of organisations and businesses themselves and beyond the scope of this report – but we do want to hear your views. With that in mind we have created two new communities here on the DT Hub – Architects and Developers – dedicated to the discussion around the development of the IMF and the operational implementation of the Framework within organisations. Our Architects Community has been established for those involved in real-world application and implementation of information management. The group will test and calibrate the NDT programme’s approach to the IMF and provide a forum for discussion on challenges, opportunities and the practicalities for implementation. Our Developer Community, comprising information management, data science and integration specialists, is bringing scrutiny to the IMF approach and has been established to provide a rich discussion area for the core concepts, tenets and philosophies of the Framework and its constituent parts. If you have ideas, questions or observations about the Pathway document then please engage with us via these two new communities. Achieving alignment, interoperability, protocols, governance and standards to allow individual businesses to flourish while serving the interests of society needs engagement and contribution from as many of you as possible. It is time to collaborate at scale. I look forward to working together to shape an IMF to secure the sharing of data, enabling insight to drive informed decision-making is an essential process, unlocking value and delivering better outcomes for the greater good.
  8. I've been drafting a Digital Twin Policy for HE and would appreciate any feedback. Some of it is quite HE-specific, but I'm hoping that the broader structure and themes is accessible to non-HE people. What do you think? [Very very draft] Highways England Digital Twin Policy Purpose of this document: Definition: To agree a working definition of Digital Twin for Highways England, and provide some context on the National Digital Twin programme. Principles: To establish a consistent and generally accepted set of principles for the creation and use of Digital Twins by Highways England and associated supply chain projects, and align these to the Information Principles described in our Information Vision & Strategy. Architecture: To describe the common data and technology underpinnings of Digital Twin development within Highways England, including infrastructure, integration, and interfaces, aligned with National Digital Twin programme's Information Management Framework. Capability: To highlight the skills we require as an organisation in order to be an informed client and custodian of Digital Twins. Ethics: To set guidelines around the ethical implications of using Digital Twins to manage the Strategic Road Network. Governance: To document how we will govern Digital Twins within Highways England as a collaborative body of practice, as well as how we will quantify and capture the benefits of investment in Digital Twins. This document should be read as contributing to the realisation of Highways England's Information Vision and Strategy and abide by our Information Management System. CDBB imagery showing the digital representation of physical assets. Section 1: Definition and context Our definition of a Digital Twin is as follows: A Digital Twin is a digital representation of a physical thing (and its operation) that one can query. This definition helps us to distinguish between the concept of a Digital Twin, and the more established practice of BIM. The key differences are: Digital Twins can and should be part of the construction phase, but the focus of their use is on the operation of existing physical assets (e.g. the 99%+ of assets that are not currently under construction). Within our organisation (and the wider industry), there is often a loss of data capability as projects move from construction to operations as operators have typically been unable to exploit BIM products. By designing our construction models as nascent Digital Twins we have the opportunity to define the data and logic required to operate an asset at the start of the lifecycle, and ensure that the models we create during construction have operational value. The emphasis on being able to query Digital Twins is important. A Digital Twin should not be a static representation of an asset, it should reflect the logic of that asset in operation. This means that Digital Twins need to expose not just the material properties of an asset (e.g. location, dimensions, materials, etc.) but also the business logic governing that asset (e.g. how we as the infrastructure owner can intervene on that asset to change how it performs). This allows Digital Twins to enable better organisational decision-making through simulation and 'what if' scenarios. In order to realise the two points above, the data schema underpinning Digital Twins is necessarily more complex, and more focused on relationships rather than properties. BIM data standards, such as COBie or Uniclass focus on the hierarchies of assets, and their properties (e.g. "span belongs to bridge and is made of steel"). Emergent Digital Twin data models (including our own Highways England Ontology) capture not just the properties of assets but how the relate to their wider environmental and operational context (e.g. "span is corroded by road salts, damaged by vehicle incursions, is maintained when the flange has 20%+ corrosion, and supports a flow of 50,000 vehicles per day travelling on the M25 (as well as a broadband internet cable) causing significant safety and KPI impact in the event of failure"). Creating these data models demands the creation and maintenance of a deep 'knowledge graph' of the organisation. Imagery courtesy of the CDBB. They emphasise that new assets should be view as interventions on the wider existing system. In the UK, construction annually adds only circa 0.5% by value to infrastructure as a whole. The quality of the services delivered to the economy, environment and society is determined by the 99.5% of infrastructure that already exists. Construction of new assets is important but to make a significant difference to service quality, value, and outcomes for people the focus should be on the infrastructure that already exists. CDBB believe that viewing and operating our infrastructure as a system of systems will deliver better outcomes for citizens, the Information Management Framework will help enable improved secure, resilient data sharing across the built environment to make sure the better information gets in the right hands, at the right time, to make the better decision. Where possible we seek to align with, and contribute to, the Centre for Built Britain's National Digital Twin programme. More information is available on the CDBB's website and we would also encourage staff to join the Digital Twin Hub. If you are new to the concepts behind the Digital Twin and the National Digital Twin programme, we would recommend reading their publication 'The approach to delivering a National Digital Twin for the United Kingdom'. The NDT's Gemini Principles Section 2: Principles Digital Twins are ultimately an extension of data and information. As such, we believe that the principles set out in our Information Vision & Strategy are applicable to our development of Digital Twins (albeit with the need for a subject matter specific interpretation). ID Information Vision & Strategy principles Digital Twin interpretation Relevant Gemini principle(s) 1 We will use information as best we can, even if it's not perfect. "We will use Digital Twins as best we can, even if it's not perfect." Our digital infrastructure is a work in progress. As such, we will design and develop a shared set of principles, architecture, governance, and capability that allows us to incrementally develop Digital Twins over the coming investment cycles. This means building upon and evolving our existing in-house digital infrastructure, avoiding creating undue reliance on proprietary solutions, and carefully managing the benefits case associated with investment. Public good Value creation 2 We will create the trust people have in our information by assuring its fitness for purpose. "We will create trust in our Digital Twins by assuring their fitness for purpose." We will ensure that the data that informs (or is presented in) our Digital Twins is subject to our Information Management System. We will assess the condition of data and its fitness-for-purpose so that health-warnings/uncertainties can be applied to the outputs of our Digital Twins (where necessary), and identify remediation activities where necessary. Quality 3 Information can affect people's lives and we will use it transparently and ethically. "Digital Twins can affect people's lives, and we will use them transparently and ethically." As a public body, we shouldn't use Digital Twins in any manner that we would not be comfortable being public knowledge. Where possible we should seek to openly publish our approach to Digital Twins, including this policy document. This demands a detailed consideration of the ethics of our use of Digital Twins, as well as their potential for bias, which is covered later in this document. Public good Openness 4 We need to understand how the information we collect is used by others to make sure it is good enough for everyone. "We need to understand how the outputs of our Digital Twins are used by others, to ensure that they are fit for purpose." We understand that Digital Twins are only as good as the data and logic that go into them. Where staff or organisations are using Digital Twins to support decision making then we must be aware of the sensitivity of these decisions. We must then confirm that the data and logic used by the Digital Twin can provide sufficient accuracy to safely inform those decisions. Quality 5 We must continually earn the right to look after our customers data. "Our Digital Twins should not directly or indirectly provide information on individuals or small groups of people." The movement of our customers on the road network, and potentially related networks such as rail, will likely be a key data input to Digital Twins. However, clear limitations and governance must be placed upon how customer data is used within Digital Twins, including aggregation, anonymisation, and clear rules to avoid 'toxic combinations'. Security 6 Information is a valuable resource that will be kept safe and secure from accidents and attacks. "Our Digital Twins must not materially increase our risk of data breach or loss of customer data." Digital Twins require substantial quantities of information in order to work effectively. Any centralised storage of information on this scale will increase the risk of data loss, and whilst this risk can never be fully mitigated, we must take steps to ensure that we are securing our data storage infrastructure in accordance with best practice. Security 7 Looking after information has a cost we should understand and account for. "We will be aware of the on-going cost of maintaining our Digital Twins." As per the previous point, even using public cloud resources there will be a substantial on-going cost for the storage and computation (not to mentioned resource) associated with running our Digital Twins. In addition, there is always an opportunity cost associated with expenditure, and we should seek to ensure that we are delivering a return on taxpayer's funding. Curation 8 We all have a responsibility to look after our information so that it is fit for purpose. "We will build our Digital Twins with clear data and logic ownership and stewardship responsibilities." The component parts of the Digital Twin, including data and logic (algorithms) must have clearly defined owners, lineage, and steward roles to ensure that they remain fit-for-purpose. Quality Curation 9 Decisions made with information create better outcomes for our customers, stakeholders and ourselves. "We will tie our use of Digital Twins to clearly defined outcomes for our customers, stakeholders and ourselves." Digital Twins cannot simply be 'shiny things'. As part of the Governance described in this policy we will be clear on the benefits case associated with our investment in Digital Twins, and the outcomes that we are seeking to deliver. Insight 10 The value of information is only realised when it's used to help make decisions. "The value of Digital Twins is only realised when they are used to help make decisions." This is probably the most important principle. We will use Digital Twins to affect a positive (and cost-effective) change on how we build, operate, and maintain our network. All development of Digital Twins must be able to demonstrate how it will contribute to this goal. Insight Section 3: Architecture The use of Digital Twins will likely vary substantially across our business. Different teams will work at different stages of the asset lifecycle (e.g. plan, design, build, operate/maintain, dispose), and consequently their teams will have different skillsets, ways of working, and levels of supplier involvement. This does not, however, mean that our use of Digital Twins across the business must be disconnected and siloed. If we end up with a number of standalone Digital Twins then we are likely to miss the greater benefit of understand how our infrastructure behaves throughout the lifecycle. We believe in a 'federated' model, one where parts of the business can design and develop Digital Twins to meet there use cases, but which ensures adherence to common standards described in this policy. The diagram below describes, at exceptionally high level, the common 'schema' and 'data' layers that we should seek to create to support our federated Digital Twins in the application layer. Key to this architecture is the use of open platforms wherever possible, whether those are open data standards, open source tools, or solutions shared with other Digital Twin owners. We want to avoid Digital Twins within Highways England becoming entirely dependent upon proprietary solutions and walled gardens, and we believe that there are lessons to be learned from the successes and failures of BIM in this respect. Ultimately we want to own our own destiny in this space, and build capability within Highways England. Indicative components of the Highways England federated Digital Twin Image web part, showing Indicative components of the Highways England federated Digital Twin. WThis architecture will build upon existing and proposed corporate services that will be accessible to the organisation and its supply chain, as per the table below. Component Current Position End State Position Schema (structure) Our Corporate Ontology provides a logical map of our organisation from a data perspective. Our Data Modelling standards provide guidance as to what artefacts should be created to document new systems (including Digital Twins). We will continue to develop our Corporate Ontology as we create Digital Twins, with a focus on increasing boths its completeness, and the ease with which Highways England staff can view, edit, and use the Ontology to keep it up-to-date and to inform the design of Digital Twins. We will work to align our Corporate Ontology with data standards specified under the NDT's Information Management Framework and adopt all or part of their Foundational Data Model once this becomes available. Data Storage (inc. Graph) Our Azure-based common data environment, Data-as-a-Service (DaaS), provides a corporate approach to storing and sharing information within Highways England. We will expand DaaS to incorporate a graph database built to reflect the schema set out in our Corporate Ontology, and populated with datasets relevant to our Digital Twins. Data Exchange (inc. API) Our intention is to extend the functionality of DaaS to include for an 'HE API', as well as Master Data Management functionality to deliver a 'single source of truth' of data drawn from systems of record across the organisation. Highways England will publish data externally through a common set of documented open data feeds managed as a single holistic service (e.g. the 'HE API'). These data feeds will reflect the underlying structure of data specified in our Corporate Ontology and data models. IoT / Sensors Our intention is to extend the functionality of DaaS to handle real time 'event' data. This will allow DaaS to serve information from sensors into Digital Twins. Though in practice is it also possible that sensors will report directly into Digital Twins and then subsequently share that data with DaaS for wider distribution. The risk we face with the adoption of IoT is that, to date at least, it has been extremely piecemeal. This is in part because, in many cases, the marginal cost of sensors does not yet make it cost-effective to deploy them ubiquitously. Often our IoT data doesn't even make it on to the HE IT estate. We are going to come to a point where centralised management of data from IoT becomes substantially more important for us an organisation in order to avoid different departments and Digital Twins needing to make duplicate investments. Some evolution of our common data environment will need to accommodate this change. Our corporate approach to data modelling and creating a common data environment underpins our federated approach to Digital Twins within Highways England. More information on our corporate solution, and how it is available to build digital solutions within Highways England, is available on our Data-as-a-Service SharePoint page. We will work to understand the division of responsibility, and necessary interconnections, between Data-as-a-Service and other Digital Twin and data management solutions including HEADDS and BIF. Diagrammatic representation of current data collation within Highways England Image web part, showing Diagrammatic representation of current data collation within Highways England. Section 4: Capability The capability that our Digital Twins provide us as an organisation should stem logically from our definition of a Digital Twin as "a digital representation of a physical thing (and its operation) that one can query." We should look for our Digital Twins to provide us with capabilities beyond what can be realised by existing BIM systems and other digital technologies. There are (at least) two dimensions to the capability that Digital Twins will provide us, breadth (e.g. the proportion of our portfolio of assets that is represented by a Digital Twin), and depth (e.g. the range of queries that it is possible for us to conduct using those Digital Twins). The question of breadth is a relatively simple one of scale, which hopefully deploying our Digital Twins cost-effectively on scalable public cloud solutions will help realise. The question of depth is much more interesting as it relates to the functionality of the Digital Twins we build, and the use cases that we want to realise. Our aim is for Digital Twins to provide us with a range of functionality, including: The ability to run 'what if' scenarios to understand the consequences of changes to how we manage our network. These scenarios should be able to consider a range of parameters including the performance of assets, the configuration of the network, maintenance policy, traffic management, and the impact of external factors including levels of customer demand, weather, incidents, and disruption to other transport and utility services. Exchange of information with other organisations, including other road operators and stakeholders (e.g. Local authorities, Transport Scotland, Transport for Wales, emergency services), transport operations (e.g. Network Rail, TfL, HS2, HAL, MAG) and utility operators (e.g. UKPN, National Grid, water companies). Highlighting inter-dependencies with other organisations, we know that our infrastructure is crucial to other organisations working effectively, whether it's the transport of crucial supplies, providing a route for maintenance teams to get to asset failures on other networks, or in some cases literally supporting 3rd party cables and pipes with our structures. Our Digital Twin will understand these inter-dependencies and highlight potential choke-points. Mapping of assets to outcomes, in other words how do individual assets on our network contribute (or not) to the overall performance of the network itself. We have all seen instances where the failure of individual, relatively insignificant assets can result in substantial disruption to how the network as a whole operates. As an organisation we should be aware of these potential choke-points, not only in terms of how they effect our business, but also in terms of how they impact our stakeholder's goals. Mapping of organisational workflows to outcomes, in other words how do our organisation's decision-making processes and operating model influence and potentially change the real world outcomes. Presenting a time-series view of the organisation, for all of the functionality listed above we should be able to see change over time, both looking back into the past, and projecting into the future. Whilst we continue to develop our Digital Twins to deliver this functionality we need to be mindful of the training and staff capabilities that we need to build within the business, who should be accountable within the business for owning them, and what we should be looking to procure through our supply chain. Key roles will likely include: Data owner; Data steward; Product owner; Platform developer; Software developer; UI/UX developer; Technical project manager; Business analyst; Data analyst; Data scientist; Data architecture; Technical SME; Benefits manager. Consequently, any development of a Digital Twin within Highways England must include for a consideration of the resources required to maintain, administer, and continuously improve the Digital Twin throughout its lifecycle. This will need to consider and engage on the appropriate division of responsibility between HE Directorates, ITD, and the supply chain. Section 5: Ethics Digital Twins of our infrastructure are a potentially transformative technology that will change how we interact with, and manage, our built environment. Consequently, it is worth our considering the ethics of when and how we develop Digital Twins so as to control for unintended or biased outcomes. In many ways, the conversation around ethics of Digital Twins is an extension of the conversation on the ethics of Artificial Intelligence in general. As such, it makes sense to take guidance from the wider body of literature on this topic. A good reference point is The Alan Turing Institute's 'Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety' This states that: The Institute's report lays out the following potential harms of AI, all of which extend to Digital Twins, and many of which you will have started to see instances of emerge in the real world: Bias and discrimination; Denial of individual autonomy, recourse, and rights - particularly pertinent to Digital Twins of infrastructure that need to account not just for the predominance of users, but also for minority and disadvantaged user groups. Non-transparent, unexplainable, or unjustifiable outcomes - when we are spending public money, we need to be able to explain the process that determine our investment decisions. Invasions of privacy - our principles earlier in this document touch upon the risk violating data protection legislation. Isolation and disintegration of social connection; Unreliable, unsafe, or poor-quality outcomes - again, particularly relevant when dealing with physical infrastructure. The report then goes on to lay out what steps we should seek to take in order to ensure that we are building an ethical platform. Rather than paraphrase the Institute's report into its entirety in this policy, the recommendation is that we use the guidelines set out in this report as the ethical framework that we apply to the development to Digital Twins. FAST Track Principles from the Turing Institute Image web part Section 6: Governance Collectively, the definition, principles, architecture, ethics, and governance should allow different parts of Highways England to conduct Digital Twin development whilst minimising the risk of inconsistent, redundant, unaligned, or unethical development. The Digital Twin working group exists as a cross-directorate informal meeting to exchange knowledge on the development and application of Digital Twins within and beyond Highways England, and to see to develop common standards. Our Governance should seek to ensure that: This policy is visible within the business; Parts of the business are not developing or engaging in Digital Twin work in ignorance of this wider coordination effort; The members of the Digital Twin working group are able to support digital transformation as it occurs across the business, including Digital by Default, Operational Excellence, Asset Management Transformation, Digital Roads, Digital for Customers, etc; Whilst the Digital Twin is not formally a subsidiary of any other body, we should look to report back into the relevant governance of the programmes listed above, as well as ITD's DDAT board. Broadly, the governance should follow: Digital Twin working group: meeting every two months with representatives from MP, Ops, SES, ITD, and other interested Directorates and suppliers. Responsible for drafting and maintaining this Digital Twin policy and other guidance documents. Representation at Digital by Default, OE 2025, AM Transformation, Digital Roads, Digital for Customers, DDAT, via one or more named members of the Digital Twin working group. This is intended as soft governance where the membership of the Digital Twin working group, and the guidance documents that it originates, can influence and report on the development of digital capabilities across the business.
  9. The Pathway towards an Information Management Framework (IMF) was published by CDBB at the end of May and contains the collaborative vision of over 70 contributors that came together to build a consensus on how we can build a national digital twin from a nation of digital twins. In response to the National Infrastructure Commission’s report, ‘Data for the Public Good’, the Pathway towards an IMF lays out the ambitious goal of creating a framework where organisations can share data in a robust, resilient and secure way. This will enable better decisions, strengthen the economy and allow for human flourishing. The IMF pathway has at its core, the Gemini Principles, the guiding principles ensuring the framework has purpose, creates trust and is adaptable and flexible enough to work for organisations now and in the future. Taking the selfish approach…. for the greater good The IMF Pathway details the approach to establishing a common language allowing digital twins to talk to each other. This can start within organisations linking up disparate digital twins and breaking up silos to give better corporate control and aid decision making. This then allows the national digital twin to connect those joined up corporate twins by sharing key data to and from other related organisations and sectors to enable deeper insight and benefit to the organisations and the nation for the greater good. In engaging with the IMF Pathway, an organisation has the primary benefit of first recognising the value of their corporate wide data, and secondly, fully preparing themselves to take advantage of, and contribute to, the value and benefit of nationally shared data. The Pathway proposes three building blocks to form the framework:    A Foundation Data Model (FDM): A consistent, clear ontology for the digital twin ecosystem: a structure for sharing and validating data    A Reference Data Library (RDL): Common references, or vocabulary that enable the secure sharing of high-quality data: the common language for describing digital twins    An Integration Architecture (IA): Design and build of the digital systems that manage the connected digital twins: the glue that can link twins together.  The IMF will bring together the standards and data exchange protocols that will allow this ecosystem to create a National Digital Twin from a nation of digital twins. Security and protection of personal data is essential to connecting twins in the right way and is integral in the development of the IMF pathway, as illustrated by this diagram from the IMF Pathway and the accompanying Approach Summary. Following the release of the IMF Pathway, CDBB hosted a webinar and was delighted by the response of the participants and the enthusiasm for the IMF. The recording of the webinar is available on the DT Hub to watch at any time. Continuation of collaboration and consultation The Pathway continues to be a collaborative process and we now look to you to help ensure the widest possible feedback on the document to make sure it meets the needs of infrastructure asset owners, local authorities, architects, engineering consultants, construction companies, software developers, AI companies, big tech and more. The consultation is open until the end of August and we would really value your input.
  10. The Centre for Digital Built Britain’s National Digital Twin programme has launched an open consultation seeking feedback on the proposed approach to the development of an Information Management Framework for the built environment. A new report, The Pathway Towards an Information Management Framework: A Commons for a Digital Built Britain, sets out the technical approach for the development of an Information Management Framework (IMF) to enable secure, resilient data sharing across the built environment. The publication of the report by CDBB, in partnership with the Construction Innovation Hub, is a critical milestone towards a National Digital Twin. On the publication, Mark Enzer, Head of the National Digital Twin Programme said, “I would really like to thank everyone who has come together over the past 18 months to help develop this proposed pathway towards an Information Management Framework. It represents a huge amount of work and exemplifies the collaborative approach that will be needed as we seek to enable an ecosystem of connected digital twins – the National Digital Twin. “The challenge is sizeable, but the promise is huge: better outcomes coming from better decisions based on better connected data. And, working with industry, academia and Government all pulling together we can deliver it. So, I’d urge you to join with us on this journey and help us build consensus on the way forward.” The way that digital twins are connected is important to ensuring security and improving the resilience of assets and systems. The goal of the IMF is to establish a common language by which digital twins of the built and natural environment can communicate securely and effectively to support improved decision taking by those operating, maintaining and using built assets and the services they provide to society. Its development by CDBB was recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission in 2017’s Data for the Public Good report and HM Government’s Construction Sector Deal. As industry leaders, DT Hub members involved in planning, creating and managing the built environment are invited to provide feedback on the report here. The consultation questions are: It has been proposed that the Information Management Framework (IMF) should essentially consist of a Foundation Data Model (FDM), a Reference Data Library (RDL) and an Integration Architecture (IA). Do you agree with this overall framework? In your view, are there any key elements missing from this framework? In your view, is the proposed approach to the IMF consistent with the Gemini Principles? Are there any inconsistencies that should be addressed? Section 3.4 lists the models and protocols that would form part of the IMF. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this list? Section 3.5 describes key concepts of a Foundation Data Model. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this description? Section 3.6 describes key concepts of the Reference Data Library. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this description? Section 3.7 describes key concepts of an Integration Architecture. Is there anything that you would like to suggest to improve this description? Section 4 proposes a pathway for developing the IMF. Do you agree with the proposed overall approach? In your view, are there any key tasks missing from this pathway? Would you suggest any improvements to the order in which the tasks are undertaken to develop the IMF? What do you see as the barriers to connecting digital twins within organisations and between different organisations/sectors? How can these barriers be overcome? In your experience what are the reasons why organisations invest in the creation of digital twins? Why would they invest in connecting digital twins? Do you have any other comments on the proposed approach to developing the information management framework? What opportunities do you see arising in your business from being able to connect Digital Twins and share and integrate data across them? The consultation on the IMF is open until 31 August and responses can be submitted here. Read a summary of the report here. the_pathway_towards_an_imf.pdf
  11. The National Digital Twin Programme hosted a webinar on Monday 8th June 2020 to discuss and answer questions about the recently published Pathway towards an Information Management Framework. We were delighted to receive many questions during the webinar, and hope that those the panel were able to answer helped deepen understanding and expand interest in the Information Management Framework and the National Digital Twin Programme. We have added those, and the questions we couldn't get to in the available time, as topics within this forum, collated by subject. We would like to invite you to add your suggestions and to take part in the discussion on the DT Hub around the development of the National Digital Twin. We will use the discussions here to compliment the Open Consultation being run through the CDBB website on the IMF Pathway.. As Mark Enzer, the Head of the NDT Programme, said in the webinar, we need to continue to build consensus through collaboration, and progress through sharing and learning together. For those who missed the webinar, a video of the webinar is now available and attached below is a transcript of the the event. IMF Pathway Webinar 08062020 Transcript FINAL.pdf
  12. Morning all, Following yesterday's excellent Digital Twin talk with imec and @Tanguy Coenen, my cogs started to whirl and, in conversation with @Simon Evans (thanks Simon!), a visual fell out. What I have tried to do is visually represent the period of time that a digital twin is out of sync following an intervention to the physical asset. Focusing on representing: Latency from intervention to detection (for example, time taken from a pipe breaking to detecting pressure loss); and Latency from input to representation (for example, time taken to receive, configure, update, and republish). The visual itself is very work in progress, any thoughts/comments would be greatly appreciated. Several DT hub members have spoken about their concerns relating to real time data collection. Hopefully this visual can help?
  13. Our collective understanding of digital twins is rather nascent. To ensure that we operate under the same base information there is a need to periodically reflect on the concepts and principles we have outlined. This blog post is one in a series which reflects on previously published concepts to consider whether our collective thinking has advanced. As we develop the thinking, tools, and resources relating to digital twins, a lot of discussion is taking place regarding their scope, scale and accuracy. Within the Gemini Principles it stated that a digital twin is: I want to reflect on this statement. In particular, the use of “realistic”. For something to be realistic, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, it must represent something in a way that is accurate and true to life. For example, for something to be “photo-realistic” it must appear as if it was a photograph. However, the Gemini Principles state that a digital twin must represent physical reality at the level of accuracy suited to its purpose. Interestingly, while undertaking discovery interviews with DT Hub members we saw this issue realized. Interview Insight "Several members commented on how people in their organizations would try to extend the use of their digital twins beyond their intended purposes." This was seen as both a positive and a negative outcome. The positive being that members of these organizations saw the value in these digital twins and wanted to harness their insight. The negative being that these digital twins did not have the information or, when available, did not have level of accuracy required to be used for these extended purposes. For these extended needs, these digital twins were not realistic. Amongst DT Hub members there appears to be a shared view that digital twins are, fundamentally, purpose-driven. Therefore, digital twins might not be “real” representations, but instead the “right” representation to support a purpose. Consider an example. An air traffic control system utilizes a “digital twin” of runways, aircraft and their flight paths along with sensor information (e.g. weather and radar) to assist with preventing collisions, organize and control the landing and departing of aircraft. In this example while real-time information and analytics are used, none of the physical elements (planes, control towers) have realistic representations, they instead use basic representations to support the air traffic controller. Instinctually an air traffic control system does everything we want a digital twin to do, it is a digital representation of physical assets which also includes sensor information where the physical assets provide a link back to the digital twin. Given this, it should be fairly clear that an air traffic control system would be considered a digital twin. However, this does not appear to be the case. A poll was placed on twitter asking “would you consider an air traffic control system a digital twin”. After 62 votes were cast, the result was exactly 50:50. What does this tell us? Perhaps public messages on what a digital twin is aren’t sufficiently defined? Perhaps the question was poorly worded? Or perhaps, for some, the lack of a realistic representation is the reason they said no? Unfortunately, context for each vote isn’t available. At the very least we can be sure that our shared view may not be shared by everyone. In an age where many consider data to be the new oil perhaps we should consider using our data sparingly. So long as the data provided is sufficient for its intended purpose, a realistic representation may not always be required. And there we have it, realism and its place within Digital Twins. Do you believe that a digital twin has to be realistic? Can something be a digital twin without being a realistic representation? Had you voted on this poll, would you have considered an air traffic control system a digital twin?
Top
×
×
  • Create New...