Jump to content
Start your business case for a digital twin using the DT Toolkit Collaborative Workshop ×

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'standards'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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
  • The Defence Digital Network's Welcome!
  • The Defence Digital Network's Defence DT Roadmap
  • The Defence Digital Network's Acronym Buster
  • The Defence Digital Network's Open Forum
  • Open Innovation - Open (Citizen) Science - SDG's Open Innovation
  • Open Innovation - Open (Citizen) Science - SDG's Social Innovation Ecosystem
  • Open Innovation - Open (Citizen) Science - SDG's Events
  • Funding / Collaborative R&D Opportunities's Challenges
  • Funding / Collaborative R&D Opportunities's Funding
  • Italian DT Hub's Q&A
  • Italian DT Hub's News


  • Community Calendar
  • DT Toolkit's Events
  • Italian DT Hub's Events


  • Articles
  • Blogs
  • Publications
  • Editorials
  • Newsletters
  • Shared by the Community


  • A Survey of Industry Data Models and Reference Data Libraries


  • Hub Insights
  • Digital Twin Talks: Series 2
  • Digital Twin Talks: Series 1


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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

  1. Dave Murray

    Test Engineering and DTs

    I am considering starting a network for topics related to Lifecycle V&V (Validation and Verification) centred on Evaluation and Testing, and this message is to poll the level of potential interest. I imagine the network would offer the following: · A place for Test Engineers from different market sectors to share experiences and gain knowledge · Support for those areas where DT activity is low but growing, the Defence Sector is an example, to benefit from the experiences of other sectors Test Engineers have a mix of technical and customer skills that are central to successful project implementation. The DT concept provides a lifecycle project-thread that provides Test Engineers with an unprecedented opportunity to exercise their skills. Maybe finding a way to maximise this opportunity might also attract more people to the career, and be a way to improve recruitment into the world of Engineering? If we launch this Network, would you consider joining it? Dave Murray
  2. After engaging with members of the DTHub to collect and incorporate your views, we are pleased to announce the publication of the Digital Twins for the Built Environment Standards Roadmap [Full Report] [Summary Report]. As reported by O’Sullivan and Brévignon‐Dodin, standards roadmaps support innovations and emerging technologies by helping their respective communities to coalesce around needs, priorities and approaches. This standards roadmap was developed to specifically support the consistent adoption of, and interoperability between, digital twins for the built environment within the UK. In doing so it recommends the development of several standards of varying types around two key themes: Digital twin framework for the built environment: This theme takes into account existing work at ISO to develop a digital twin framework for manufacturing so that the built environment approach can be compared to, and aligned with, the approach being taken by other sectors; and Digital Built Environment: This theme identifies gaps within the existing standards landscape to facilitate trusted, open, and secure exchanges of information to and between organisations through mechanism such as digital twins. The gaps within each of these themes were then developed into outline concepts to determine their dependencies and establish a critical path for their development. The first recommendation is an agile standard that outlines the overview and general principles relating to digital twins for the built environment. As such, this roadmap supports both the wider digital transformation of the built environment being supported by the likes of the Construction Leadership Council, Construction Innovation Hub, and the UK BIM Alliance as well as the realisation of the CDBB National Digital Twin Programme. Now published on the DT Hub [Full Report] [Summary Report], it is hoped that this standards roadmap will be supported by the DT Hub Community as well as all relevant stakeholders so that we, the built environment, can begin to establish consensus for good practice relating to digital twins. We invite you to read, comment, and share this standards roadmap to help make its recommendations a reality.
  3. Tammy Au

    Approaching standards with agility

    We have seen over the past year how the COVID-19 response has accelerated the speed and scale of digital transformation. One of the most striking developments is the huge momentum towards the adoption of digital twins in the built environment. It’s an important step forward as there is immense value for the UK in unlocking the potential of digital twins. However, it needs to be done in the right way - built on good values, as well as a shared foundation and framework to support the end goal of secure data exchange and interoperability. This is why the development of a set of standards is crucial and a key aim of the Construction Innovation Hub (the Hub). Working with the CDBB’s National Digital Twin Programme (NDTp) and the British Standards Institute (BSI), we’ve already made significant progress towards that goal and it’s exciting to be pioneers in establishing what will hopefully be a common language - guidelines that can be used, not just here in the UK, but globally. Keeping pace with a rapidly evolving market Standards are typically seen as offering clarity and consistency – but the methodology traditionally used to develop them does not necessarily offer agility as it can often take years. We are collaborating again with both the NDTp and the BSI to produce a visionary white paper exploring the benefits of developing standards that are more dynamic, flexible and agile. The need for agility is driven by the pace of change in the digital sector - good practice needs to adapt at the same rate. Agile approaches to standardization are a way of remaining relevant and delivering value by acting as up-to-date reference points, even at times of great uncertainty and change. Ensuring that standards can evolve and flex to facilitate and support innovation is a key driver for both the National Digital Twin programme and the Construction Innovation Hub. This White Paper and the development of the new Flex Standard is a really positive move for future disruption, which will drive the sector forward. Driving innovation and cutting edge practice including the development of digital twins helping to advance the construction sector and beyond. We are not creating something completely untested – we can look at the evidence found in the software development industry, where agile methodologies and DevOps have delivered high quality working code, continuously at scale. This paper sets out how we can learn from such techniques and apply them to the world of standards. Alongside the white paper we are running a pilot using BSI’s new agile standardisation service (BSI Flex) to demonstrate why agile standards are the right approach to use in the digital twin space. BSI Flex develops consensus-based good practice that adapts to keep pace with fast changing markets such as the digital twin market. Update We are looking forward to delivering the latest phase of this work, with consultation on the pilot standard beginning at the end October 2021. An interesting example of how BSI Flex has been used recently was in developing Safe Working Guidelines with the onset of the pandemic. BSI published its first Safe Working Guidelines BSI Flex standard in May 2020, and Versions 2 and 3 followed in July and August. The first version was produced in just two weeks and the subsequent iterations benefitted from comments received during public consultation. The Guidelines were then used as the basis of a new international standard. It demonstrated that in such a fast-changing environment, where everyone was faced with unprecedented challenges, a flexible approach to creating a standard was the right approach. The standards journey so far The agile standards white paper is building on early standards groundwork that was undertaken within the Digital Twin (DT) Hub and BSI over the last year. It consisted of: Research to produce a Landscape report on existing standards related to digital twins, including a gap analysis of areas which require further development The publication of a Standards Roadmap for digital twins, which guides and recommends potential development of standards within the digital twin sector. Dan Rossiter, Brand Ambassador to the National Digital Twin programme gives an overview on the standards groundwork that has taken place so far. Each step of the way, consensus and collaboration have been essential and we’re enormously grateful for all the various stakeholders who have offered feedback and advice. We’re looking forward to sharing this white paper with you and again receiving all your comments. It’s a really exciting development and paves the way for the first standard for digital twins due to be published for open consultation later this summer. They will shape the future of our built environment, ensuring safety, quality and value. Ron Lang, Chief Technical Officer, Construction Innovation Hub Read the Agile Standards White Paper
  4. The Good Homes Alliance seeks to drive up standards, performance and quality in new homes built in the UK. We have developed a concept built upon existing IP that digitises an assured performance process to enable a comprehensive outcome that will enable net zero (and other desirable outcomes such as health and wellbeing of occupants) to be met and verified. This concept would address a number of issues currently being discussed and deabted by the investment/finance/insurance/warranty sectors and would upskill design teams and constructors because of the built in on demand training that accompanies the app-concept. The concept is called NetZeTT (Net Zero Tool and Training) and has an existing set of project partners, what it doesn't yet have is funding, if any potential funders are interested in this project please reply.
  5. Digital twin standards roadmap workshop The DT Hub together with BSI hosted an interactive session which provided an opportunity to capture insights from UK experts to help validate the findings of the proposed standards roadmap prepared by BSI. The session also gave the community an opportunity to share their views on some of the priorities for standards to support successful digital twins in the built environment. The slides from the workshop can also be viewed here. DT Standards Roadmap Workshop 2020.12.03.pdf
  6. 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.
  7. Standards make everyday life work. They may decide the size or shape of a product or system. They can specify terms so that there are no misunderstandings. They are crucial for instilling confidence and consistency for both providers and users. This is why we have made the development of a set of standards a crucial component of our journey towards building a National Digital Twin. In conversations we’ve had in the Digital Twin (DT) Hub and the wider Centre for Digital Built Britain (CDBB) community, there have been significant concerns about the costs involved in investing in a digital twins. We believe, that to mitigate the risk and avoid the need to make changes down the line, standards are of vital importance. We need a shared foundation and framework to support the end goal of secure data exchange and interoperability. We’ve made significant progress towards that goal and it’s exciting to be pioneers in establishing what will hopefully be a common language - guidelines that can be used, not just here in the UK, but globally. To start with, we’ve needed to gain a thorough understanding of what the current standards landscape looks like and the CDBB commissioned the British Institute of Standards (BSI) to do the research. Their initial scoping exercise is complete and BSI and CDBB are now reviewing the results of this exercise to identify if and where standards are needed to overcome a specific challenge or fulfil a purpose. We’ve also looked to other sectors to see if existing standards can be applied or modified to work in the built environment. We are now in the process of creating a clear roadmap that prioritises standards to be developed. The document will be accompanied by a report to include the narrative, justification and rationale behind the roadmap. It will be presented through a series of thematic areas: Digital Twins, Data, ICT, Application, and Outcomes as well as multiple sub-topic themes, to help enable users to locate key standards. The end goal is a very practical guide. It will cover everything from a shared vocabulary, to ensure consistent definitions of assets, to recommended data formats, user case methodology, a code of practice on information exchange and so on. A vital part of the process is involving stakeholders and we’re very grateful for all the feedback we’ve received so far. We have recently had the opportunity to share the latest review with DT Hub members as well as those within the wider digital twin community. Attendees of the recent workshop, hosted by BSI, had the opportunity to both critique and verify the findings as well as to share their views on some of the priorities for standards to support successful digital twins in the built environment. This has been a valued opportunity to really shape the direction of these important developments as we can’t do it alone. A great example of the impact standards can make is one I came across from the early 1900s when the BSI developed a standard for tram gauges at a time when, in the UK alone, there were 75 different widths of gauge! They succeeded in reducing it down to five recommended widths. These became the standards going forward and greatly boosted the industry’s fortunes increasing compatibility between networks and rolling stock. As the British standard was adopted abroad, the UK tram market enjoyed more opportunities to trade and business flourished. We hope to make a similar kind of impact – we want to see all developers of digital twins flourish and benefit from the advantages that sharing data and ideas can bring. But in order to do that successfully, the whole process needs to be underpinned by standards that have been formed out of thorough research and review and have the support and involvement of as many people as possible. We look forward to seeing you around the DT Hub! Samuel Chorlton, Chair of the Digital Twin Hub
  8. The idea of a Digital Twin [DT] needs to advance in a standardized and formal manner. As @DRossiter87 pointed out, this is necessary to "support the consistent adoption of, and interoperability between, digital twins for the built environment within the UK" To aid in this endeavour, it is useful to delineate the difference between the following terms: “DT General Use Case” [GUC]: a very short sentence, possibly consisting of two or three words – ideally a verb followed by a noun – ultimately concerned with the brief and blunt statement of the central business aim that is motivating the use and implementation of a DT, e.g., ‘optimize traffic’. “DT Use Case Scenario” [UCS]: a documentation of the sequence of actions, or in other words, DT-user interactions executed through a particular DT case study or an actual DT real-world project. “DT Use”: a typical technical function or action executed by any DT throughout the course of any UCS. Accordingly, the DT uses are seen as the standard building blocks by which a standard common language can be founded. Such a standard language, which can possibly be machine-readable as well, can be used in documenting and detailing the DT-user interactions in a standard format to facilitate their publishing and sharing of knowledge. Below is a figure of a “DT uses taxonomy”. It is made up of three distinct hierarchical levels, these are respectively: ‘Included Uses’ containing four high-level cornerstone uses that are, besides rare exceptional cases, included in and executed by almost every DT throughout any UCS (i.e. Mirror, Analyse, Communicate and Control); ‘Specialized Uses’ including special forms of the Included Uses, where each specialized use enjoys unique strengths suitable for specific purposes; and “Specialized Sub-Uses” at the lowest hierarchical level of the taxonomy, which further differentiates between variant types within a Specialized Use at the higher level by virtue of very fine inherent variations that distinguish one type from another and thus, enhances the DT’s practical adequacy in dealing with alternative contexts and user specifically defined purposes. The table below include a formal definition of each DT Use. DT Use Definition Synonyms 01 Mirror To duplicate a physical system in the real world in the form of a virtual system in the cyber world. Replicate, twin, model, shadow, mimic 1.1 Capture Express in a digital format within the virtual world the status of a physical system at a point of time. (Usually, offline DT) collect, scan, survey, digitalize 1.2 Monitor Collecting information related to the performance of a physical system. (Online or Offline DT) Sense, observe, measure 1.3 Quantify Measure quantity of a physical system’s particulars, instances or incidents. (Online or Offline DT) Quantify, takeoff, count 1.4 Qualify Track the ongoing status of a physical system (Online or Offline DT) Qualify, follow, track DT Use Definition Synonyms 02 Analyse To create new knowledge and provide insights for users and stakeholders about a physical system. Examine, manage 2.1 Compute To perform conventional arithmetical calculations, traditional mathematical operations and functions and simple statistical techniques like correlations Calculate, add, subtract, multiply, divide 2.2 Mine To uncover, identify and recognize the web of interdependencies, interconnected mechanisms, complex processes, interwoven feedback loops, masked classes, clusters or typologies, hidden trends and patterns within the physical system. Learn, recognize, identify, detect, AI, ML, BDA 2.3 Simulate To explore and discover the implications and possible emerging behaviours of a complex web of interacting set of variables. 2.3.1 Scenario To find out the implications, impacts or consequences of implementing pre-defined scenarios (akin to non-destructive tests) What-if, evaluate, assess 2.3.2 Stress-Test To identify the scenarios that may lead to failure or breakdown of physical system (akin to destructive tests) Test, inspect, investigate 2.4 Predict Concerned with futures studies 2.4.1 Forecast to predict the most likely state of a real system in the future, by projecting the known current trends forward over a specified time horizon. foresee 2.4.2 Back-cast To question or prove in a prospective manner, how the physical system is operating towards achieving the pre-set aims and goals. manage, confirm 2.5 Qualitize Enhance and improve the quality of the outcomes or deliverables produced by an intervention in real world. 2.5.1 Verify Verify conformance and compliance of physical system with standards, specifications and best practice. Validate, check, comply, conform 2.5.2 Improve Inform the future updating, modifying or enhancing the current standards to be in better coherence and harmony with the actual operational and usage behaviours and patterns. Update, upgrade, revise DT Use Definition Synonyms 03 Communicate To exchange collected and analysed information amongst stakeholders. interact 3.1 Visualize To form and vision a realistic representation or model of current or predicted physical system. review, visioning 3.2 Immerse To involve interested stakeholders in real-like experiences using immersive technologies such as VR, AR and MR. involve 3.3 Document Document and represent gathered and/or analysed data in a professional manner and technical language, forms or symbols. Present 3.4 Transform To modify, process or standardize information to be published and received by other DT(s) or other DT users (e.g. a National DT) or overcome interoperability issues Translate, map 3.5 Engage To involve citizens and large groups of people including marginalized groups in policy and decision-making processes. Empower, include DT Use Definition Synonyms 04 Control To leverage the collected and analysed information to intervene back into the real world to achieve a desirable state. Implement, execute 4.1 Inform To support human decision making throughout the implementation of interventions in the real world. Support, aid 4.2 Actuate Using CPS and actuators to implement changes to physical system. Regulate, manipulate, direct, automate, self-govern Standardised set of ‘DT Uses’ can help avoid miscommunication and confusion while sharing or publishing DT Use Case Scenarios and their content explicitly explaining the 'know-how'. It can also support the procurement of DT services by ensuring the use of a one common language across the supply chain and stakeholders. Al-Sehrawy R., Kumar B. @Bimal Kumarand Watson R. (2021). Digital Twin Uses Classification System for Urban Planning & Infrastructure Program Management. In: Dawood N., Rahimian F., Seyedzadeh S., Sheikhkhoshkar M. (eds) Enabling The Development and Implementation of Digital Twins. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Construction Applications of Virtual Reality. Teesside University Press, UK.
  9. https://www.nationalresourcesreview.com.au/mag/AUGUST2020.html#pdfflip-PDFF/31/ I spoke to Genene on a recent DTFC podcast and really took a shine to her. The most contentious view she has is that a 3D model of an asset is a static digital twin. I'm with Michael Grieves on this, 'it's an analogy'. So does it even matter? calling a 3D model a static digital twin in engineering and built environment sectors gives customers a feeling of being on the journey towards a dynamic digital twin. Good article from a good egg.
  10. As part of my last post Consolidating Concepts: Scope, I discussed a potential structure that a concepts and principles standard related to digital twin could adopt. In this post, I’ll consider how this structure aligns to the Gemini Principles. I’d greatly appreciate your views as to whether I’ve gotten this right! Using ISO/DIS 23247-1 (Digital Twin framework for manufacturing. Part 1. Overview and general principles) as a basis, I presented the following structure, now modified to include standard clause numbering: Scope Normative References Terms and Definitions Overview of Digital Twin for the Built Environment Concept of the Digital Twin Digital Twin for the Built Environment Applications (Uses) of Digital Twin for the Built Environment Benefits of Digital Twin for the Built Environment Observable Built Environment Elements General Principles of the Digital Twin Framework for the Built Environment Overview Standardization Scope of the Digital Twin Framework for the Built Environment Requirements of the Digital Twin for the Built Environment Hierarchical modelling of Digital Twin for the Built Environment Considering the topics to be covered, a lot of good reference information is available within the Gemini Principles, the values set out by CDBB to aid the development of a National Digital Twin (NDT). Pages 10 include definitions (3) as well distinguishing features of a digital twin (4.1); Page 11 also includes several purposes which could form the basis of (4.3); Pages 12-13 focus on the national digital twin application (4.3) as well as list several benefits (4.4); Pages 16 outline the nine principles at high level (5.1); and Pages 17-23 begin to establish the requirements of these principles (5.3). However, it is clear to see that the Gemini Principles does not cover all of these topics. For example, it does not include any information about what elements a built environment digital twin may wish to observe/monitor (4.5), cover the standardization scope (5.2) or deal with the hierarchical modelling (5.4). In which case, where can we find this information? For example, reports such as Flourishing Systems discuss different levels of aggregation: Component, System, and System of Systems. Could this form the basis of our Hierarchical modelling? I wonder what other good information could also be extracted from Flourishing Systems… And there we have it, the Gemini Principles appear to be an ideal basis for the production of such a standard. Reading this: Have I correctly interpreted the content of the Gemini Principles? What other documents could also support the production of such a standard? Please let me know in the comments as we consolidate the communities’ views around what concepts and principles are important to capture before the webinar on the 11th February at 10:00. Join us as we delve deeper into a formalised set of concepts and principles for digital twins in the built environment.
  11. 54 downloads

    This standards roadmap is designed to summarise the current standardisation landscape relating to digital twins for the built environment as of January 2021. This includes national, European and global standards projects and related activities deemed as directly relevant to potential production, maintenance and application of digital twins to support built environment activities.
  12. 156 downloads

    This standards roadmap is designed to summarise the current standardisation landscape relating to digital twins for the built environment as of January 2021. This includes national, European and global standards projects and related activities deemed as directly relevant to potential production, maintenance and application of digital twins to support built environment activities.
  13. During December, the Digital Twin Hub and BSI hosted a Digital Twin Standards Landscape Workshop based on the recently published Draft Standards Landscape Report (final version to follow). The workshop highlighted the need to prioritize the development of a standard outlining the concepts and principles related to digital twins for the built environment. This post explores, at high level, what such a standard might cover and asks you, the reader, to consider the questions posed to inform how it is potentially developed. Please comment under this post with any answers you may have or insights you wish to share; referencing the question were relevant. There are many types of standards. BS 0, the standard for standards, provides a list of different types of British Standard. When producing concepts and principles, these are typically drafted as a guide: Such a guide would need to follow the structure given within the ISO/IEC directives. Foreword Introduction Scope Normative References Terms and Definitions Clauses and Sub-clauses Annexes Bibliography Introduction: The introduction provides specific information or commentary about the content of the document. While optional, introductions help provide context. The introduction is a great place to outline why such a standard is needed as well as the benefits it helps to realize. Question 1: What context would you like the introduction to cover? For example: How the document supports the concept of data for the public good. Scope: The scope defines the subject of the document and the aspects covered. In developing the standards roadmap, a provisional scope has already been written! Question 2: Does this scope capture what this document needs to cover? Normative References: Lists documents cited within the normative clauses needed to understand the content. Standards such as BS EN ISO 19650-1 may need to be cited, for example, and would appear as a normative reference. Question 3: What documents do you think will need to be cited? Terms and Definitions: Lists the definitions necessary to understand the terms used in the document. As a new domain, there will likely be several terms and definitions which will need to be captured beyond the terms typically used within the built environment. Many of which may already be included within the DT Hub Glossary. Question 4: What terms and definitions do you think will need to be included? Clauses and Sub-clauses: The normative content of the document. Unlike a management system standard, there is not a defined structure for a set of concepts and principles. As referenced within the Draft Standards Landscape Report, ISO/DIS 23247-1 outlines the concepts and principles of digital twins for manufacturing. Within, it uses the following structure (adapted to suit the built environment): Question 5: Do these headings capture what this document needs to cover? And there we have it, the potential outline of the concepts and principles standard related to digital twin for the built environment. Please let us know your thoughts by commenting on the five questions posed, or if there is anything else you wish to raise. In addition, there will also be a workshop 10:00-12:00 on the 11th of February to discuss this topic in detail, so please mark your calendars (invites to follow). Your views are invaluable as we steadily realize the National Digital Twin programme, share them here!
  14. DRossiter87

    A Standards Roadmap for Digital twins

    Historically, standards have often been (falsely!) perceived as a contradiction to innovation. In fact, standards have often played a pivotal role in the adoption of new innovations. This is because those standards established a framework which defined aspects such as common vocabularies, essential characteristics and good practice. Once such a framework had been established, products and services that support the framework were developed. What happened with Building Information Modelling (BIM) is a great example of this. After developing the PAS 1192 series, UK competencies around BIM were catalysed; allowing the UK to (and continue to) export its leadership globally. To facilitate the same level of adoption for digital twins, a similar framework is needed. With work already underway to develop standards relating to digital twins at ISO, a roadmap for digital twins within the built environment is needed to ensure that such standards are developed in a holistic manner; formalizing the right content while allowing the sector to compete within these constraints. To that end, BSI have worked with CDBB to produce a digital twins standards roadmap for the built environment. This roadmap considers what specific digital twin standard are needed as well as what supporting standards need to be produced which relate to the wider use of digital within the built environment. The roadmap was developed through the analysis of around 12,540 standards across a myriad of sectors. The Standards roadmap is attached below. Comments and contributions to the roadmap, due to be updated periodically, are welcomed. Please feel free to comment below, email DTHub@cdbb.cam.ac.uk. HUB Version_DT Standards Roadmap_November 2020 (3).pdf
  15. Alexandra Robasto

    Standards Roadmap Consultation Workshop

    The DT Hub together with BSI are now starting the process of identifying what formalised good practice might help accelerate the production, maintenance and application of digital twins and support the wider national digital twin programme. To enable this, we have conducted extensive research into the current standardisation landscape to identify what existing standards already support digital twins as well as what appear to be potential gaps. These gaps have been identified and placed on a development roadmap for CDBB to consider supporting. This interactive session will provide an opportunity to capture insights from UK experts to help validate the findings as well as for you to share your views on some of the priorities for standards to support successful digital twins in the built environment, such as Data, IT, Insights, and Outcomes. This event will include a mix of presentations and Q&A. Who should participate in the webinar? Digital twin owners, suppliers, academia as well as those who are involved in digital twins in the built environment and want to help shape what good practice looks like. What will participants gain? As a valued stakeholder your views and experience can help us determine and validate: Current national and international standards of relevance to digital twins in the built environment Known or perceived gaps (in the landscape) for standards to support digital twins Priority areas for future standards to accelerate digital twins To join us please register on EventBrite.
  16. Version 1.0.0


    This standards roadmap is designed to summarise the current standardisation landscape relating to digital twins for the built environment as of November 2020. This includes national, European and global standards projects and related activities deemed as directly relevant to potential production, maintenance and application of digital twins to support built environment activities.
  17. Version 1.0.0


    This standards roadmap is designed to summarise the current standardisation landscape relating to digital twins for the built environment as of November 2020. This includes national, European and global standards projects and related activities deemed as directly relevant to potential production, maintenance and application of digital twins to support built environment activities.
  18. It is proposed that the Information Management Framework (IMF) for the creating of a National Digital Twin will consist of three technical elements: the Foundation Data Model (FDM), Reference Data Library (RDL) and Integration Architecture (IA). The IMF will underpin the creation of an environment which supports the use, management and integration of digital information across the life-cycle of assets. The IMF will also enable secure, resilient information sharing between organisations and will facilitate better decision making across sectors. The National Digital Twin Programme has initiated work investigating this approach with 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. The FDM describes basic concepts such as space-time which are attributable across all areas of our industry. By developing this, the FDM provides a way to explore relationships between these different areas. The FDM Seed is an inception of the above concept and is proposed by starting smaller and watching the development grow - similar to a seed. 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, and their limitations, and assess what tools may be useful as a starting point for the FDM and the RDL. The starting point for the FDM is a top-level ontology, this contains the fundamental and generic types of things that exist and the fundamental relationships between them. The survey of Top-Level Ontologies (TLOs) uncovered a surprisingly high number of candidate TLOs with 40 being identified and reviewed, many more that we could have imagined. Fig 1.General classification of the TLO – taken from A Survey of Top-level Ontologies The final survey of top-level ontologies is, we think, the first of its kind. We were looking for an ontology that was rigorous, simple and with sufficient explanatory detail to cover our scope of interest, which is very broad. There are roughly two groups of TLOS, Foundational and Generic: The foundation are rigorous, principled foundations and provide a basis for consistent development and would be suitable for the FDM. The Generic tended to generalisations of lower level, rather than principled and lack a principled basis for extension, and therefore not suitable for the structure of the FDM, though likely to be use for the FDM generic lower levels. An RDL provides the classes and properties to describe the detail of an asset. The survey hoped to identify the most prominent of Industry Data Models and show the best starting point for the IMF RDL. There are many different RDLs in use across sectors. For the purpose of the FDM seed a limited analysis was carried out, but the list is open, and more candidates will be added for future consideration. Surveying and analysing the most commonly used RDLs will mean we are able to give guidance to organization when mapping their existing RDLs to the NDT. Next steps The Survey papers have now been published. We encourage you to engage with the National Digital Twin Programme to find out more about the approach, the results of the survey and the Assessments of the TLOs and Industry Data Models & RDLs. You can find these resources under the 'Files' tab. The Programme is now in the process of gathering their recommendations for the 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.
  19. If you missed the free webinar last month on how to generate OIRs and critical success factors from an executive strategy join me again on Monday morning. its 1.5 hrs of presentation and 1.5 hrs of workshop. please feel free to attend just the presentation. There is an optional session the following day taking in Function Information Requirements and their impact on delivering digital assets. Sign up and attend what you can! https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/2513815/F72E835712666BB4969CC328281F134D?partnerref=SocialMedia see you all then Iain
  20. 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.
  21. BIM Twin What is What if Files Queries Physical Real Asset Function Time stamp Time graph Transaction Enterprise Outputs Outcomes As Designed? As Intended? (for discussion) I wanted to share some early thinking with you, and please consider this a consultation not a formal announcement of direction. Following the latency post from @DRossiter87 and some conversations with people in different markets. I have found a useful framework to separate BIM from Digital Twins. There is a caveat with the following, this is not a statement of which is better. Both BIM and Digital Twinning have key benefits. Much like a chef has a collection of knives for different use cases. The same is true for BIM and twins. BIM as defined in the standards available sets out how data can be procured in a transactional model. This is where a client can set the information requirements for a supply chain to author and deliver information for a particular purpose. The table above sets out a series of differences and I will work through them one by one to explain what they mean and how they differ. 1. What is vs What if A BIM will tell you what something is, it cannot answer the question what if. The IMF sets out a pathway for askign questions of datasets. For example “What if I turned this value off?”. 2. Files vs Queries Very similar to the above, but with a view on functionality. The BIM sets out the container of the data and the files within. These files include CSV files or a SQL databases for example. The query in the twin space is an operation on the dataset or file. 3. Physical vs Real The BIM space treats physical elements as assets. Those assets would be on some form of register which lists 'tangible things'. Those assets generally develop over time in line with the level of information need. In the twin space this representation of the physical is abstracted up into its function. The real aspect is how the object interacts with reality. This interaction is physically within the system (a pump pumping water) and is broader service / organisational purpose (the pump provides a minimum pressure to supply water to customers and is linked to the revenue stream that, for example, is charged by the cubic meter of water.) 4. Asset vs Function Related to the above, the asset focus is purely on the performance specification and range of the asset's performance in isolation. The twin considers the function the asset plays. @Simon Scott explained a great example of this. The function of a level crossing is to ensure two types ofmobile infrastrcture do not collide (please correct me if im wrong here simon), there is a difference between asking for a level crossing (an asset) and asking for two infrastructures not to collide (a function) are fundementally two differnt questions. 5. Time stamp vs time graph Time in BIM is a time stamp against a transaction or digital snapshot of an asset. The twin aspect is the time graph, the status of a person over time changes. The queries from the twin understand the historical elements of an asset. For example, when searching for an actor on google it can piece together data of that person from a series of datasets that allows a comprehensive history of that a actor to be rendered. 6. Transaction vs Enterprise The BIM standards describe a process for multiple parties to transact data. They set out how data can be procured, authored and delivered as a series of transactions. The twin represents an enterprise view where data flows with purpose aligned with agreed outcomes. 7. Outputs vs outcomes BIM through its focus on transactions and assets can only provide insight on outputs, where twins focus on functions and enterprise it can provide insights on outcomes. 8. 3D Rendition vs Abstracted BIM requires a 3D rendition of an asset as set out in the level of information need / requirements. For the digital twin, and to use @DRossiter87example of a BMS, there is no need for a full representation of the asset. All that is required is the data needed in order to execute a decision, either for a machine or human. Of course, if the what if statement includes a spatial requirement a boundary condition for the geometry is required. A non-geographic example, is that the BMS wants to know which rooms to heat for the day for a school, a key input could be the lesson plans from the teaching staff to understand occupancy of a space. On the other hand, a geographic example is if the AHU requires a filter replacement and the plantroom is tight for space. There would be a need for a physical representation of the space. I welcome the discussion and feedack!
  22. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published over 22,000 formal standards supporting the dissemination of good practice to a range of sectors from agriculture to retail. Due to the breadth of topics covered it is difficult to conceive of a domain which hasn’t been at least partially standardized. In fact, as of 2019, ISO had four standards published which referenced digital twins: ISO 14033 (Quantitative Environmental Information) ISO 15704 (Requirements for enterprise-referencing architectures) ISO 18101-1 (Oil and Gas interoperability) ISO 30146 (Smart City ICT Indicators) And, more interestingly, one of these saw the first definition for a digital twin included within an ISO document: Within ISO, there are several requirements which need to be conformed to when producing a definition. These requirements are outlined within two standards: ISO 10241-1 (general requirements and examples of presentation) ISO 704 (principles and methods) ISO 10241-1, which covers the structure of a term including how to structure a definition and referencing; and ISO 704, which covers the principles of doing terminology work. These standards state that when developing a definition, it should: Be a single phrase specifying the concept and, if possible, representing that concept within a larger system; The digital twin definition from ISO/TS 18001 does so by referencing other key terms such as digital assets and services. This provides a relationship to other related terms. In doing so, this definition makes digital twin a type of digital asset being used to create value. Be general enough to cover the use of the term elsewhere; This definition is specific enough to capture what a digital twin is in a generalist sense, while also being sufficiently generic that the same definition can be used in other standards. This is vital to achieve a harmonization of concepts across a disparate suite of documentation. Not include any requirements; and In addition, this definition doesn’t say what needs to be done for something to be considered a digital twin. This is important as definitions are meant to inform, not instruct. Be able to substitute the term within a sentence. Finally, and possibly the most challenging requirement, a definition needs to be able to substitute for the term within a sentence. For example: This exemplar organization utilizes a digital twin to improve the effectiveness of their predicative maintenance systems This exemplar organization utilizes a digital asset on which services can be performed that provide value to an organization to improve the effectiveness of their predicative maintenance systems Within the Gemini Principles, there is also another definition to consider: However, while this definition isn’t suitable for ISO as it wasn’t designed to meet these requirements, the inclusion of “realistic digital representation” might help enhance the ISO definition. And there we have it. The ISO definition for digital twin is, technically speaking, a good example of an ISO definition. However, does the definition sufficiently capture the correct concepts and relationships outlined within the Gemini Principles? Following the criteria above, how would you define a digital twin?
  23. DRossiter87

    Digital Twins at ISO

    This morning the development of a digital twin ISO was drawn to my attention, ISO 23247-1 https://www.iso.org/standard/75066.html Under development within TC 184 (automation systems), this standard will provide an overview and general principles of Digital Twins as part of a manufacturing framework. While a draft is not yet available, it appears that it will propose definitions and identify use cases as part of this work.
  24. Can Digital Twins be useful in Planning and Building Standards? General discussion around current research, potential use cases, initiatives, technologies & standards, etc.
  25. Standards create an avenue of consistency and opportunity for skills to be recognised and developed. In this blog Kirsten Lamb reviews the work done to date on skills in relation to the standards landscape and points to future work needed to support progress towards an information management framework and a National... View the full article
  • Create New...