13/02/2020 Kick Off Workshop
Amy Whittle edited this page 2 months ago

‘A Standard for Making Construction Knowledge Discoverable’

(working title)

Construction Knowledge Task Group Kickoff Workshop at Pearson UK Ltd., London.

Date of workshop: Thursday 13th February 2020.

Important Information

The workshop was run by Dr Thomas Bartley of Barbal.

The meeting was chaired by Gregor Harvie of Designing Buildings Wiki.

Workshop Focus

The workshop was interested in what it will look like when the standard is implemented, what organisations will go through to adopt it, what changes will need to be made, and ultimately start a discussion around a standard that is adoptable in industry.

The workshop focused on four topic areas. These being:

  • What will adoption look like?;
  • Identifying internal and external stakeholders;
  • Redlines and concerns; and
  • Quick wins.

Please find the slides for the Workshop here.

The results of the workshop will be discussed individually below.

Workshop Attendees

Attendee Representing
Bartley, Tom Barbal
Chalmers, Stuart Building Research Establishment (BRE)
Collins, Carl Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE)
Cross, Steven Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA)
Hedley, Steven Chartered Institute of Architectural Technologists
Harvie, Gregor Designing Buildings Wiki
Makstutis, Geoffrey Pearson
Needle, Ed Taylor and Francis (T&F)
Nisbet, Nicholas AEC3 UK
Parkin, Andrew Stroma
Rossiter, Dan British Standards Institute (BSI)
Silver, Jonathon IHS Markit
Thanigasalam, Maria Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA)

Workshop One: “What will the world look like when the standard is adopted?”

This workshop focused on what the world will look like when the standard has been adopted.

Participants were split into three groups of four people, and discussed what the end output would look like. This was achieved taking into consideration from both an internal and external perspective.

After the group’s discussions, two participants from each group, switched to another. The original members of the each group relayed and explained their ideas to the two new participants.

All groups discussed similar ideas. This can be seen in the table below summarising the concepts discussed by each group.

CONCEPT TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3
Creating common descriptors:
  • Although we have our own separate systems, if we all describe it in a way that is common, then knowledge becomes easier to categorise, find, manage, curate and collaborate.
  • For example; tagging knowledge as law, regulation, education, guidance, policy, opinion, article, practical, notes or technical would aid this.
  • Accepted criterion for a definition or multiple definitions.
  • X X
    A description of terms, including alternative definitions and synonyms, to aid ‘searchability’. X X X
    A future creation of a classification system to make managing knowledge easier for all users:
  • With a common descriptor set then in the future a classification system may be easier to make.
  • X
    Peer review of knowledge:
  • Be able to identify whether knowledge has been peer reviewed.
  • X X
    The creation of an evolving knowledge standard, including the introduction of new concepts, disagreements on terminology and so on. X X X
    A trusted common data structure:
  • A government endorse framework, including accepted criterions for definitions.
  • Structure to ensure validity, reliability, accuracy and authenticity.
  • Validation of knowledge via a rating system or peer review.
  • X
    End user perspectives:
  • The future development of a portal for sharing knowledge information would help both practitioner and end user, detailing where data, information and knowledge is available.
  • Common descriptors - end users just need to know they’ve got the correct descriptor or classification.
  • X X X
    The development of a dynamic filtration process:
  • Knowledge being accessible in the context it is applicable.
  • To include a ‘curveball’ of not knowing what the user is trying to find.
  • Knowledge can then be curated for different audiences.
  • X X X
    Technical implications such as, a method of presenting content. X

    Workshop Two: “Identifying internal and external barriers”

    The group was again split into three groups of four, and discussed the below two points on a broad scale, and at document level.

    • Who do we need to engage?
    • What changes need to be made?

    Again, the groups discussed similar concepts. Below is a table summarising these ideas.

    CONCEPT TABLE 1 TABLE 2 TABLE 3
    A business case would need to be created:
  • A resource expense - implementation of the standard may create a mass of work at cost to current budgets.
  • Scale - large amounts of current and existing documents.
  • X X
    The linguistic nature of most queries, machines can’t understand. When you think of a question you do it in natural language. X
    If knowledge was more discoverable, then we could sell more. For example, subscriptions.
  • Would aid business case.
  • X X X
    Transferability of system to other areas of knowledge, not just construction knowledge.
  • Would aid business case.
  • X X X
    Tackling concept change and further classifications:
  • Automation of this process.
  • Manual process, or if knowledge has X tags, should it have this?
  • X X
    Human consistency in definition of terminology:
  • Education surrounding the implementation of the standard.
  • X X
    Backdating the standard to previously acquired knowledge. X
    Progressive introduction of the standard. X

    Workshop Three: “Redlines and Concerns”

    This workshop focused on any redlines and concerns participants may have. This was an individual excercise. Participants wrote these down on post-it notes which were handed in.

    Below is table summarising these redlines and concerns.

    Participant/Table Redlines and Concerns
    CC
  • Info will always be hosted by us;
  • No CIBSE information to be disseminated by parties not approved; * No diminution of value of CIBSE knowledge’;
  • No commercial products produced without CIBSE authorisation; and the
  • ‘Standard’ is open, flexible and relevant to all industries.
  • SC
  • Adoption by fellow institutions/organisations and users/practitioners;
  • Commercial considerations such as membership and commercial income;
  • Demonstrate benefits for members and wider society; and the
  • Cost: initial and ongoing.
  • JS
  • How do we demonstrate the barriers and benefits to our bosses?; and
  • Commercial issues - will this adversely affect paid for knowledge systems?
  • NS
  • Project output/outcome must encourage/ensure widespread adoption across clients and supplier eco-system, leading to the setting of common industry standards. Therefore, must have a persuasive business case for adoption (client/SC level).
  • SH
  • Out of date information;
  • How the information is categorised, e.g. professions; and the
  • Costs or time implications.
  • GH
  • Must be easy to apply and adopted by others.
  • NN
  • Must not compete with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) New Rules of Measurement (NRM), Uniclass and CoClass;
  • Must not be exclusive to construction documents;
  • Applicable to norms, definitions and descriptions;
  • Must not invalidate existing actors or resources; and
  • Positive stakeholder (network) value.
  • Table 2
  • Must not duplicate existing standards;
  • Must not expose Intellectual Property (IP)/Revenue (particularly applicable for the publishers);
  • Must be a pilot study;
  • Must be granular (British Standards Institution, BSI); and
  • Must have an international application.
  • Workshop Four: “Quick Wins”

    Participants were again split into three groups of four, and prepared ‘quick wins’ for a simpler implementation.

    Participants ‘Quick Win’
    Table 1
  • Create an end vision, so you could work your way backwards.
  • If development was kept simple, then it would be easy for practitioners and end users to follow.
  • An update of the Uniclass 2015 form of information table. This would lessen the inconsistencies between the labelling of knowledge and the integration of civil engineering and building.
  • Receive endorsement from large client bodies. If large client bodies contributed, then smaller client bodies would follow suit.
  • Table 2
  • Create a classification system by finding existing classification systems and merge them. This would allow for a quick close with little effort.
  • Table 3
  • Use URL plain language description. Create an application to identify key phrases in the URL.
  • Final Details

    1. The next workshop will be w/c 13th April 2020.
    2. An email will be sent to arrange participation in an interview, lasting a maximum of 30 minutes.
    3. The group also suggested further contacts regarding the development of the standard.
    © Barbal Ltd Generated by Barbal - Cloud software for developing and maintaining technical documents - visit www.barbal.co