By David Shepherd, Product Manager (Data & Construction Programme Enablers)
Articles 1 and 2 established one key conclusion, viz. the UK never had a BIM problem, but it did have an SME adoption problem.
It is because SMEs generate most of the structured data in a project that failing to empower them became the single point of failure for the entire national BIM strategy.
To understand why, we need to revisit the assumptions that were embedded in the 2011 BIM Working Party Strategy Paper and the 2011 Government Construction Strategy (GCS). Both documents relied on a simple economic rationale:
- Tier 1 suppliers would adopt BIM because they had the scale and incentives to do so.
- SMEs in the supply chain would follow because Tier 1s would need structured data from them.
- A national standards framework (BS 1192 → PAS 1192 → ISO 19650) would provide the common language and processes.
- And “push‑pull” demand signals (e.g., legal protocol, client requirements for COBie, data drops, and digital handover) would align everyone.
On paper, this was elegant. In practice, it unravelled at the exact point where structured asset data should be generated: the lower tiers.
The Missing Capability: A Simple, Zero‑Friction Payload Tool
If you want structured data, you must make structured data effortless for the people who create it.
This is the turning point of the entire series:
The UK doesn’t need more standards. Instead, the UK needs a simple way for SMEs to generate structured data.
So, imagine if every subcontractor had a lightweight, mobile-friendly, non-BIM-looking interface that allowed them to:
- Build asset registers progressively, not at the end of the project.
- Capture asset data during installation, using drop‑downs and photos. N.B. no BIM literacy required.
- Use trade-oriented asset types (e.g., MEP, Fire, Electrical, Fit-Out, etc.) This avoids time-consuming scrolling through long lists of irrelevant asset types
- Record installer’s evidence (serials, labels, commissioning sheets) that protects them commercially.
- Prioritise statutory evidence: Regulation 38 Fire Safety Information; Electrical Installation Certificate (EIC); Gas Safe commissioning certificate; Written Scheme of Examination (WSE) for pressure vessels; CE/UKCA Declaration/Commissioning tests for lifts; Ventilation flow test certificates; Acoustic test certificate; EPC, SBEM/BRUKL output/airtightness test; Safety Case File for HRB.
- Guide installers through a 7‑step assurance sequence that guarantees accuracy and completeness.
- Export clean data (Excel, PDF, SharePoint lists) ready for Tier 1 review and transfer to CAFM.
Previously, structured data was never supported by a defined assurance chain, omissions, substitutions and incorrect data proliferated. However, in Article 4, I will outline how an embedded seven‑step assurance sequence (from design schedules to installer capture to commissioning walkdowns) finally makes payload delivery reliable and repeatable.
In product management, we use the term ‘minimum viable’ to describe this dataset because it the most essential ‘no frills’ collection of useful ‘as installed’ asset data that could be required of SMEs (principally, MEP Installers & Commissioning Engineers who install 70 to 80% of maintainable assets in any building).
Why SMEs Are the ‘Beachhead’ for a New Digital Construction Era
In Article 1, I referred to Geoffrey A. Moore’s Crossing the Chasm, explaining that, while the late majority (representing a third of any market) are key to mainstream adoption, they are conservative in waiting for innovations to become mature, proven, and easy to use.
Most SMEs belong to the late majority. They are BIM-averse because, for them, the technology is too complex, too costly, or too abstract.
Geoffrey A. Moore’s remedy for this challenge would be to identify and focus on a niche segment among SMEs (e.g., MEP Installers & Commissioning Engineers) who would welcome an easy-to-use tool for capturing and configuring key asset data that, if omitted, would prevent them from getting paid.
For MEP installers and Commissioning Engineers, the answer to the ‘What’s in it for me?’ question would be: “to avoid the end‑of‑project O&M chaos in which the lack of handover documentation and statutory evidence delays their payment and exposes them to commercial risk.”
Therefore, they would welcome a freemium, no‑training-required, no‑BIM‑jargon, productivity‑oriented tool that captures essential asset information in plain language and exports it as structured data automatically.
This tool becomes the lever that:
- Reinforces the “pull” in the push‑pull strategy
- Creates social proof across trades
- Gives Tier 1s reliable data
- Gives clients the operational benefits that PwC validated
- Makes ISO 19650 meaningful again by fulfilling its payload gap
If this was implemented, I would reckon that, within 18 to 24 months, the UK would have more structured asset data than it produced in the previous 15 years combined. And they client ROI would be in line with PwC Benefits predictions.
Nevertheless, alongside this app, a defined assurance chain is needed, without which neither more standards, nor further guidance on container-level processes could ensure production of reliable asset data.
What Article 4 Will Cover
Article 4 will outline the SME Payload Platform architecture, including the onboarding flow, data model, assurance process, SharePoint integration, federated schema, and the rationale for a freemium go‑to‑market strategy.
It will also introduce this assurance chain, which must be embedded directly into the SME payload platform. This technical architecture will industrialise asset information collation and eliminate the omissions, unrecorded substitutions, and guesswork that have historically crippled SME participation in COBie delivery.
Read next: HBC Construction expands digital construction capability – Build in Digital
Are you a building professional? Sign up for a FREE MEMBERSHIP to upload news stories, post job vacancies, and connect with colleagues on our secure social feed.
