Opinion
ISO 19650 guide takes jargon to new depths
27 October 2020
ISO 19650, the world standard for using BIM, is a great UK achievement... except for one area where it leaves me gasping, taking jargon to new depths of obscurity. Richard Saxon CBE, chairman of JCT Ltd
Richard Saxon is concerned about the ambiguities created by ISO 19650 and calls for language closer matched to the reality of roles in construction contracting.
ISO 19650, the world standard for using BIM, is a great UK achievement. The guidance produced by the UK BIM Alliance on how to use the standard is also excellent, except for one area where it leaves me gasping, taking jargon to new depths of obscurity.
The ISO defines those using the standard as 'Appointing or Appointed Parties' (APs). APs are clearly clients. Those directly appointed by clients are called 'Lead Appointed Parties' (LAPs). Those appointed by the LAPs are called APs. This suits the traditional model of contracting, where the main contractor will be a LAP and their subcontractors will be APs.
However, for consultants it falls apart. Each profession directly appointed by the client is a LAP and if they have subconsultants, those are APs. However, each LAP is also an AP, responsible for the professional service they themselves provide. That service is called a Task and provides a Task Information Delivery Plan for what it will do and by when. Far from a LAP consultant being the team leader, they are probably one of many such. There is no role as 'Lead Lead' in the standard.
If a contract is delivered by construction management, the same anarchy reigns. Every team member is directly contracted to the client, so all are LAPs. Of course, they are also APs for the task they fulfil. The construction manager is Lead Lead, although that role is not on the chart. As Gilbert and Sullivan explain: "When everybody’s somebody, then no-one’s anybody."
To cap all the confusion, the initials that people will use to convey these roles are ambiguous. AP can mean both the client and a task player. LAP means directly appointed, not a leader, other than of themselves, unless they have other players as subcontractors or subconsultants. At the very least we should call APs 'Task Appointed Parties' or TAPs.
I have complained about this linguistic farrago to the UK BIM Alliance. They see the point, but say that the standard is written now, so that’s it. I hope the UK guidance will mature and use terms that relate better to common parlance. Leaders should be in the lead. Directly Appointed Parties could be DAPs. Task players could be TAPs. Until then, I remain a disappointed party.
Richard Saxon CBE is a client adviser on BIM at Deploi and chair of JCT Ltd.
UK BIM Alliance's response: "We appreciate this feedback and will consider it in detail in our next review of guidance. However, we would like to direct all readers to ISO 19650 Guidance Part 2 and Part A that cover the issues being raised here about different contracting arrangements. These guides also provide examples to clarify the arrangements for consultants as well as for contractors."
Comments
if you know me Richard, you will know that I am not a fan of these high-level terms. But as I also say, if it's not clear or its being used incorrectly, get rid of it and say what you mean by not using these terms.
IF you or your client has decided to use these terms in your contracts and plans then the fault is on you if they are not clear.
These are just anchor terms to convey the standard. It's for those that read and articulate the standard on behalf of their organizations and projects and its their job to resolve the issue around how these anchor terms are interpreted and then decide to either adopt these terms or stick to your own. if they are unclear, its your job to fix them. If your contract isn't clear who is doing what because you decided to use Lead Appointed Party, then you have failed to clarify. The ISO absolutely does not state you have to incorporate these terms into your project plans or even your organisation. For example, I absolutely do not adopt all these terms in my organisation any more than I did with 1192.
Its no different to the other terms like BIM and CDE. if you place into your contract "We will use XYZ as our CDE solution" rather than just saying "All project information between ORG-A and ORG-B shall use XYZ and follow the process defined in the project management plan" then you have decided to adopt anchor terminology to do the talking for you rather than just saying what you mean. This leaves it open to interpretation.
I always say organisations and projects should not be following ISO19650. Organisations should articulate ISO19650, and then using the ISO9001 principles (as inc in 19650), translate this into their governance and then organisations and projects follow those business governances.
John Ford | Posted: October 27th 2020If part of that process has been you have decided to adopt all these anchor terms, but not ratified the definition, then there has been a gross error in uptake.
I appreciate you’re speaking from a UK perspective Richard, but there is someone else like you complaining about the exact same thing within their own country. For example, in the USA, they use the term ‘Owner’, not Client, and very few countries use ‘Employer’. Hence, terms like Appointing Party defined within the ISO 19650 series reflect the consensus of the ISO working group. The way around this is issue is the use of a National Foreword. If you take a look at BS EN ISO 19650-1’s National Foreword, you will see that the terms you are referring to have been mapped to the UK equivalent terms (as best we could). Each country is actively encouraged to the same. When aligning with the ISO 19650 series in the UK, you are therefore able to reference the UK equivalent terms in the documentation and contracts – you’re just not permitted to change the definition, but can add clarification if required. That said, I still don’t think this will resolve the issue as the ‘reality of roles in construction contracting’ is that they are pretty much inconsistent across each form of contract.
Paul Shillcock | Posted: October 28th 2020Methinks everyone doth protest too much.
JOHNEYNON. | Posted: October 28th 2020Ever since the start of UK BIM in 2011, the language and terminology has always been a barrier to implementation.
I can imagine the response to asking a bricklayer to look at her TIDP!
How many terms does the Bond Bryan Dictionary run to these days? I rest my case.
Exeunt stage left - weeping and gnashing of teeth.
The term “Appointing Party” did not exist at ISO level before being invented by the authoring team of ISO 19650 and provides only two results from the ISO online browsing platform, Terms and Definitions both relating to ISO 19650.
The term “Client” provides some 299 number ISO results from the same platform, including ISO 6707-2 Buildings and civil engineering works — Vocabulary — Part 2: Contract and communication terms.
The term “Employer” similarly provides some 20 results within ISO standards of which 12 of these references are provided by ISO/TC 59, the same Technical committee that ISO 19650 sits under.
It is therefore somewhat ironic that the ISO 19650 series has turned information management from a standard for collaboration into a silo that exists outside of the confines of normal Design and Construction. The question to ask is why does ISO 19650 not conform to standard ISO terminology?
However, lets not get deflected by the terms and definitions issue. What is more worrying is the UK BIM Framework interpretation within the guidance created with multiple Lead Appointed Parties and the consequence of chaos prevailing, as outlined by Richard in this article. Richard is not alone in recognizing the possible consequences of the UK BIM Framework approach, but should be commended for raising this.
ISO 19650-1 clearly demonstrates within figure 8 a single Lead Appointed Party per stage and this is consistent across the ISO 19650 standards. The adoption method being proposed in other parts of the world follows the UK PAS 1192-2 approach with the requirements for a single Lead Consultant or Design Lead and the benefits this brings to a collaborative environment. Clarity of ownership and clear lines of responsibility are a must if we are to improve the way the industry works.
Paul Oakley | Posted: October 30th 2020Add a comment