The draft for the new ISO 19650-2 is out, and it’s clear the industry is shifting gears. As we move from the 2018 version into this 2026 update, the focus has moved away from “BIM” as a 3D modeling exercise and toward Information Management (IM) as a lifecycle necessity.
But as we sit in the trenches of Tier 1 contracting and lead design, the question remains: is this a step forward, or just more paperwork? Here is a breakdown of the draft sections and what they mean for us in the real world.
The Section-by-Section Breakdown
The DIS (Draft International Standard) reorganizes the workflow into a more fluid process. The goal is to stop treating the “Delivery Phase” as a vacuum and start treating it as the foundation for the “Operational Phase.”
Clause 5.1: Assessment and Need
The draft doubles down on the Appointing Party’s responsibility. It’s no longer enough to just “want BIM.” Clients are now expected to define their information needs based on the entire lifecycle of the asset.
- Key Change: A stronger link between project requirements and long-term asset management goals.
Clause 5.2 & 5.3: From Tender to Response
This is where the terminology shifts hit home. The draft proposes moving away from “BIM” titles toward “Information Management.” Most notably, the Pre-Appointment BIM Execution Plan (BEP) is set to become the Information Production Plan (IPP).
- Key Change: The focus shifts from how we model to what information we produce.
Clause 5.4 & 5.5: Appointment and Mobilization
The “Information Management Team” is now more formally defined. It’s not just a role for one person; it’s a function that must be governed. Mobilization now puts a massive emphasis on testing the Common Data Environment (CDE) before a single file is uploaded.
Clause 5.6 & 5.7: Production and Delivery
The draft introduces a 9-step unified production process. It attempts to standardise how information is checked, approved, and authorized, aligning more closely with ISO 22014 (for library objects) and ISO 22057 (for sustainability data).
Clause 5.8: Project Close-out
The “handover” is being rebranded as a “bridge.” Instead of a frantic data dump at the end of construction, the 2026 version expects a seamless transition into ISO 19650-3 (Operations).
The Reality Check: Views from the Trenches
While the intentions behind the new DIS are noble, those of us working on site every day see a different side of the coin. Here is a review of the current sentiment, incorporating my own frustrations with the “standard” cycle.
1. The Fatigue of Constant Change
The AEC industry moves slowly—painfully slowly. We still have teams referring to “BIM Level 2” from the old PAS 1192 days. This isn’t because they are lazy; it’s because AEC projects take years to finish. If a project tendered under the 2018 standards, that’s what the team uses until the keys are handed over.
Constantly renaming key documents (like moving from BEP to IPP) risks doing more harm than good. Will this actually fix the “Golden Thread,” or will it just lead to another round of expensive consultants and confused sub-contractors?
2. The Burden on the Client
The new standards put a massive emphasis on the Appointing Party/Client. However, many clients work on shoestring budgets and don’t have the facilities to manage their own assets, let alone a complex Digital Twin or IoT sensor network.
We need a standardized, public-service-style FM system—something akin to a universal COBie standard that every FM software accepts by default. It’s easy to be a “backseat driver” and criticize, but until we have a baseline toolset for clients, these high-level standards remain out of reach for many.
3. The CDE Interoperability Crisis
The draft talks about “information silos,” yet we are still trapped in “CDE lock-in.” Currently, I cannot export a file from my CDE to a client’s CDE without losing the critical metadata. It’s a manual “download and upload” exercise unless you pay for bespoke API integrations.
We need a system like the banking industry. Banks use open-source systems to transfer money seamlessly between different brands. We need the same for “Information.” A CDE should be a utility, not a walled garden.
Summary: Good or Bad?
| The Good (The Intentions) | The Bad (The Reality in the Trenches) |
|---|---|
| Lifecycle Integration: Connects design/build data to 60+ years of maintenance. | Standard Burnout: Constant renaming (BEP to IPP) confuses teams still using PAS 1192 terms. |
| Unified Language: Moves away from “BIM” to include non-modelling disciplines. | The Client Gap: Most Appointing Parties lack the budget or tech to manage “Digital Twins.” |
| Validation Focus: Clearer steps for ensuring data is “fit for purpose.” | CDE Silos: We lack a “Banking-style” open system; moving data between CDEs causes metadata loss. |
| Operational Readiness: Ensures the “Golden Thread” doesn’t snap at handover. | Implementation Friction: High-level standards don’t fix the lack of universal FM templates/tools. |
Ultimately, we should be pushing for enforced systems—baseline templates, CDE protocols, and open-source tools—rather than just more high-level documentation. The DIS 19650-2 is a great map, but we’re still waiting for someone to pave the road.
Coulter BIM Information Management 
Leave a comment