Useful BIM handover information starts with the needs of the people who will run the building. Agreeing the brief and testing an early exchange can help clients resolve gaps before completion
A maintenance engineer needs to identify a pump and find its service instructions. The model is available, the handover folders are full, yet the information does not lead clearly from the asset on site to the right document. A large delivery of files has left a simple operational task unresolved.
For a client commissioning a building information modelling (BIM) handover, that is a useful problem to tackle at the briefing stage. The operator needs to explain what staff will do with the information, so the delivery team can organise and test it before completion.
The IMI Framework, provided by BSI and nima, brings together standards and guidance covering information management during delivery and operation. The client’s practical challenge is to translate those principles into requirements that suit the asset and the people responsible for it.
Write the brief around an operational task
Take the pump example. The maintenance team needs to locate the equipment, confirm which item it is, find the relevant instructions and record the work completed. Each step points to information the handover must provide.
That might include an asset identifier, location, manufacturer reference and document link. Working through the task with the operator also reveals where a field that seems obvious to the design team may be unclear to someone using a different system.
A broad requirement to provide all relevant asset information leaves those details open to interpretation. Naming the required records, their purpose and when they are needed gives the supplier and receiver a clearer basis for agreement.
The brief should also identify who will review the information. Discovering at completion that the intended user has never seen the proposed structure leaves little room to resolve problems.
Test a small exchange early
An early sample lets the operator test the information in the receiving system. Can the records be imported? Do the identifiers make sense? Can staff follow the links using the access they will actually have after handover?
The Framework’s resources include material on IFC, COBie, information protocols and facilities management. They can help the team agree on formats and responsibilities, but a format choice alone does not ensure the contents are accurate or usable.
If the sample exposes a problem, the requirement can be clarified before it is repeated across hundreds of records. Keeping a record of the agreed change helps suppliers understand what the receiver expects from later exchanges.
Check whether the record matches the asset
Completeness and accuracy need separate attention. A spreadsheet can have every required cell filled and still refer to the wrong piece of equipment. A document link can open successfully for the supplier while relying on an account the operator does not hold.
For an illustrative review of 20 records, the team could check unique identifiers, require fields and working links, then trace selected records to the corresponding installed assets. The result would show what was checked and which issues need correcting.
The size and selection of any sample matter. Twenty satisfactory records do not demonstrate that the entire dataset is correct. The extent of checking needs to be agreed based on the information and the risks involved.
Resolve changes while the delivery team is available
A late equipment substitution can affect the asset schedule, drawing and maintenance information. If different parties update those independently, the operator may inherit conflicting versions.
An agreed correction process assigns an owner to each issue and identifies who can accept the resolution. Superseded records should remain distinguishable from the information the operator is expected to use.
Those arrangements need to sit within the project’s appointments and contract. Linking an information review to payment or completion requires explicit agreement; the review itself does not alter those obligations.
Plan for the next replacement
The information will change after occupation as equipment is serviced, modified and replaced. Naming the team responsible for updates is therefore part of handover preparation.
The operator needs to know where the accepted records are held, who can access them and how an amendment will be checked. When the pump is eventually replaced, its successor should enter a record that people already understand how to maintain. That gives the next maintenance engineer a better chance of finding the answer the first time.
