Winfield, M (2020) Construction 4.0 and ISO 19650: A panacea for the digital revolution? Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 173(4), pp. 175-181. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
Construction 4.0 is, at its heart, centred around greater digitisation. The ISO 19650 series is the result of 4 years of development and is a game changer in standardising the process of digital information management. It is being actively implemented across the world, from Europe to Australia, but does it progress or hinder the agenda of Construction 4.0 or does it sit outside that movement? This paper provides a critical analysis of the operation of the ISO 19650 series in addressing the legal and contractual impacts of the digitisation of information management. It also considers the related consequences of the legal community's continuing struggle to understand the consequences and meaning of digital information management and considers how progress can be made in this area.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building information modelling (BIM); codes of practice & standards; contracts & law |
| Index terms: | construction 4.0, codes of practice, building information modelling, Australia, Europe, heart, meaning, movement, ISO |
| Subjects: | medical science and clinical practice, information systems, sociology, standards development, Geography, digital engineering, regulatory law, physical geography and landforms, health behaviours and lifestyles |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Legal Issues, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here