Buchholz, M and Lützkendorf, T (2023) European building passports: Developments, challenges and future roles. Buildings & Cities, 4(1), pp. 902-919. ISSN 2632-6655
Abstract
Throughout the life cycle of buildings, data are created, collected, processed, exchanged and used to support decision-making and operations. However, the construction and real estate actors often struggle with managing data successfully, mainly because existing data resources are scattered across a large number of changing building owners and stakeholders. The goal of adopting and using building information management tools (BIMTs) that store, exchange and manage building-related data is to overcome information silos and bring together data about a particular building. BIMTs, such as a building passport (BP), an electronic building file or a digital building logbook (DBL), follow a holistic approach by serving as data repositories. Although the underlying idea is not new, the topic recently gained wider attention at the interface of politics, academia and real estate industry. The current state of BIMTs, and in particular the role of BPs, is analysed to help understand the main driving forces, challenges and opportunities in BP development.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building data; building information management; building logbook; building passport; building stock; construction data; digital tools |
| Index terms: | building information management, politics, real estate, building stock, decision-making, holistic approach, academia, life cycle, owner |
| Subjects: | political science, value management, asset management, business, sociology, information systems, decision analysis, real estate economics, educational institutions |
| Topics: | Risk Management, Digital Applications, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Project Management, Urban Studies, Governance, Education |
| 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