BIMINAM AS BUILT INFORMATION MEETING, 21-05-2026
Purpose of the Session
The session focused on refining an agreed industry definition of “As Built Information” and developing a practical framework that could eventually support:
- clearer industry understanding
- improved handover processes
- alignment with ISO 19650 and existing standards
- future standardisation through bodies such as British Standards Institution (BSI)
The group explored how to define “As Built Information” in a way that works across:
- new build projects
- refurbishment and remediation works
- small works and maintenance activities
- operational and existing buildings.
Key Themes & Discussion Points
- Strong push to align with existing standards
A major theme throughout the meeting was:
“Use existing standards as building blocks rather than inventing new ones.”
Participants repeatedly referenced:
- ISO 19650
- Building Regulations definitions
- CDM definitions
- existing suitability and status codes
There was broad support for:
- aligning terminology to existing frameworks
- reducing ambiguity
- avoiding creation of conflicting definitions.
- Splitting “definition” from “specification”
Following feedback from BSI representatives, the group agreed that the work should distinguish between:
Definition
A short, high-level statement explaining what “As Built Information” is.
Specification
Detailed requirements covering:
- validation
- level of information need
- accuracy
- evidence
- digital formats
- maintainable assets
- safety-critical information.
This approach was seen as more compatible with future standardisation.
- “All information” versus “relevant information”
A significant debate centred on whether “As Built Information” should mean:
- “all information handed over”
or - only information that is relevant and usable.
Concerns raised included:
- information overload
- irrelevant procurement/design history
- ambiguity in interpretation
Several participants argued that:
the information should be proportionate, usable and aligned to operational needs rather than simply “everything.”
- Focus on trust, assurance and validation
A recurring concern was:
Can the information actually be trusted?
Discussion highlighted that:
- “as-built” does not automatically mean accurate
- inherited drawings and legacy data are often unreliable
- different assets require different levels of validation
Participants proposed concepts such as:
- “Assured Asset Information”
- trusted data
- validation and verification processes
- evidencing testing and commissioning.
The discussion reinforced that:
- hidden or safety-critical elements require stronger evidence
- assurance processes must be proportionate to risk.
- Existing buildings and legacy information
A major practical challenge identified was how the framework applies to:
- existing buildings
- refurbishment projects
- remediation works
- incomplete historic records.
Key issues included:
- stale or outdated information
- reused legacy drawings
- unclear responsibility for validating inherited data
- lack of historical digital records.
Participants stressed that:
the “as-built” record should reflect the actual current state of the building, not simply recycle historic assumptions.
- Responsibility versus trust
Several contributors emphasised that:
- “trust” is not a legal term
- responsibility and accountability are more important.
A key conclusion was that:
- information requirements must be clearly defined at tender/specification stage
- roles and responsibilities need to be allocated explicitly
- information management must become a recognised deliverable within projects.
- Information models rather than document bundles
The meeting reinforced a shift away from:
- static handover documents
toward - structured information models and digital containers.
Discussion highlighted the importance of:
- metadata
- traceability
- status codes
- relationships between information containers
- lifecycle continuity into the Asset Information Model (AIM).
This aligns strongly with wider Golden Thread and digital asset management principles.
- Applicability to all project sizes
The group strongly agreed that the principles should apply to:
- major projects
- small works
- maintenance activities
- simple asset replacements (e.g. boiler replacement).
However, there was recognition that:
- the process must remain scalable and proportionate
- smaller contractors and FM teams also need workable approaches.
- Importance of operational continuity
Several participants raised concerns about:
- loss of information during changes in ownership or FM providers
- poor maintenance of records after handover
- lack of lifecycle governance.
This reinforced that “As Built Information” should not be viewed as:
- a one-off handover package
but rather as: - part of a living operational information ecosystem.
Key Insights from the Chat
The chat discussion reinforced several themes, including:
- alignment with ISO 19650 terminology and Level of Information Need (LOIN)
- distinction between “As Built Information” and the ongoing Golden Thread
- need to use legally recognised definitions such as “building work” where possible
- concerns around ambiguity between CDM and Building Regulations terminology
- importance of status, accuracy, completeness, consistency and timeliness of information
- recognition that maintainable assets may require different levels of detail depending on criticality and operational context.
Overall Conclusion
The session marked significant progress toward creating a more consistent and industry-aligned understanding of “As Built Information.”
The emerging direction is toward:
- a concise, standards-aligned definition
- supported by scalable specifications covering validation, assurance and operational usability
- integrated into structured digital information models rather than isolated document sets.
A central conclusion was that success depends not only on defining information, but also on:
- assigning responsibility
- ensuring traceability
- validating accuracy
- and maintaining information throughout the building lifecycle.
Ultimately, the discussion reinforced that “As Built Information” is not simply about recording what was constructed — it is about creating trusted, usable and maintainable information that supports safe operation, compliance and long-term asset management.