BIMINAM O&M AND H&S WORKSTREAM MEETING, 26-03-2026
Date: 26 March 2026 (Afternoon Session)
Purpose of the Session
The session aimed to move the O&M and H&S workstream from discussion to delivery, focusing on defining “what good looks like” for Golden Thread information, improving handover quality, and exploring how the group can collaboratively produce practical, reusable solutions—potentially as a commercial offering.
Key Themes from the Transcript
1. Reframing the Golden Thread – beyond compliance
A central theme was the need to reposition the Golden Thread as:
- not just a legal requirement
- but a practical, value-driven framework
Concerns were raised that:
- industry interpretation is drifting toward minimum compliance
- multiple interpretations of the “Golden Thread” are emerging
The group emphasised that it should instead represent:
- the information required to operate buildings safely and effectively
- a holistic, lifecycle-based system, not fragmented regulatory outputs
2. Fragmentation of information requirements
The discussion highlighted overlapping and disconnected requirements:
- Health & Safety File
- Fire & Emergency File
- Regulation 38 information
- Golden Thread datasets
Although often containing the same core information, they are:
- structured differently
- requested separately
- inconsistently delivered
This creates duplication, inefficiency and confusion across stakeholders.
3. Defining “what good looks like”
A key objective of the group is to:
- establish a baseline standard for asset information
- define minimum viable information (not maximum overload)
This includes:
- identifying critical data needed for safety and operations
- avoiding unnecessary or unused information
- ensuring outputs are fit for purpose
The group is positioning itself as the industry authority to define this standard, rather than relying on government direction.
4. Scenario-based and task-based approach
A strong consensus emerged around using real-world scenarios to define requirements:
Examples:
- locating an isolation valve during a leak (6-hour delay case)
- fire door compliance and maintenance
- operational failures due to poor commissioning
This approach enables:
- identification of required data inputs and outputs
- mapping of tasks, responsibilities and processes
- practical validation of information needs
The principle:
Define information based on what people need to do, not what systems can produce.
5. Automation and AI – targeted, not generic
AI and automation are seen as key enablers, but only when:
- applied to specific tasks and use cases
- supported by structured, validated data
The group is moving toward:
- breaking workflows into discrete tasks
- automating repeatable processes
- maintaining expert oversight (not black-box AI)
6. Manufacturer-led, machine-readable information
A major shift proposed is:
- moving O&M information upstream to manufacturers
- ensuring data is machine-readable at source
This avoids:
- manual compilation errors
- incorrect data selection by contractors
- inconsistent documentation
The goal is a single source of truth, with:
- contractor-added installation data
- validated, structured outputs
7. Standardised questions and information structures
The group has developed a structured methodology based on six core questions (e.g. risk, performance, required data, procedures, competence).
Applied to assets (e.g. fire doors), this produces:
- highly detailed, structured datasets
- repeatable and scalable information models
This represents a potential industry standard template for asset information.
8. Early definition of requirements (critical gap)
A recurring issue is failure to define requirements at project outset:
- Asset Information Requirements (AIR) are unclear or absent
- Designers and contractors “guess” required data
- Validation occurs too late
The solution:
- define requirements at design stage
- enable automated validation during delivery
- reduce downstream rework
9. Collaboration and potential commercial model
The group explored forming a collaborative delivery model:
- bringing together subject matter experts (SMEs)
- developing tested, system-level solutions
- offering these to clients as a coordinated service
This could evolve into a commercialised ecosystem, where:
- contributions are recognised
- expertise is structured and deployed collectively
Key Insights from the Chat
- Strong emphasis on client responsibility to define clear information requirements
- Need for standardised, machine-readable formats (e.g. IDS, GS1 traceability)
- Proposal for HAZOP-style processes to manage operational risk
- Recognition of liability challenges in verifying O&M information
- Importance of involving duty holders across lifecycle (designers, contractors, operators)
- Call for simplicity and usability to ensure adoption
- Concerns about data security and AI governance
- Interest in aligning with SFG20 and regulatory compliance frameworks
Overall Conclusion
The session marked a clear transition from discussion to action.
The core challenge is not the absence of information, but the lack of structure, clarity and alignment across stakeholders.
To address this, the group is converging on a model that:
- defines clear, minimal, task-driven information requirements
- standardises and structures data at source
- uses automation and AI selectively and intelligently
- enables collaborative, expert-led delivery
Ultimately, the Golden Thread will only succeed if it becomes a practical, operational system that delivers measurable value, rather than a fragmented compliance exercise.