BS EN ISO 19650 Part 2 vs Part 3

Workflow comparison

My research shows that BS EN ISO 19650 Part 2 (delivery) and Part 3 (operation) have 74.24% similarity.

To put it another way, both processes share the same terminology, clause numbers, and content.

The resemblance is not a mistake but intentional, because the AEC industry’s project-based and operations-based communities, which are largely separate, are hesitant to use a single standard, two standards were published.

To me, it seems that project-specific features (delivery), as well as some asset management/FM-specific features, are already included in BS EN ISO 19650-3 (operation).

What I mean by this is that I can deliver a project successfully using BS EN ISO 19650-3 guidance instead of part 2.

Part 3 is my preferred standard due to the inclusion of OIR and AIR, as well as a better authorization process (clause 5.6.6 to 5.8), which is a more realistic representation of the process in practice. (Step 5.7.3 in Part 2 is not what happens in reality)

Or the inclusion of clause 5.5.4, which I believe is also necessary during the operational
phase.

What do you think?

Please leave a comment if you’d like to know how I arrived at the 74.24% similarity between the two processes shown in the graph below.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *