Dean Douglas of BIM Academy examines the ins and outs of the relationship between digital twins and BIM – and explains why we need to go beyond the idea of “Building Information Modelling” to unlock the potential of both
Since its introduction to the built environment, the digital twin has fought for space with other prevalent innovations in the industry. Of course, chief among those is BIM.
BIM has long been the epitome of the built environment’s endeavour to spur innovation and promote growth within the sector. But it continues to raise a few questions around how digital twins and BIM relate, with it often being asked if digital twin is just another word for BIM?
What if we do not need a concrete relationship to be defined?
Have you considered that while the ins and outs of the relationship between digital twin and BIM might still be blurry and ill defined, it doesn’t mean that we have hit an impasse. There are still synergies that can be had and benefits to be achieved through their interaction – but we should not assume they do the same job!
First and foremost, digital twin does not seek to replace or rebrand BIM and scaremongering to such an effect does not aid the industry in innovating. What we really do not wish to do is diminish the years of hard work, even harder fought for engagement, and the painstaking gains that have been achieved in the industry’s BIM journey.
We want to be able to capitalise on that. Learn from the challenges we faced and how we responded to them, so that we can better introduce greater innovation into the industry. Giving us some foresight of the challenges that may lie ahead with digital twin development and furnished with some knowledge of how the industry might react to the interventions that we are going to make going forward.
Does the BIM movement encompass what the digital twin strives to achieve?
There is also the question of whether the BIM movement already encompasses what digital twin strives to achieve. Might what once was referred to as BIM Level 3 be today’s digital twin? There might be elements of the truth in there, but it is imperative that we remember that there is disparity between the definitions of BIM Level 3 itself. An element of the BIM levels that was never fully realised and holds little in terms of consensus of meaning. BIM Level 3 served more to suggest to the industry that there is more innovation to be had beyond the application of BIM that will continue to unlock value.
More to the point than the idea that digital twin and BIM are the same thing, there are already those who question whether BIM, as in “Building Information Modelling”, may be constraining us by creating the perception that BIM just applies to buildings, when the methodology is already proven to be applicable to a plethora of other industries and asset types.
This brings to light the challenges faced around perception of the term and how it may be viewed by those outside of the industry. One such example of this movement could be the UK BIM Alliance’s name change to Nima, with it citing that “it’s no longer just about BIM” and “wider industry information management challenges”.
Creating a wealth of data
One thing that it is imperative that we keep in mind is that in applying BIM, we are creating a great wealth of data and that a future digital twin will thrive from having such vast amounts of well-structured data. But to say one is the other might not be right. We might have just found ourselves in a position that we have made a great foundation for our development of digital twins in the built environment. A foundation that we can continue to build on, seeking out other relevant data sources that enable to derive greater understanding and value from our assets.
We should also always be mindful that while some digital twins in the built environment may trace their roots and have their foundations firmly within BIM, others may not. Some may stem from GIS or SCADA-based systems and databases. To think that beyond the built environment Digital Twins may even be developed without the knowledge that BIM even exists and we should not and cannot cut ourselves off from these.
There are examples of digital twin development spanning numerous industries, including aerospace, manufacturing, automotive, medicine, agriculture and more. Right now, we need to understand how we can leverage the understanding and experience gained in other industries to aid us in our endeavours.
Unifying digital twins across the sectors of the built environment
In some cases, other industries have been developing digital twins for decades and have an understanding of how existing, well engrained technologies and concepts intersect with digital twins. With attempts already being made to this end with the recent publication of the Apollo Protocol, which seeks to unify digital twins across the sectors of the built environment and manufacturing.
Efforts to this end are only likely to increase, with us wanting to tap into other industries’ digital twins and not just those industries that we consider to be affiliated to our own. We could be talking about linking digital twins from social sciences; we could be talking about digital twins from medicine or the agricultural supply chain. Because all of these industries are developing their own digital twins and all of these sectors possess built assets – and we want to be able to tap into this ecosystem of digital twins.
I hope this has given you some food for thought, when you are deliberating over the delineation between BIM and digital twin, and defining their relationship.
It is always important to keep in mind that at the end of the day both BIM and digital twins are about unlocking the potential of our built environment and the fruits of our labour, and that should continue to be our main aspiration.
Dean Douglas
Researcher
BIM Academy
Tel: +44 (0) 191 269 5444
dean.douglas@bimacademy.global
