There is undoubtedly a huge improvement that is taking place around naming conventions in UK construction. Trimble guide us through the role that Uniclass 2015 can play in naming conventions
The more detail provided throughout a project’s lifecycle, the better. However, a trick has been missed with ISO 19650.
Drawbacks of a fluid naming convention
One shortfall of the naming convention now becoming so fluid is that it then becomes difficult to search for items based on it. In addition, the naming convention is very set up just for the project’s lifetime.
The naming rules set up in the OpEx period by the client and what the design and construction team inherit may not be the types of things that they need to search for. In short, different teams are still referring to items in different ways.
The role of Uniclass 2015 in standardised naming conventions
The good thing about having predetermined values for elements, equipment and so forth is that these remain unchanging across multiple projects that use Uniclass 2015.
There are tables which deal with tools and equipment or the information roles, product systems, elements, function spaces, locations, activities, entities, complexes really the whole gamut of things that you might wish to designate things.
This would allow, for example, a contractor to give a code to a package which isn’t identified within the brickwork, for instance, which isn’t identified within the naming convention or to a system.
There is a huge opportunity to use classification to fill in for what can be seen as the shortcomings of the naming convention as it currently stands. As these classifications can then be appended as metadata to any information content downloaded from the CDE, such as Viewpoint For Projects, you are always going to be capturing this information.
If a contractor, for instance, wants to compare across most projects, a brickwork package is always going to be that set Uniclass 2015 code, and searches can be based upon that.
Standardisation – almost?
It can’t be forgotten that the naming convention has come such a long way in a relatively short period of time. However, too much fluidity when it comes to the detail within projects is a key shortcoming.
For teams that may work with several different clients, this then becomes a new way of working every time. If the aim is standardisation, there almost needs to be a compromise between niche detail and predetermined codes.
We’re getting ever closer to real standardisation, but we’re not there yet.
