Insights

ISO 19650: An update on the update? What the Industry Told Us at DCW 2025

Written by Paul Shillcock | Jun 25, 2025 10:37:30 AM

 

Digital Construction Week has become the UK’s main event when it comes to showcasing current and future trends surrounding digital and information management, which means it's the perfect opportunity to check the pulse of the industry. 

I was particularly interested in gauging people’s views in relation to the ongoing review of parts 1, 2 and 3 of the ISO 19650 series. Not just because I’m actively involved in their development, but because when the revised standards are published in 2026, it will be eight years since they were first published, and it could be eight years till they’re next published. So, this is an important opportunity for us all, and with eight years of lessons learnt, industry maturity and addition of parts 4, 5 and 6, there’s lots to consider. 

To help me achieve this, I delivered a session on the Information Management Stage – ISO 19650 update: just like buses, three come at once! – where I gave a quick update on the progress we’ve made within the international working group (TC59/SC13/WG13). After which I invited ten willing volunteers from the audience, representing a mix of client, constructor, designer and legal perspectives – to join me at the front and share their view on following ten topics, currently put forward for discussion by various countries. It’s fair to say there were a few unexpected results - highlighting the challenges the working group have ahead of them. 

  1. Should the ISO 19650 series be updated?

10/10 Agreed 
An easy one to start with, but no surprises here. There’s a clear appetite for standards that better reflect today’s working practices and the growing maturity of the industry. 

  1. Should Parts 2 and 3 be combined into a single process standard?

7/10 Agreed 
Many felt that managing information across the whole of the asset life cycle should be undertaken as a single end-to-end process – not split into delivery and operational silos. 

  1. Should there be clearer implementation guidelines for different scenarios?

10/10 Agreed 
Unanimous. Everybody felt that the standards needed to include clear, practical guidelines on how to implement the IM process – particularly for those working in the extremes, for example, simple or complex projects – and for teams new to ISO 19650.  

  1. Should all references to BIM be removed?

1/10 Agreed 
This was a surprise result for me but reinforces the need for the working group to consider BIM’s place within the standards. Whilst BIM may not reflect the full scope of information management, or the ISO 19650 series, it appears to remain a helpful signpost – particularly for those new to the information management process. 

  1. Should the party names be changed (e.g. appointing party, appointed party)?

7/10 Agreed 
Who doesn’t love a party - in lieu of any better alternatives, most were happy to retain the current party names. 

  1. Should product names (e.g. BEP, MIDP) be amended?

1/10 Agreed 
Love them, or loathe them, these terms continue to cause confusion, even amongst experienced practitioners - yet the majority saw no pressing need to rename the current product names. 

  1. Should the term ‘project’ be removed altogether?

0/10 Agreed 
No interest in changing this. Even as life cycle thinking becomes more common, ‘project’ remains a core organising principle for most teams. 

  1. Should the various types of information requirements be combined?

5/10 Agreed 
A split view – which suggests this area still causes some confusion. Some want simplification, others value the structure. The working group will need to work hard to gain a consensus. 

  1. Should more than one Common Data Environment (CDE) be permitted per project?

6/10 Agreed 
Some say this reflects real-world practice – particularly on complex programmes – however the standards have always been clear that for a CDE to be ‘common’, there can be only one. This is sure to be interesting debate. 

  1. Should the client (appointing party) define the federation strategy?

5/10 Agreed 
Another split. Some see value in client-led coordination, others prefer flexibility. It’s a reminder that no one-size-fits-all approach will satisfy everyone. 

Final thoughts 

The session may have been delivered with a touch of humour, but the feedback was real – and important. I like to say a big thank you to the amazing volunteers for sharing their point of view - I believe the debate continued well after the session ended. 

In conclusion, there’s no panic button being pressed, but we’re clearly at a point where reflection and refinement are needed. The ISO 19650 series remain central to how we manage information – but it must continue to evolve. 

At Operam Academy, we’re already supporting individuals and organisations to build the capability and capacity they need to adopt, embed and evolve these processes with confidence. Our self-led learning resources are grounded in practical application – and will continue to adapt in step with the standards.  

If you’re unsure how to improve your own knowledge of the information management process, or that of your team, we’re here to help. 

Explore more at www.operamacademy.com 
#NeverStopLearning #ISO19650