Search

Information is the underpinning driver in the Digitised Built Environment and crucial to the Centre for Digital Built Britain’s agenda. Threats to information affect the intrinsic, relational and security dimensions of information quality. Therefore, the DBE requires capabilities of people, and requirements of the process, software and hardware for threat prevention and reduction. Existing research and protocols seldomly outline the capabilities and requirements needed to reduce threats to information. The aim of this report is to develop an information resilience framework which outlines the capabilities and requirements needed to ensure the resilience of information throughout its lifecycle; creation, use, storage, reuse, preserve and destroy. The findings highlight the need for people’s (stakeholder) competencies and behaviours which are driven by cognitive abilities such as attention, learning, reasoning and perception. Furthermore, process’ requirements such as embedding validation check process, standard requirements for Level of Detail, digital upskilling, among others, were identified. Additionally, identified software requirements include its ability to be customised to meet the project needs, detect conflicts and provide context of information. Finally, hardware requirements encompass facilitating backup, having a high capacity system and being inaccessible to peripherals. This research will be further extended to the development of a decision-making assessment tool to measure capabilities and requirements in the entire lifecycle of built assets.

Recognising the growing importance of design, this paper reports on the development of an approach to measuring design at a national level. A series of measures is proposed, that are based around a simplified model of design as a system at a national level. This model was developed though insights from literature and a workshop with government, industry and design sector representatives. Detailed data on design in the UK is presented to highlight the difficulties in collecting reliable and robust data. Evidence is compared with four countries (Spain, Canada, Korea and Sweden). This comparison highlights the inherent difficulties in comparing performance and a revised set of measures is proposed. Finally, an approach to capturing design spend at a firm level is proposed, based on insights from literature and case studies. Keywords: National Design System, Design Performance