How standard asset data capture benefits client and surveyor

For years, asset owners have relied on building surveyors to visit their properties, assess condition and produce a written report. While digital tools have modernised how survey data is captured, they haven't fundamentally changed the process.

Surveyors are still expected to tailor each survey to the client's preferred structure, format and terminology. Yet without a consistent standard for asset data capture, surveyors often face unnecessary complexity.

Each commission could require the surveyor to reconfigure their digital software, adapt templates or produce outputs in multiple formats. This slows down delivery, increases administration effort and dilutes time that could be spent on professional judgement and technical assessment.

Simultaneously, asset owners struggle to align survey outputs with their asset registers. Findings are difficult to integrate, creating manual data‑handling tasks, inconsistencies in data captured across surveys and, in some cases, the loss of valuable asset information.

This article explores how a standardised approach to asset data can transform both the building condition survey process and the client's asset register. 

• Safety – assuring compliance with statutory and mandatory requirements.
• Condition – identifying the condition and residual life of assets.
• Maintenance – determining the appropriate maintenance regime.
• Onboarding – taking control of a new property.
• Project initiation – confirming the starting point for a refit project.
• Contract commencement – validating assets for a new facilities management contract.

In gathering information to support client outcomes, all surveys capture either built assets or additional data, known as attributes, to describe these assets. Survey data therefore consists of:

• assets – defined by both asset location and asset description
• attributes – additional data providing further information about an asset; this can be structured (e.g. dimensions, specifications and ratings) or unstructured (e.g. documents and photographs).

However, surveyors and asset owners are often frustrated by the multiple ways in which assets and attributes are described. A standard approach for how asset data (assets and attributes) is captured and shared would significantly increase efficiency.

In commissioning a survey, the client does not want a report containing a snapshot of a parallel view of assets and their attributes, but rather survey findings that can be used to enhance their existing asset data to help them make the decisions required to deliver business outcomes.

Lacking the resources to do everything at once, clients need to prioritise: they typically want a step-by-step approach in which each step aggregates their data into a complete picture over time.

This requirement can be met by creating standard groupings, or breakdown structures, for assets and attributes (see Figure 1).

• Assets: the components that make up a building can be grouped into several consistently defined building systems such as roof system and electrical system. A standardised asset breakdown structure consisting of 15 building systems is effective for all components in almost every building. This approach can also be used for specialist buildings such as hospitals by adding one or two additional building systems (e.g. a medical gas system).
• Attributes: the attributes that provide further information about assets can be grouped by client-focussed activities (e.g. the group of attributes related to safety or the group of attributes related to condition). No more than a dozen activities cover most client objectives and create an effective breakdown structure for attributes.

Assets can be described according to RICS' New Rules of Measurement (NRM) suite, which is already used extensively by RICS members to support cost estimation.

NRM 3 has a hierarchical data structure that is ideal for use with three interlinked asset categories: buildings, building systems and components.

Taken together, asset location and asset description can be used to create a standard 'data spine' (see Figure 2) that defines built assets uniquely in a way that works for both the client's asset register and survey reporting.

When the client needs further information to support one of their activities, attributes relevant to this activity can be gathered and linked to the relevant unique asset, helping to make data readily retrievable.

Benefits of the standard approach include:

• standardised procurement
• the client can provide current asset data as a starting point for the survey in the format required by the surveyor
• avoids the need for frequent (re)configuration of digital survey platforms and restructuring of reports
• surveys can be completed in stages – by building system or by activity – and data can be readily aggregated as each stage is carried out
• survey findings and pre-existing asset data can be readily compared
• digital survey data can be seamlessly transferred to update and augment the client's asset register
• a common approach can be adopted by building surveyors and mechanical and electrical (M&E) surveyors facilitating data aggregation
• NRM 3 enables ready integration with quantity surveyors on costs, such as for costing lifecycle replacement and calculating required backlog maintenance investment. The cost breakdown structure and asset breakdown structure are identical.

This new standard will require the use of a data spine to identify assets uniquely and will define a minimum set of attributes for common activities that can be linked to the data spine.

We can therefore expect government clients, such as the NHS, to adopt this approach, which is in large part based on RICS guidance. This is, at least, a significant opportunity for building surveyors working with government clients.

The experience of the Cabinet Office's BIM Mandate, which was launched initially for central government departments but spread quickly to the whole sector, points to the potential for Facilities Management Standard (FMS) 002: Asset Data to be adopted beyond government clients.

• Uniclass – a classification of building system types, components (aka products) and spaces used extensively in design and construction
• SFG20 – guidance on appropriate maintenance regimes for specific asset types
• Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE) Guide M – a table of residual asset life for M&E assets used to plan lifecycle replacement.

RICS' NRM 3 Logic and Level Table was recently reissued based on this collaboration. The other parties to this collaboration will also be issuing updated data tables and products shortly.

Additional benefits of this collaboration for building surveyors include:

• specification of component and space types using Uniclass are automatically aligned with asset data
• SFG20 guidance on maintenance is aligned with asset data by default.

RICS should consider developing and publishing a residual asset life table for fabric assets – similar to CIBSE's table for M&E assets – to facilitate recommendations on lifecycle replacement and backlog maintenance.

Ultimately, a common data structure enables surveyors to work more efficiently and consistently, while giving asset owners reliable, structured digital information that seamlessly integrates into their wider digital asset management systems. The result: clearer outputs, reduced rework and significantly enhanced value for both surveyor and client.

RICS plans to develop a common links for cost and carbon in the built environment to enable surveyors and project managers to assess both environmental and financial costs impacts using consistent data structures for NRM and WLCA. RICS welcomes feedback from members on this approach. Would it support your work, and is there demand for it among your clients? Please send your views to RICS Knowledge.