PLQ 3.4 – Frank SAPpa

Hello BIMfans,
Now that I’ve produced Tŷ Crempog‘s information model, it’s time (finally) to put it to practical use in answering my next and final Plain Langauge Question:

What are the most cost-effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

By answering this Plain Langauge Question, I am beginning to realize the true potential of Tŷ Crempog‘s information model by answering real questions that will impact on how I undertake any retrofit works.  To answer this question, I have turned to Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP).


SAP is Building Research Establishment (BRE)‘s procedure to calculate the energy rating of dwellings.  SAP has been referenced in Approved Document L of the Welsh and English building regulations, been adopted by the UK Government and is used to assess dwellings to produce their Energy Performance Certificate (EPC).  New dwellings use SAP in its entirety while, as of November 2017, existing dwellings like Tŷ Crempog (or Joe’s Garage) use the Reduced Data Standard Assessment Procedure (RdSAP) to support completing the SAP calculations.

The advantage of RdSAP is that it provides several permitted assumptions that can be used within the SAP calculations.  I plan on using Tŷ Crempog‘s information model to complete the (385!!) values required.  Now there are too many values to do at once, so instead of having a Freak out! I am addressing each section at a time; using RdSAP to fill in the gaps.

Once my SAP calculations are complete, I will be able to manipulate the information to see what improvements will provide the greatest impact.  For example, would it be more cost effective to improve Tŷ Crempog‘s thermal performance, reduce the infiltration rate or improve the efficiency of my heating system?  Once complete, I will be able to test these scenario’s and inform future home improvements.

BIM, placing asset information into the palm of my hand


1 Overall Dimension

Section 1 of the SAP Documentation is related to a dwelling’s overall dimensions to determine its internal volume.  SAP asks for each floor’s area as well as their average ceiling height.  The total floor area (4) is used to calculate thermal mass, heat loss, internal temperatures, space heating, space cooling while the dwelling’s volume (5) is used to calculate infiltration and heat loss.  Note:  RdSAP says that internal measurements are permissible and that I can ignore the floor area of my attic as it doesn’t have a fixed staircase.

Luckily for me, the area of each room as well as their usable heights are already within COBie; providing me with all the information I need to complete section 1.

Now that I’ve identified the structured information I need, it needs to be exchanged into a Google Sheet.  Thanks to Google, The mothers of invention, Google Sheets is able to reference information from other sheets.  Which means using formulas like:

=SUM(importrange(“URL”, “Sheet!Range”))

allows me to automatically import my Architectural COBie.  This means that I am using Tŷ Crempog‘s information model to calculate the area of my floors as well as their average height to calculate my total floor area (4) and dwelling volume (5)Note:  Because COBie specifies a specific sheet and column orders, my formula will always point to the Space.Area column, even if I publish a revised COBie.

My calculations for SAP – Section 1 can be seen below:

And there we have it.  While I have only just started, it seems possible to automate the population of SAP using Tŷ Crempog‘s information model, having done so using COBie.  This fills me with a lot of confidence that I can use my information model to complete the other SAP sections.  Fantastic, PLQ 3.4 is underway!

Operation and Maintenance

  • 3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
  • 3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
  • 3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
  • 3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

Now that my overall dimensions have been calculated, it is time to look at Ty Crempog‘s ventilation rate and heat loss…

Note:  If you have any comments regarding my use of SAP, then please let me know either on Twitter, or by commenting below.

PLQ 3.3 – Measured Maintenance

Hello BIMfans,

Now that my COBie has been validated during COBie Culmination, it is time to put that information to use.  When Configuring Costs, I mentioned Jonathan Hewitt of Hewitt Consult Limited had kindly offered to put my information into CostX to produce a preventative maintenance schedule.


Not only has he produced my schedule, but by dealing with the interoperability issues, I have managed to get some useful insights into how my cost information should be managed.  Included below are the steps taken to produce my preventative maintenance schedule.

Review of Pre-embedded Costs

When producing COBie, I made a point of including as much information as I could, which included Type.ReplacementCost.  However, there is a problem; costs change.  Using services like CamelCamelCamel, this becomes clear.

Camel camel camel camel camel … chameleon?

For example, over four years, the Nest Learning Thermostat’s price fluctuated from £312 to £99; who knows what the replacement cost will be in 15-20 years’ time?  Jonathan told me that Quantity Surveys/Estimators normally use schedules of rates when producing cost plans; typically agreed at the start of a project.  For the purposes of this exercise, Jonathan produced a schedule of rates using my replacement costs and uploaded it to CostX as a rate library.

Review of Uniclass

After I spent some time Understanding Uniclass, I applied Uniclass 2015 to all of my manageable assets.  I thought that this information would be useful when calculating my maintenance schedule, as the respective NRM3 codes could have been applied based on the Uniclass 2015.  However, we came across a problem, when the DWFX was exported it was missing my Uniclass 2015 classifications.


While my assessment information, BS 8541-1 aligned object names, IfcGUIDs and IfcNames were all exchanged without an issue, ClassificationForObjects was blank.  Now luckily, because I had named my objects following ISO 4157-1 as outlined in Naming Omnibus, Jonathan was able to work without Uniclass 2015 (Phew!).  This problem didn’t occur when we tested this afterward using my IFC files. Perhaps CostX should recommend IFC over DWFx instead?

Model Mapping

ModelMappingWhen I asked for this preventative maintenance schedule, I was quite clear that I wanted it structured by AssessmentCondition.  My plan is to deal with all poor items this year, and then move on to less critical elements over the next three to five years.  To do this, Jonathan had to apply model mapping, which he explained as:

 “[Model mapping is] a powerful tool that allows you to dictate what information is extracted from the model by creating “dimension groups”.  Using conditional formulas, I was able to sort information based on each of the possible assessment ratings:  Adequate, AsNew, Good, Poor or Very Poor.  This provided the breakdown required, and formed clear groupings that could be calculated independently.  This could only be achieved thanks to the consistency within Dan’s information, as the use of element GUIDs”

Jonathan stressed to me the importance of having a globally unique identifier (GUID) within CostX for each element to enable the use of rate libraries and systems.  As such, I asked that for the IfcGUID to be used.  However, this posed a problem initially as I had exported the DWFx before my IFC, meaning that some IfcGUIDs were missing (oops!).  Once I had resolved this, each element had a unique identifier.

Completing the workbook

Finally, now that the information had been structured, my preventative maintenance schedule could be produced.  Luckily, due to the efficient file sizes I maintain, this process took no time at all.  As you can see the information has been summarized based on the assessment rating and then itemized in full.

This document is exactly what I need to consider what maintenance to undertake first.  I really enjoyed working with Jonathan and apparently, he did too as I he was kind enough to leave me a Testimonial:


And there we have it.  Thanks to the help of Jonathan and Hewitt Consult Limited, I now have a fully costed preventative maintenance schedule.  This exercise has been really educational and has changed my perspective of how I plan to manage my graphical models.  Increasingly I have been putting more information in, but this isn’t the ideal solution.  For example, Jonathan told me that:

CostX is designed for Quantity Surveys/Estimators to do what they’ve always done; take off quantities and undertake cost planning using rates built up from first principles but in a quicker, digital way.  Through tools like CostX, rate libraries could be shared for benchmarking purposes.  Static cost information is OK when you have agreed a target cost on a project and you want to use it for valuing work done or negotiating change control. Those same static costs are useless later down the line when the asset is in operation; costs change!  If a dynamic cost link could be made, this would be useful and powerful for asset management”

If tools like CostX are being produced to empower estimators, then there isn’t much of a benefit in the exchange of static, and often out-of-date cost information.  So from now on when it comes to costs I will do what I always use to do, just leave it to the Quantity Surveys/Estimators!

Note:  As a result of this insight, I have now removed all cost information from my information model.

As you can see, as we have now attributed costs to my assets, I have completed another Plain Language Question.  Fantastic, PLQ 3.3 is complete!

Operation and Maintenance

  • 3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
  • 3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
  • 3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
  • 3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

Now that my preventative maintenance schedule is complete, it is time to look at my final Plain Language Question, can I use this information to inform how to improve the energy efficiency of my home?

Note:  If you have any comments regarding my preventative maintenance schedule, then please let me know either on Twitter, or by commenting below.

PLQ 3.3 – Configuring Costs

Hello BIMfans,
After ensuring that my I have as much information possible about my managed assets, I think it is time to cost up my preventative maintenance schedule.  To do so, I have enlisted the help of Jonathan from Hewitt Consult Ltd. who has kindly offered to undertake the cost estimating on my behalf.

This cost exercise as bean a long time coming….

So, the first question I asked was:

“What do you need from me?”

To assist with the cost estimation, I wanted to ensure that the information I was providing was as suitable as possible.  I initially offered my IFC files, but I was told by Jonathan that while CostX could import IFC, they advise that the most optimal file format is DWF or DXFx.  As a further (subtle) hint, I was also given a copy of the CostX Drawing File Optimization Guide.  This document outlines how my information should be structured to ensure the information can be imported into CostX correctly covering the following areas:

Export Settings

The preferred export format into CostX is a multi-sheet DWFx.  This is done by setting up a 3D view which includes all of the required objects ensuring that there is a sufficient level of detail applied to the view.    In addition, they recommend that the view’s graphics are set to hidden line.


Optimization required?  New view created A-Zz_70_05-M-CostX

Project Units

Because CostX calculates quantities using the exported base values, all project units need to be sufficiently accurate (at least millimeter accurate).  If these values are rounded off then they will affect the exported quantities they support.  For example, my dining room at 3.46 x 3.56m would export an area of 12m² (3x4m) instead of 12.89m².  Luckily for me, I am already using a sufficient degree of accuracy.

Optimization required? None

Family Naming

As CostX sorts objects according to their family names, it advises that descriptive family naming is used.  Thankfully, as you’ve seen from Naming Omnibus I have adopted the BS 8541-1 and ISO 4157-1 naming conventions I have quite descriptive names already.

Heisenberg “Say my IfcName”

Optimization required? None.

System Assemblies

When assemblies, such as floor, walls, and roofs are exported into DWFx, they appear as a single homogenous object.  To resolve this, CostX suggests that further detail is provided within the objects’ description, additional information is provided through detail sections, or Revit’s parts function is used.  However, as we are producing a maintenance schedule, this level of granularity shouldn’t be required.

Optimization required? None.


To ensure that room information is exported, CostX advises that rooms are represented within the native model and that the setting “Rooms and Areas in a separate boundary layer” is checked to export this information.  As my native model already has rooms, I just need to ensure that this setting is correctly selected.

Optimization required? Export setting “Rooms and Areas in a separate boundary layer” to be checked.

Shared Parameters

To further optimize the sorting of information, CostX advises that the additional parameters QSID and ELEMENT CODE may be included.  However, as I have not been asked by Jonathan to include and populate these parameters, I haven’t.  In addition, CostX advises that parameters should generally be added as instance level but as this would affect how my IFC files are produced, I will not be changing this.

Optimization required? None (due to awkwardness).

Once I exported the DWFx, I checked it within Design Review.  The file appears to contain all the information I expected.  So, the next step is finding out what Jonathan thinks of it, as well as whether or not he is able to use the information within to cost my preventative maintenance schedule.


You can access the DWFx from here


And there we have it.  By using the guidance I was given on how to optimize my information, I now have a container ready to be exchanged for costing.  By listening to Jonathan’s needs, I have (hopefully) managed to produce suitably configured information in the best possible container.

Operation and Maintenance
3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

Now that I have updated my components, it’s time to bring all my information together and complete my preventative maintenance schedule…

Note:  If you have any comments regarding my DWFx exporting, then please let me know either on Twitter, or by commenting below.

PLQ 3-3 – Kitchen Konundrum

Hello BIMfans,
Recently, I came to the realization that as I never received any product information about my kitchen when I bought the house, my information model is missing some details.  So, I decided to see what information I could find using my whits and a little ingenuity.

First things first, I needed to work out who produced my kitchen.  After failing to find the range comparing materials on Google Images or checking Pinterest, I decided to use my detective skills and carefully inspect my kitchen units for hints.  While inspecting, my keen detective senses alerted me to a clue.

Detective Level:  Maximum

Ok…now that I know it is a Howden’s Kitchen, I thought that the hard part was over; oh no.  After struggling to find contact details for Howden’s Kitchens, I rang my local branch who informed me that as I was not the account holder (the previous owner the house is) they could not provide ANY information (Harumph!)  So, I did what any person would do in this situation, moan on social media I tried Google to see what I could find.  NOTE:  Typing “inurl:pdf” into Google makes this kind of search A LOT easier.

While looking through the myriad of links Google provided, I found a Howden’s trade catalog.  Within, it included everything I needed.  While it appears that some of my components have been discontinued, I could find equivalents to be included within my information model.

NOTE:  As the purpose of the information is to deal with replacement, or maintenance and repair, using information about an equivalent product seemed much more practical than sourcing information about discontinued products.

Some might say this blog has sinked to new lows…

So, all I that was left was updating my information model…

Work Surfaces

In my home, I have two 38mm bullnose matt walnut block laminate work surfaces. Luckily, my graphical model already included work surfaces with the correct thickness and profile but had mislabelled the laminate as Iroko as opposed to Walnut (Idiot!).  I have now updated my material information to suit.



In my home, I have 1.5 bowl sink.  Looking into the Howden’s trade catalog, I found the closest equivalent, the Lamona standard 1.5 bowl sink (Model reference: SNK5131).  In addition, I also found an equivalent mixer tap (Model reference:  AP4805).   In this situation I have teated my tap like I would ironmongery and instead of giving it it’s own component have referenced it within it’s ‘parent’.  Here you can see I used the Type.constituents COBie property associated to my sink component to capture the tap model reference.



In my home, I have a Lamona single fan assisted oven (Model reference: LAM3301), Lamona gas hob (Model reference: LAM1001), black enamel supports (Model reference: LAM1003), and the Lamona standard chimney extractor (Model reference: LMS2400). While updating this information I thought it also prudent up give their graphical representations a spring clean while keeping the detail low in line with my BIM Execution Plan.


If only my kitchen always looked this clean


Finally, I have a series of kitchen units I have originally named BBH_Furniture_KitchenUnit.  However, now that I know they were produced by Howden’s Kitchens, I can update their file, type, and component names to suit.  In addition, as the catalog has done I have split their names into base units and wall units to give me:

  • Howdens_Furniture_BaseUnit
    • BaseUnitType
      • BaseUnit
  • Howdens_Furniture_WallUnit
    • WallUnitType
      • WallUnit

Synthesizing all of this information together has vastly improved the quality of information I maintain about my kitchen.  So much so that I was able to produce a kitchen assembly drawing using this information.

Full-size drawing can be accessed here.

And there we have it.  By using my keen (cough) detective skills, I have now properly identified all of the components in my kitchen.  This means I should now have all of the information I need to apply costs to my preventative maintenance schedule; fantastic!

Operation and Maintenance
3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

Now that I have updated my components, it’s time to bring all my information together and complete my preventative maintenance schedule…

Note:  If you have any comments regarding my kitchen schedule, then please let me know either on Twitter, or by commenting below.

Size Doesn’t Matter

Hello BIMfans,
As you know, I am currently using the Asset Information Model I produced during this blog to manage my home.  So far my information model has been used to support day-to-day operation, minor works such as getting my gutters and fascia replaced, as well as product registration and replacement, in line with my  Model Purposes and Data Requirements.  But has it been worth it?  Well, let’s try and work it out (don’t worry, I’ll do the sums).


Well, first thing’s first, how much did my information model cost? Well, because I did it myself, there isn’t really a figure I can apply.  However, as it has taken a while to produce, instead, I decided to use a different form of currency; minutes instead of pounds (after all, time is money!).

Quite often when talking about the blog I am asked “How long did it take to model all that!?”, and while it has taken over a year to produce, it was done in my spare time, with a lot of trial and error.  If I lost all of this information (please, please, NEVER let this happen!) I believe I could reproduce everything within four working days (1800 minutes).  This aligns with a New Zealand case study that took three days to model and write-up social houses.  So the real question is:

How long will it take for my information model to save me 1800 minutes?

My plan has always been for my information model to be useful, so I am confident that there is a return on investment; I just need to work out how long it is.  When I wrote my Model Purposes and Data Requirements, I decided that I would use my information model for the registration, operation, maintenance, repair, and replacements.  So let’s see how it has helped in those areas.


While trying to write this post, I discovered that I have registered a surprising number of components.  Excluding loose furniture, I have registered 104 (yes, 104) manageable components and assessed their condition.

Traditionally to keep track of the condition of these components, frequent property condition surveys would have been needed.  While I can find examples from several housing associations who undertake annual condition surveys, I have decided to instead follow Cardiff Council‘s own Asset Management Plan; using their conservative 2-3 year programme.  Having done surveying in a past life, I’m confident that to survey and capture all the relevant COBie information for these 104 components would take a day and a half (average of 6 minutes per component), whereas updating my information model would only take me half a day.

Having this information as the basis really speeds up the surveying of my home.

This results in a saving of 450 minutes every 2.5 years, or an annual saving of 180 minutes. (This alone would provide a return on investment within 10 years)

Operation, Maintenance, and Repair

Working for BRE, I’m sure you won’t be surprised to hear that I want to reduce my home’s carbon footprint.  A goal of mine is to improve my home’s EPC score from a D (65) to a B (86).  To do so, I am going to need some tradesmen every now again (but never again from Rated People, grrrrr).

My information model has been great for solving operational problems.  For example, when I had my gutters and fascia replaced, the quoting tradesmen raised an issue.  I live in a thin terrace house, with no external access to the garden.  After quoting for the work, they each wanted to re-visit and check whether their six metre scaffold pipes could get through the house.  I didn’t want to book another half-day off work, so I instead used my information model to demonstrate that it was possible.


Once I proved this, I was happy to accept accountability that the scaffold would fit, and saved myself from having to book a half-day off work.

If I assume I’d get tradesmen in every two years, this results in a saving of 225 minutes every two years or an annual saving of 112 minutes. (This alone would provide a return on investment within 17 years)


As I’ve mentioned, I have 104 manageable components, each of which will ultimately fail and need to be replaced (What Asset Managers would call a ‘trigger-related event’).  So I have done some research and calculated my components’ service lives.  For example, my two extract fans, have a pitiful service life of 10 years, while my internal doors have an impressive 100+ years.  Whenever I need to replace any of these components, I will be saving time.

Picture this scenario, while I am out shopping I suddenly receive a call.  My wife has rung to say that on her way out she noticed a bulb had blown in the living room, and asked if I could buy a new one on my way home.  There is just one problem, I cannot remember whether my living room pendant takes an Edison (E27) or a screw fix (E14) bulb.  So I have two options:

  • Option 1:  I drive home (30 minutes), grab a chair and check the bulb (2 minutes, working from height), drive to B&Q (30 minutes, other hardware stores are available), buy the new bulb (5 minutes), drive home (30 minutes), and then install the new bulb (2 minutes, working from height) for a total of 99 minutes.
  • Option 2: I check my information model on my phone and confirm the bulb type (2 minutes), buy the new bulb (5 minutes), drive home via B&Q (30 minutes, other hardware stores are available), and then install the new bulb (2 minutes, working from height) for a total of 39 minutes.
The Value of Asset Capture
Oh look, my pendant has an E14 to E27 adapter on it, that means I could have bought either!

So by referring to my information model each time I replace a component and purchasing replacement on my way home, I am saving myself 60 minutes and halving the amount of time I am working from height.  While an hour might seem excessive, this is quite conservative compared to the case study on the BIM Task Group Website from Manchester City Council, where the Bulb Replacement Case Study reports a saving of 8 hours (480 minutes) per replacement.


Based on available service life figures I found online, I produced this table which groups components by their IFC type, and shows an annual saving of 205 minutes. (This alone would provide a return on investment in under 9 years).


Having looked at my various Model Purposes, I have come up with the following annual return on investment thanks to the efficiencies I have gained through using my information model.

Registration = 180 minutes
Operation = 112 minutes
Replacement = 205 minutes
Total = 497 minutes

Which, when compared to a production time of 1800 minutes, gives a return on investment in 3.62 years.

And there we have it, by using conservative figures a reasonable return on investment could be calculated.  When you consider that this excludes all loose furniture, and does not factor in any accidental damage, my information model will have saved more time than that it took to produce in little over three and a half years; Fantastic!

Note:  If you have any comments regarding other efficiencies I could factor in, or the figures I have used to calculate my ROI, then please let me know either on Twitter, or by commenting below.

PLQ 3.2 – Classical Conditioning

Hello BIMfans,
When I made my information model I didn’t want it to be just for show, it wanted it to be a (useful) tool to manage my home. That is why I was very pedantic fussy particular about what information I needed by forming several Plain Language Questions, my Model Purposes, and my Data Requirements. Since this blog’s outset, one clear output I had in mind was to use the information model to manage any repair or replacement work needed within my home. To do so, I will need to form a preventative maintenance schedule; time for some Classical Conditioning!

I’m no Pavlov but I am known to drool over good information.

When I first wrote my Data Requirements, I was keen to incorporate a way to capture the condition of each of my components. The problem was, I needed a way to record this consistently; luckily for me, there is a way to do this.  BS 1192-4, the British Standard for COBie, includes some additional attributes under table 14, which are also included as part of IFC4 Schema, under the Pset_Condition property set.

AssessmentDate, when the assessment was completed YYYY-MM-DD;
AssessmentDescription, qualiative description of the assessment; and
AssessmentCondition, the condition:  Very Poor, Poor, Adequate, Good, or AsNew.

So, a plan was formed.  When I produced my components, each of these attributes were added to the one I intended to manage. As a result, this information appears in each of my graphical models, IFC exports, and COBie files (the joy of a single source of truth).  As the majority of these components were assessed when Chris John undertook a (very thorough) property condition survey before we bought the home, there isn’t much additional information to be collected.  The only exception being new items such as my Nest thermostat and Philips Hue bulbs that have been installed since.

As you can see, this window was surveyed August 2015, as part of the property condition survey, and it’s in a pretty good condition.

Using these assessment attributes, I can manage each of these components and develop my preventative maintenance schedule. For example, using the AssessmentCondition attribute, I can filter and identify any Very Poor or Poor components. Of the 100+ manageable components I have in my home, I can use Revit‘s scheduling function to filter this information down to just those components and form a manageable schedule.

NOTE: I could have done this using my COBie file, but I won’t.  COBie isn’t a data management tool. Until I acquire an asset management system, using the information embedded in my graphical models, as I have done, is the best solution.

By federating my models, I can create a single schedule showing all of the Very Poor and Poor components in my home.

And there we have it.  By using the information that I have already populated within my information model I was able to create a preventative maintenance schedule highlighting what components need to be repaired or replaced. This means that PLQ3.2 is complete; Woohoo!

Operation and Maintenance
3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

Now that I what needs doing around my home, I wonder how much it’ll cost to fix…

PLQ 3.1 – Outstanding Openings

Hello BIMfans,
After completing my BIM Level 2 deliverables and publishing my Project Information Model it’s about time I put my model to work.  I have now entered the operational stage, which means I have some new Plain Language Questions to answer:

Operation and Maintenance
3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

So without further ado, let’s tackle Plain Language Question 3.1 “What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?”

This is what happens when you accidentally flip your door vertically instead of horizontally in the model…

Now lucky for me, I have (technically) already answered this question as my Architectural COBie file has all of this information I need already included.  However, I don’t feel that COBie is the best way to communicating this information as I haven’t imported it into a suitable asset management tool (yet) and the information needed is on several different sheets.

Sizes are on the type worksheet, while assessment information the attribute worksheet.

So I have instead decided to answer this question with a schedule.  As I have all the information within my model, it is just a matter of deciding how I want to structure my schedule and what information would be useful to include within it.

To answer my Plain Language Question, I will need Size (Height and Width) as well as Assessment Condition as a minimum.  However, to relate these back I will also need a reference for each component (IfcName), and a type reference (TypeName).

In addition, to make the schedule useful it is worth providing the type description (IfcDescription) as well as indicating which space each component is in, as well as the other assessment details (AssessmentDate and AssessmentDescription) to provide sufficient content.  This leaves me with a schedule that looks like this:

DoorSchedule Header

This scheduling format provides me with enough information to assess each of my doors and windows, find their location within my home, and includes enough information to arrange for a replacement if required.  Luckily for me, I could put all of this information onto a single A3 sheet, which can be accessed here.

*Dan’s perfectionism sense is tingling* Why couldn’t I have only 4 door types??


Note:  You’ll notice that I have named this deliverable: 7001-BBH-ZZ-ZZ-DR-A-6001. While full of schedule information, it is a drawing.  If I had exported this information as a spreadsheet then it would have been a schedule, using the SH file type. However, as the schedule’s information cannot be referenced (can’t import this into Excel) and it is placed on a title block, it’s a drawing.

From this schedule, it is plain to see what my back door (DoorType04, Door05) and my bathroom window (WindowType08, Window09) require work.  There is visible rot on my back door and something that I had never noticed before about my bathroom window is that instead of a sill the installer used is actually a skirting board!

What kind of monster would do this??

And there we have it.  By using the information that I have already populated within my information model I was able to create a Door & Window Schedule with all of the information to answer this Plain Language Question and picked up which of these components need work. This means that PLQ3.1 is complete; Woohoo!

Operation and Maintenance
3.1 What are the sizes and condition of the windows & doors?
3.2 What assets are in a poor condition?
3.3 What costs can be attributed to my assets?
3.4 What are the most cost effective thermal improvements that could be undertaken?

Now that I have used by schedule to assess my doors and windows, it’s about time I look at what else needs doing around my home…

Update: Removed ‘OK’ for ‘Adequate’ under Assessment Condition to suit BS1192-4 permitted values as opposed to the IFC4 documentation example.  Thanks Nick!

Update: Turns out I had mislabelled by window openings showing them bottom hung as opposed to top hung (Ooops!); a quick check of BS8541-2 and it is all fixed.  Thanks Chris!

Update:  Changed ‘Mark’ to ‘IfcName to improve information consistency in all of my deliverables.  Tags, Schedules, and COBie now use IfcName consistently.