Ceri Williams looks at a framework for smart projects.

Chaos is the normal starting state of any (relatively) new world – especially in the digital Universe. You only have to walk around the exhibition areas of any Smart X industry event to personally experience the bewildering array of vendors and technologies. Chaos is also the normal result of vendor differentiation – the very last thing anyone wants is for their product to be compared with another.

The good news is that this particular brand of chaos is exactly where the IT industry was in the 1990’s – yes, over twenty-five years ago. This means that mature frameworks, approaches, tools and techniques that evolved to deal with chaotic technology environments in the IT world are easily transferred to the Smart X world – provided there is a will to recognise their value. The ‘Not Invented Here’ syndrome [see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...] is at large and is slowing development of capability maturity in the Smart X world – this article tries to address this issue and accelerate maturity.

Fortunately, order is already starting to emerge. At the Digital Construction Week event in June, C-Tech Club published their 2024 (second) edition of the Catalogue of Construction Technology Types, defining the categories of technology making up the construction technology ecosystem. As a not-for-profit organisation, their initial motivation was to facilitate the emergence of start-ups and positioning into the ecosystem, however, its value goes far beyond just a taxonomy of types.

Read on if you are interested in quickly transferring knowledge and capability from the IT world to accelerate your Smart Place, Building and Space design, build and operation.

A short history of reference architectures

There’s no time like the present to use generative AI…prompting a well-known AI engine with “write a paragraph explaining what a reference architecture is”, this is what came out:

“A reference architecture is a standardized framework or template that provides a proven, established structure for designing and building systems within a specific domain. It serves as a blueprint, offering a set of best practices, principles, and guidelines that organizations can follow to ensure consistency, quality, and interoperability in their solutions. Reference architectures typically include a comprehensive overview of the components, relationships, and interactions required to address common challenges and achieve desired outcomes. By leveraging a reference architecture, organizations can accelerate development processes, reduce risks, and enhance alignment with industry standards and compliance requirements.”

A good, concise and inclusive summary – it just needs to add ‘Vendor Neutral’. Even the fact that the AI had discovered and processed enough sources to develop the statement demonstrates the maturity and volume of content on Reference Architectures.

Of course, as ever, Wikipedia does a better job of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Earliest use of Reference Architectures go way back to the 1970’s and ‘80’s when the US Department of Defence needed to standardise the concepts defining their Information Systems Architecture so they could manage the complexity challenges of multiple suppliers, technologies and their constant change (sound familiar?) Their framework (Technical Architecture Framework for Information Management - TAFIM) then evolved into the TOGAF Technical Reference Model [ https://pubs.opengroup.org/arc... ] which was quickly adopted, extended and refined. TOGAF is now in ubiquitous use in the IT industry, especially as part of the mature discipline of Enterprise Architecture. Enterprise Architecture systematically addresses large-scale, long term planning and realisation of digital and human worlds, anticipating and governing emergence and assimilation of technologies, maintaining coherence through multiple technology refreshes across a complex digital landscape (ring any bells?).

In parallel to TOGAF, specific industries were developing their own specialised and more comprehensive models that defined the structure, breakdown and relationships between digital components. It is no accident that these models first emerged (and are now most mature) in industries with complex supplier landscapes and where interoperability and coherent digital planning were critical for long-term, industry-wide coherence. Examples, all of which are under constant development and now globally adopted include:

Enhanced Telecom Operations Map (eTOM) – origins in the 1980’s developed by the TeleManagement Forum, focused on telecommunications provider ecosystems. While this was mainly focused on process standardisation, it serves equally well as a description of digital components and their interactions. [www.tmforum.org/oda/business/p...

Supply Chain Operations Reference Model (SCOR) – origins in the 1990’s developed by the Supply Chain Council, focused on supply chain management of physical products. Again, this was focused on process optimisation across complex & collaborative supply chains, but, like the eTOM, maps well to the digital components that automate or enable the processes. [http://www.apics.org/docs/defa...]

ACORD (Association for Cooperative Operations Research and Development) reference model – origins as far back as the 1970’s, originally focused on standardisation for information exchange (paper and digital), then evolved to define messaging and digital component standards. Started off life as an informal collaboration between similar (and competing) organisation [www.acord.org/standards-archit...

Banking Industry Architecture Network (BIAN) reference model – origins in 2008, developed as a key framework for standardizing banking technology architecture. Again, started off life as an informal collaboration between similar (and competing) organisation. [https://bian.org]

…the list goes on, but you get the gist and will have noticed that some emerged from a collaboration between competitors!

What’s different about the Smart X industry?

In short, nothing – it just doesn’t have a Reference Architecture yet.

It does have quite a few data exchange standards which can help (e.g. BACnet, BIM/ISO 19650), but these are fragmentary & typically cover subsystems. They do not provide anything close to the coherence and coverage to compare with eTOM, SCOR, ACORD or BIAN. There is also a (limited) taxonomy of technical capabilities in the SmartScore catalogue of measurements, but it is focused on a small number of specific capabilities and sits behind a paywall – so not vendor-neutral and not available to the industry at large.

What happens when we transfer the knowledge?

As the saying goes, “the best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago, the second best time is now”. So, here’s a starter for ten. This is emphatically a straw man attempt to seed the discussion, collaboration and development needed to bring it up to the standard of other industries - consider it a stimulus to drive conversations. If you’d like a copy of the capability definitions, the expansion to more detail levels or are interested in setting up a group collaboration to further develop it, please get it touch (details at the bottom).

Amongst other benefits, a Reference Architecture like this can help create real order from the apparent chaos by using it to:

  • Map vendors and technologies – including proposed new and existing systems, to understand their gaps and overlaps
  • Provide the basis for a Best of Breed component acquisition and management architecture strategy
  • Assign and contract for accountability and responsibility through all RIBA Stages
  • Understand and systematically govern interoperability and integration between components to ensure long-term coherence and flexibility
  • Understand and articulate risks and areas to target for investment, especially arising from condition of the Smart building digital estate.

Downloadable from: https://www.linkedin.com/posts...

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­