Information management
according to BS EN ISO 19650
Guidance Part F
About information delivery
planning
Edition 1
Published by
Editions
Edition 1 September 2020 First release as Guidance F. Note that this guidance text
rst appeared in ISO 19650 Part 2 guidance edition 4.
Nothing in this guidance constitutes legal advice or gives rise to a solicitor/client relationship. Specialist legal advice should be taken in
relation to specic circumstances.
The contents of this guidance are for general information purposes only.
Permission to reproduce extracts from the ISO 19650 series is granted by BSI Standards Limited (BSI) and the copyright in Figure 10
used in this report belongs to BSI. No other use of this material is permitted.
British Standards can be obtained in PDF or hard copy formats from the BSI online shop: http://www.bsigroup.com/Shop or by contacting
BSI Customer Services for hard copies only: Tel: +44 (0)20 8996 9001, Email: cservices@bsigroup.com
Any data or analysis from this guidance must be reported accurately and not used in a misleading context. If using any information
from this report, then its source and date of publication must be acknowledged.
© COPYRIGHT 2020 the Editors, Authors and Contributors named herein.
1
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Table of contents
Message from the UK BIM Alliance Chair 3
Acknowledgments 4
About BS EN ISO 19650 5
About this guidance document 6
(executive summary) 6
Abbreviations and acronyms 8
1.0 About information delivery planning 9
1.1 Introduction 9
2.0 Federation strategy and information container breakdown structure 10
3.0 Responsibility matrices 11
3.1 Introduction 11
3.2 Format of the responsibility matrices 12
3.3 High level responsibility matrix contents 13
3.4 Detailed responsibility matrix 14
3.4.1 Expectation 14
3.4.2 Background context 14
3.4.3 Modern approach 16
3.4.4 Process 18
3.5 Misconceptions 19
3.5.1 Assignment matrix vs responsibility matrix 19
3.5.2 Master information delivery plan vs detailed responsibility matrix 19
3.5.3 Information container breakdown structure vs responsibility matrices 19
4.0 Information delivery plans 20
4.1 Introduction 20
4.2 Background context 21
4.3 Modern ISO 19650 approach 23
4.4 Task information delivery plan (TIDP) 23
4.4.1 Expectation 23
4.4.2 Format 23
4.4.3 Process 26
4.4.4 Appointment signicance 27
4.5 Master information delivery plan (MIDP) 28
4.5.1 Expectation 28
4.5.2 Format 28
4.5.3 Process 28
4.5.4 Appointment signicance 29
5.0 Summary 30
2
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
List of tables
Table 1: Abbreviations and acronyms 8
Table 2: A condensed example of an information release schedule; early form of
information delivery plan 22
List of gures
Figure 1: ISO 19650 guidance framework 6
Figure 2: Information delivery planning process tools 9
Figure 3: The responsibility matrices in the suite of information delivery planning tools 11
Figure 4: Illustration of a matrix using two axes 12
Figure 5: Example of a high-level responsibility matrix incorporating agreed breakdown
structure 13
Figure 6: Example of an existing design responsibility matrix that predates 1192 and 19650
standards 15
Figure 7: An improved approach to the design responsibility matrix 17
Figure 8: Process of information delivery planning 18
Figure 9: The information delivery plans in the suite of information delivery planning tools 20
Figure 10: Information delivery process (ISO 19650-1 Figure 4) 20
Figure 11: Examples of inclusion of information containers in TIDPs 24
Figure 11a: Tabulated approach 24
Figure 11b: Gantt chart approach 24
Figure 12: File-based-only approach to listing information containers within a TIDP 25
Figure 13: Non-le-based TIDP approach 26
3
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
The UK BIM Framework provides the
fundamental step towards digital
transformation of the UK’s built environment
industry. The Framework is based on the ISO
19650 series, which rst developed out of the
UK’s former BIM Level 2, but incorporates
and anticipates global and future digital
perspectives.
The UK BIM Framework embraces and assists
in the implementation of the standards
for managing information for the whole
life of assets of the built environment. The
Framework anticipates the potential for
integration across portfolios. The Framework
provides extensive Guidance which continues
to be developed, including the addition of
supplementary tools and materials to enable
a rm basis for the evolving National Digital
Twin Programme.
This Guidance has been developed to help
industry to implement the concepts and
principles of the ISO 19650 series upon which
the UK BIM Framework is based. It has
been continually updated to keep track of
the publication of the dierent parts of ISO
19650, and to reect lessons learnt as further
experience is gained in its implementation.
The key parts of ISO 19650 are now all in
place, allowing us to realize information
management throughout the whole life of
built environment assets. It provides for
traditional ways of working entailing exchange
of information via les, but also caters for
shifts towards data exchange.
The key is being specic about what
information is required and how it is to be
delivered. This needs forethought around
what should be the “end in mind” and
consideration from an organizational, whole
life perspective. This then informs the detailed
requirements right down to appointment level.
The work behind developing this Guidance
has been considerable. I would like to thank
Sarah Davidson and David Churcher for their
tireless commitment in continuing to bring this
work together – I so enjoy working with you
both. Secondly, I would like to thank the many
authors who have contributed so generously
to the writing of the Guidance – and been so
patient in the criticisms and changes that have
been required of them. Finally, I would like to
thank the many people who have spared time
to review and feedback on the Guidance – the
Focus Groups in particular, but also those who
have contacted us separately. Without this
feedback we would not be able to incorporate
the wide-ranging experience and testing which
is occurring around the industry.
We welcome your continued feedback and
shared experiences. You can provide this via
guidancefeedback@ukbimframework.org.
Message from the
UK BIM Alliance Chair
Author: Dr Anne Kemp OBE
Chair - UK BIM Alliance
4
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Editors
David Churcher Hitherwood Consulting Ltd
Sarah Davidson University of Nottingham
Anne Kemp Atkins
Authors
John Ford Galliford Try
Contributors
Mo Shana’a Morta
Production
Centre for Digital Built Britain
Acknowledgments
This guidance represents the collaborative eorts of
the following people and organizations
5
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
About BS EN ISO 19650
The BS EN ISO 19650 series of standards
(herein after referred to as the ISO 19650
series) is an international standard of good
practice. It denes information management
principles and requirements within a
broader context of digital transformation
in the disciplines and sectors of the built
environment (including construction and asset
management industries). Its implementation
in the UK is supported by UK National
Forewords in ISO 19650 Parts 1 and 2, and a
UK National Annex in ISO 19650 Part 2.
The ISO 19650 series replaces some of
the existing British Standards and Publicly
Available Specications relating to
information management using building
information modelling (BIM). It is part
of a landscape, or ecosystem, of national
and international standards supporting
information management processes and
technical solutions. It considers all information
whether it is a construction programme, a
record of a meeting, a geometrical model or a
contract administration certicate.
Building information modelling (BIM) plays a
key part in the management of information
because it provides a methodology that helps
us to structure information so that technology
can process it.
Structuring information using industry
standards helps to improve interoperability.
This means that information can be joined-
up by both people and technology, which
then enables us to extract more valuable
knowledge from it. Using the same
information structures throughout industry
generates consistency, repetition and
predictability. This brings real eciency
gains for businesses and provides the data
architecture for the connected future.
Standards within the ISO 19650 series are
available at www.bsigroup.com.
Visit www.ukbimframework.org to see how the
ISO 19650 standards plus other standards
within the UK BIM Framework map to the
design, build, operate and integrate process
6
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
About this guidance document
(executive summary)
The guidance framework supports the UK
implementation of the ISO 19650 series.
This guidance document (guidance F) sits
within an overall guidance framework as
shown in Figure 1:
Guidance F is written to support the
implementation of each published ISO 19650
standard.
Figure 1: ISO 19650 guidance framework
ISO 19650
Guidance Part 2
Delivery phase
ISO 19650
Guidance Part 1
Concepts
ISO 19650
Guidance A
The
information
management
function &
resources
ISO 19650
Guidance Part 3
Operational phase
ISO 19650
Guidance B
Open data,
buildingSMART
and COBie
ISO 19650
Guidance Part 4
(To be conrmed)
ISO 19650
Guidance C
Facilitating the
CDE (workow
and technical
solutions)
ISO 19650
Guidance E
Tendering and
appointments
ISO 19650
Guidance Part 5
(To be conrmed)
ISO 19650
Guidance D
Developing
information
requirements
ISO 19650
Guidance F
Information
delivery
planning
7
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Who is this guidance written for?
This guidance is for people involved in
information delivery planning processes for
delivery and task teams.
Who is this guidance of particular interest
to and why?
This guidance is of interest to the parties
overseeing information delivery planning
activities in terms of responsibility matrices
and master and task information delivery
plans (federation strategy and information
container breakdown structure will follow in
future guidance)
Key takeaways
• The planning of the delivery of information
should be approached in a successive
amount of detail. This begins by dening
the federation strategy and information
container breakdown structures, progresses
to high-level and detailed responsibility
matrices, and culminates with the creation
of the task information delivery plan(s)
(TIDP(s)) and the master information
delivery plan (MIDP).
• The responsibility matrices build on the
high-level information planning to identify
what information has to be produced, by
who, and when. The responsibility matrix
has two development stages: a “high level
responsibility matrix” that is developed
(as part of the pre-appointment BIM
execution plan) before an appointment is
made between the appointing party and
lead appointed party. This is then rened
to become the “detailed responsibility
matrix” which then informs a delivery team’s
TIDP(s) and MIDP.
• Planning information delivery is the most
detailed level of planning specied in the
ISO 19650 series. Every task team prepares
a TIDP to cover the deliverables they are
responsible for. The lead appointed party,
who manages the delivery of information
across their delivery team, must coordinate
and compile each of the TIDPs into an
MIDP.
As with all guidance supporting the UK BIM
Framework, we invite comment and feedback
on this guidance F at
guidancefeedback@ukbimframework.org
8
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Abbreviations and acronyms
This guidance includes a number of abbreviations and acronyms as set out in Table 1.
Table 1:
Abbreviations and acronyms
Abbreviation or acronym Term
BIM Building information modelling
EIR Exchange information requirements
IFC Industry foundation classes
MIDP Master information delivery plan
TIDP Task information delivery plan
9
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
1.0 About information delivery
planning
1.1 Introduction
Information delivery planning is one of the
fundamental concepts of the ISO 19650
series. This part of the UK BIM Framework
guidance brings together three dierent ways
in which delivery of information is planned in
successive amounts of detail:
1. The federation strategy and the
information container breakdown structure
2. The responsibility matrices
3. The task and master information delivery
plans.
Although these topics are addressed
separately in both ISO 19650-1 and ISO
19650-2, they are in fact steps on a journey
from planning information delivery in very
broad terms through to identifying the
separate information containers and their
interrelationships, see Figure 2.
Federation Strategy Responsibility MatrixBreakdown Structure Information Delivery
Plans
Figure 2: Information delivery planning process tools
This part of the guidance is structured into
three main sections, to reect the three
broad topics above. However, for this edition
the rst section on federation strategy and
information container breakdown structure
has not yet been drafted. An empty section
has been included as a placeholder and this is
expected to be lled at the next edition.
10
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
2.0 Federation strategy and
information container breakdown
structure
This section of the guidance will be populated
in a future edition
11
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
3.1 Introduction
The responsibility matrices are one of
the key components of the information
delivery planning process, see Figure 3. The
responsibility matrices build on the high-level
information planning that has been expressed
through the federation strategy, setting out
how dierent information models relate to
each other, and the information container
breakdown structure, which sets out how
information containers are grouped together
in a hierarchy.
The responsibility matrices are then used to
develop the more detailed task information
delivery plans (TIDPs), which are then
combined into the master information delivery
plan (MIDP) for a particular delivery team.
Federation Strategy
Responsibility Matrices
Breakdown Structure Information Delivery
Plans
Figure 3: The responsibility matrices in the suite of information delivery planning tools
A responsibility matrix (dened in ISO 19650-
1 clause 3.1.1 and explained in clause 10.3)
should have two critical axes as a minimum as
illustrated by Figure 4:
1. Information management functions
2. Project/Asset Information Management
Tasks or Deliverables
3.0 Responsibility matrices
12
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Figure 4: Illustration of a matrix using two axes
Axis 1 Information Management Functions
Function 1 Function 2 Function 3 Function 4 Function 5
Axis 2
Tasks or
Deliverables
Task/Deliverable 1
Task/Deliverable 2
Task/Deliverable 3
Task/Deliverable 4
Task/Deliverable 5
Task/Deliverable 6
Task/Deliverable 7
ISO 19650-2 clauses 5.3.2 and 5.4.2 make
it clear that responsibilities for tasks or
deliverables should be dened by the lead
appointed party in the form of a matrix.
The responsibility matrix has two development
stages: a “high level responsibility matrix” that
is developed (as part of the pre-appointment
BIM execution plan) before an appointment
is made between the appointing party and
lead appointed party. This is then rened to
become the “detailed responsibility matrix” as
part of conrming the appointment. However,
ISO 19650-2 does not identify the detailed
responsibility matrix as an appointment
resource. The detailed responsibility matrix
is not referenced as an appointment resource
because the contractual requirements are
fullled by the high-level responsibility
matrix and the MIDP or TIDP. It acts as an
intermediate step in developing the TIDPs and
MIDP.
3.2 Format of the responsibility matrices
The responsibility matrices may take any form
so long as they satisfy the requirements of
ISO 19650-2. However, a common structure
is typically that of a tabulated form as
illustrated by Figure 4.
13
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
3.3 High level responsibility matrix contents
As part of their tender response, the
prospective lead appointed party lters out
the information deliverables they expect
to full in consideration of the appointing
party’s exchange information requirements.
This ensures there is no overlap with other
delivery teams and claries what, at high
level, they expect to deliver. For example,
a main contractor who is tendering for
construction works, and has some contractor
design portion works within their scope, needs
to make it clear where their scope starts and
ends, especially if there is some overlap with
another lead appointed party.
The structure of the high level responsibility
matrix is often determined by the agreed
container breakdown structure as noted in
section 3.1 but now includes the WHO.
Responsibility Matrix Incorporating Structure
Axis 1 Information
Management Functions
MEP Task
Team
Steelwork Task
Team
Axis 2
Tasks or
Deliverables
1. MEP
Mechanical
Information
Responsible
Electrical
Information
Responsible
2. STRUCTURAL Responsible
Agreed Breakdown Structure
All containers
Federated information
model
MEP containers Structural containers
Mechanical systems
containers
Electrical systems
containers
Plumbing systems
containers
Figure 5: Example of a high-level responsibility matrix incorporating agreed breakdown structure
Figure 5 illustrates one example of some
high-level tasks and deliverables. It only
denes the high-level deliverables such
as “mechanical information” and does not
dene more specic deliverables such as “air
conditioning information” or “gas distribution
information”. Following selection, these more
specic deliverables would be developed as
part of the detailed responsibility matrix and
information delivery plans.
Note that the high-level responsibility matrix
may also include information management
tasks. For example, the lead appointed party
can use this matrix to identify who will deploy
and manage the common data environment
solution being adopted by their delivery team
or who will be managing information related
to compliance with the CDM regulations.
14
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
3.4 Detailed responsibility matrix
3.4.1 Expectation
It is at the detailed responsibility matrix level
where considerable thought must be given
towards the correct allocation of tasks and
responsibilities. ISO 19650-2, clause 5.4.2
requires the following components to be
identied by the detailed responsibility matrix:
• WHAT information is to be produced
• WHEN the information is to be exchanged
with whom (i.e. information dependencies)
• WHO (which task team) is responsible for
its production.
The detailed responsibility matrix is the
stepping-stone between the high-level
responsibility matrix and the delivery plans.
Depending on the nature of the appointment,
the extent to which it is necessary to dene
information dependencies may vary and
the detailed responsibility matrix should not
duplicate the purpose of the MIDP.
3.4.2 Background context
It is important to remember that projects
have always needed to understand what
information is required from members
of the project team so that tasks can be
completed; the detailed responsibility matrix
is nothing new and has been around for a
long time. The ISO 19650-2 description of the
detailed responsibility matrix is very similar
to existing industry tools such as the “design
responsibility matrix” shown in Figure 6. ISO
19650-2 simply standardizes the approach to
this type of responsibility matrix and applies
a neutral name for the tool, one reason being
that the concept applies to all information at
all stages, not just design information.
In Figure 6, the three key components of
WHAT, WHEN and WHO are highlighted in
red. It is possible for the design responsibility
matrix, once developed by the lead appointed
party, to be reviewed and then used by the
task team(s) to inform their TIDP(s).
15
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Task/Deliverable
Author Task Team
Stage for exchange with
Lead Appointed Party for Review
Legend:
R = Responsibility
# = Input
1,2,3 = Party/provider
1 2 3 4
AAA
BBB
CCC
GGG
Other input
1 2 3 4 5 6
GENERAL
BREEAM (Energy Eciency evaluation)
Information
# # # 14 12 12 12 12 12 12
Building Area Management Information R 1 1 1 1 1 1
Building Maintenance / Cleaning Information R # # 11 1 1 1 1 1
Building setting out; co-ordination; grids;
dimensions & level Info
R # # 1 1 1 1 1
CFD modelling for Natural Ventilation
Information
# R 3 3 3
Checking s/c drawings R # # # ALL 1 1 1
Coordination of Design whole design information R # # # 1 1 1 1 1 1
DOORS
External security door information R # 38 1 1 1 38 38
Metal doors, shutters, hatch information R # 40 1 1 1 40 40
Ironmongery information R 40 1 1 1 1 1
ELECTRICAL SERVICES
Access control system information # P DC 3 3 3 4 4
Etc Etc # P DC 3 3 3 4 4
FIRE ENGINEERING SERVICES
Etc Etc
DRAINAGE
Etc Etc # R # 2 2 2 2
EARTHWORKS
Etc Etc R 2 2 2 2
ENVELOPE: GENERAL
Etc Etc # R 37,38 2 2 2
ENVELOPE: CLADDING
WHAT
WHO WHEN
Figure 6: Example of an existing design responsibility matrix that predates 1192 and 19650 standards
16
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
3.4.3 Modern approach
Although the example provided in Figure 6
can satisfy the detailed responsibility matrix
requirements dened in ISO 19650-2, it does
not exploit the information modelling tools
or the information management standards
now available to the industry to their full
potential. Figure 7 shows an approach using
the following two examples.
Example 1: Semantic approach
(shown in Figure 7 as apricot shading)
Industry standard groupings and descriptions
of objects, systems or elements could
be used to help improve the structuring,
understanding and cross-referencing for each
task or deliverable. Using the IFC schema
published by buildingSmart International
the sub heading of “metal doors” under the
main heading of “doors” in Figure 3 would be
re-identied as IFCDoor, as shown in Figure
7. IFC is not the only resource available when
considering structured approaches. Uniclass
2015 could also be used with “metal doors”
re-identied as “Pr_30_59_24_52 : Metal
doorsets”. The use of semantic approaches
provides direct links between shared resources
such as between the responsibility matrix and
the MIDP. Links can also be created between
these resources and the modelling process.
This can take the form of alignment in naming
or classifying objects or as a way of visually
interrogating or ltering the information
model.
Example 2: Extra level of detail
(shown in Figure 7 as blue shading)
When dening specic responsibilities at the
modelled object property denition level in
the form of alphanumerical data, further
levels of detail could be introduced to the
detailed responsibility matrix. Using the
door example, further breakdown could be
introduced by identifying that the “re rating”
property comes from Task Team 1 at stage 3
and the “manufacturer” property comes from
Task Team 2 at stage 4. This level of detail
within the responsibility matrix is important if
alphanumerical data in the form of structured
information containers are a key output for
the project. The lead appointed party will
want to ensure that specic data properties
are captured in alphanumeric form within
schedules or geometrical models. This is a
signicant step forward compared to just
being recorded in unstructured information
containers such as pdf documents.
It is important that the detailed responsibility
matrix is as simple and proportionate to the
project`s needs as possible. The amount of
work by the lead appointed party to compile
this extra level of detail and structuring, as
well as the extra work by appointed parties to
review and use it to inform their TIDP(s), should
be taken into account.
17
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Task/Deliverable Author Task Team
Stage for exchange with
Lead Appointed Party for Review
Legend:
R = Responsibility
# = Input
1,2,3 = Party/provider
1 2 3 4
AAA
BBB
CCC
GGG
Other
input
1 2 3 4 5 6
DOORS (IFCDoor)
1. Internal Door Geometry Information (IFCDoor_
DOOR)
R # 38 1 1 1 38 38
1.1 Required Door Attributes via COBie
SpeadsheetML
R # 40 1 1 1 40 40
1.1.1 All standard properties of MVD 2.4 1 # 40 1 1 1 40 40
1.1.2 <Minus> "SerialNumber"
1.1.2 <Plus> "FireRating" R # 40 1 1 1 1 1
1.1.3 <Plus> "AcousticRating" R # 40 1 1 1 1 1
1.1.4 <Plus> "FireExit" R # 40 1 1 1 1 1
1.2 Required Door Properties via IFC Step R # 40 1 1 1 1 1
1.2.1 All standard properties of MVD RV 1.2 R # 40 1 1 1 1 1
2. Access Hatch Geometrical Information
(IFCDoor_TRAPDOOR)
R 40 1 1 1 1 1
2.1 Required Door Attributes via COBie
SpeadsheetML
R # 40 1 1 1 40 40
2.1.1 All standard properties of MVD 2.4 1 # 40 1 1 1 40 40
2.1.2 <Minus> "SerialNumber"
Metal Doors (IFCDoor)
Figure 7: An improved approach to the design responsibility matrix
18
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
3.4.4 Process
It is important to have a clear understanding
of the distinction between the detailed
responsibility matrix, information container
breakdown structure and the information
delivery plans. Figure 8 illustrates the
connection between them.
The information container breakdown
structure informs how the detailed
responsibility matrix may be structured
to ensure all important aspects of the
information model are assigned. The detailed
responsibility matrix sets out the WHAT,
WHEN and WHO of tasks or deliverables.
In response, task teams will compile their
detailed task information delivery plans
setting out exactly how the information will
be delivered through an appropriate set of
information containers. The lead appointed
party will then compile the TIDPs to represent
the entire delivery team`s master information
delivery plan.
Figure 8: Process of information delivery planning
TIDPDetailed Responsibility MatrixBreakdown Structure
This is our agreed
information container
structuring
Door
Location Plan
Drawing
We can
deliver May
11th - Stage 2
Conrmed
as under our
scope
Door
Schedule
We can
deliver May
2nd - Stage 2
Conrmed
as under our
scope
Door
Specication
We can
deliver Feb
5th - Stage 2
Conrmed
as under our
scope
WHAT: I want door
information
WHEN: Stage 2
WHO: Task Team 1
Building Fabric
Windows
Doors
Directly informs
Directly responds
The connection between WHAT, WHEN and WHO
19
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
3.5 Misconceptions
3.5.1 Assignment matrix vs
responsibility matrix
A common misconception is that the
responsibility matrices are the same as
that described in ISO 19650 Part 2 Annex
A “Information Management Assignment
Matrix”. This is not the case as the assignment
matrix is a tool for assigning ISO 19650-
2 clause tasks whereas the responsibility
matrices are tools for assigning delivery team
tasks and information deliverables. ISO
19650-2 Table A.1 should not be used in the
place of either of the responsibility matrices.
3.5.2 Master information delivery plan
vs detailed responsibility matrix
The detailed responsibility matrix supports the
production of the TIDPs and MIDP. It informs
the scope requirements of each task team so
that they can adequately dene their outputs
as part of their TIDP.
For example, a detailed responsibility
matrix may dene that the “above ground
drainage” information is the responsibility
of the drainage contractor but the “below
ground drainage” is the responsibility of a civil
engineer. This communicates to the drainage
contractor that their scope is above ground
drainage only. When this drainage contractor
develops their TIDP to detail out the specic
deliverables such as “drainage layout plans”,
they will be doing this just for above ground
drainage. The MIDP compiled by the lead
appointed party will then dene exactly what
deliverables (such as drawings, schedules and
models) will be produced by the civil engineer
for below ground and the drainage contractor
for above ground drainage.
3.5.3 Information container breakdown
structure vs responsibility matrices
The information container breakdown
structure is a pre-cursor to and provides the
foundation for the responsibility matrices. It
will dictate the approach to the responsibility
matrices and will inform the information
delivery plans. For example, if the chosen
breakdown structure is similar to that
illustrated in ISO 19650-1 Figure A.3, it will
have an impact upon how the responsibility
matrix will be dened (see guidance Figure
6). ISO 19650-1 Figure A.3 provides the
WHAT by breaking down a building project
into information containers. This strategy can
then be adapted to support the responsibility
matrix by adding the additional requirements
needed of the responsibility matrix, the WHO
and WHEN as illustrated in guidance Figures
7 and 8.
20
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
4.0 Information delivery plans
4.1 Introduction
Preparing the information delivery plans on
projects is essential, as every task on a project
is supported by some form of information.
This is the most detailed level of planning
specied in ISO 19650, following on from the
federation strategy, information container
breakdown structure and the responsibility
matrices, as shown in Figure 9.
Before any planning can take place, there
must be clear information requirements
to begin with so that all variables can be
considered. ISO 19650 Part 1 illustrates
this dening of requirements and delivery
planning process using a simple diagram
shown in Figure 10 below.
Federation Strategy Responsibility MatrixBreakdown Structure Information Delivery
Plans
Figure 9: The information delivery plans in the suite of information delivery planning tools
Figure 10: Information delivery process (ISO 19650-1 Figure 4)
Information requirements
(State what you want)
Information on delivery planning
(Plan how and when to deliver it)
Information delivery
(Deliver it)
Information approval
(Approve it)
Feedback
loops
OK?
No
Yes
21
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
The ISO 19650 series demonstrates that the
planning of information delivery becomes the
responsibility of each lead appointed party
and appointed party (see ISO 19650 -1 clause
10.1 and ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4). This is noted
as the second process step in Figure 10 and
comes after requirements have been dened.
The output from an information delivery
planning exercise for each appointed party is
the production of a task information delivery
plan (TIDP). This is because each appointed
party has tasks to perform, which must be
reected in the TIDP for each task team (see
ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4.4). To understand
the relationship between appointed parties
and task teams, refer to ISO 19650 guidance
part 2, section 1.1. The lead appointed party,
who manages the delivery of information
across their delivery team, must coordinate
and compile each of the TIDPs into a master
information delivery plan (MIDP).
The following section describes the
information delivery planning process in more
detail, including the TIDP and MIDP outputs,
to give you a better understanding of its
purpose and benets.
4.2 Background context
It is important to remember that projects
have always needed to understand what
information is required from members of the
project team so that tasks can be completed.
The information delivery planning process and
the outputs often take the form of tangible
plans; they are nothing new.
Did you know the use of co-ordinated project
information being a contractual requirement
was a recommendation of the 1994 report,
Constructing the Team, by Sir Michael
Latham? This requirement was included in
the form of the information release schedule,
in the JCT 1998 Design and Build form of
construction contract
1
.
The information release schedule has many
of the characteristics of the TIDP and MIDP
outputs, as dened in ISO 19650-2. Table
2 is an example of an information release
schedule - an early form of information
delivery plan. You will note that the schedule
denes:
• The name of the information to be
released/ issued
• The author of the information
• The dates for when the information is to be
released
• Some key milestones that also contain a
note of level of information need.
22
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Table 2: A condensed example of an information release schedule; early form of information
delivery plan
Information Release Schedule
Works Information Responsibility Issued for
Contractor
Procurement
Issued for Client
Submission
Issued for
Construction
Substructure
Piling Layout Plans (1:100) Structural Eng 06 June 2008 02 August 2008 16 August 2008
Piling Schedule Structural Eng 06 June 2008 02 August 2008 16 August 2008
Ground Bearing Slab Plans
and Details
Structural Eng 24 May 2008 02 August 2008 16 August 2008
Superstructure
Rebar Schedule Structural Eng 06 June 2008 09 July 2008 23 July 2008
Precast Frames Structural Eng 06 June 2008 09 July 2008 23 July 2008
Slab and Details Level 1 Structural Eng 24 May 2008 09 July 2008 23 July 2008
Slab and Details Level 2 Structural Eng 24 May 2008 09 July 2008 23 July 2008
Slab and Details Level 3 Structural Eng 24 May 2008 09 July 2008 23 July 2008
Slab and Details Level 4 Structural Eng 24 May 2008 09 July 2008 23 July 2008
Stair Lift Core 1 Structural Eng 15 April 2008 02 July 2008 16 July 2008
Stair Lift Core 2 Structural Eng 15 April 2008 02 July 2008 16 July 2008
Site
Site Location Plan Architect 14 January 2008 21 January 2008 04 February 2008
Existing Site Plan Architect 14 January 2008 21 January 2008 04 February 2008
Proposed Site Plan Architect 14 January 2008 21 January 2008 04 February 2008
23
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
4.3 Modern ISO 19650 approach
From the UK’s perspective, the ISO 19650
series builds on the concept of the information
release schedule by providing consistency of
approach and terminology for information
delivery planning. Specically, ISO 19650-2
identies:
• When the information delivery planning
process should start
• Who is involved, and
• What outputs are expected.
The two primary outputs of the information
delivery planning process for each
delivery team are a set of TIDPs and their
corresponding MIDP. The ISO 19650 series
also states a minimum requirement for these
outputs to ensure the points listed above are
included consistently in each plan.
4.4 Task information delivery
plan (TIDP)
4.4.1 Expectation
ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4.4 states that every
team responsible for a task (a task team)
must produce a delivery plan for the
information relating to their respective
works. This plan is referred to as the TIDP.
Clause 5.4.4 also denes what the task
team must consider when developing their
TIDP. Considerations include the information
requirements assigned to them, their dened
responsibilities and timescales.
According to clause 5.4.4, the TIDP must then
schedule out an agreed list of information
containers to be delivered, identifying for
each one its:
• Name and title
• Predecessors or dependencies
• Level of information need
• Estimated time required for production
• Author
• Delivery milestones.
4.4.2 Format
4.4.2.1 Form and function
ISO 19650-2 does not mandate a template
approach for presentation of TIDPs. It is
left open to the delivery team to dene how
the TIDPs are developed to enable them to
facilitate compilation of the MIDP by the lead
appointed party. Furthermore, ISO 19650-2
does not identify the TIDP as a document;
rather it is a resource that could be provided
using various solutions such as: spreadsheets;
project management programme tools; and/or
other digital management tools.
It is possible to produce a TIDP collaboratively
between the task team and the lead
appointed party. This may be in the form of
a meeting, capturing the agreed outcomes
in a schedule that all parties are happy with.
This can be better than simply asking a task
team to produce a TIDP in isolation. Such
an approach without a mutual collaborative
involvement could result in a poor, non-specic
delivery plan.
As noted in section 4.2, it is sensible to
review traditional processes and tools like
the information release schedule to build
on and improve what is already established
and understood by the delivery team. This
can help the team’s acceptance of the ISO
19650-2 process and minimize disruption, while
ensuring compliance with ISO 19650-2 clause
5.4.4.
Figure 11 illustrates two approaches (a and
b) for how information containers could be
listed in a TIDP. The gures adopt a colour-
coded key to illustrate the alignment of each
aspect of the TIDPs with the ISO 19650-2
requirements noted in section 4.4.1.
Figure 11a illustrates a tabulated approach,
Figure 11b a Gantt chart approach. These
are for illustration purposes only (reecting
just two ways to approach a TIDP), and
each delivery team should develop its own
approach appropriate to its appointment.
24
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
Figure 11: Examples of inclusion of information containers in TIDPs
Figure 11: Examples of inclusion of information containers in TIDPs
Figure 11a: Tabulated approach
Figure 11b: Gantt chart approach
Name Title Potential Assigned ID
Dependant
on
Level of information need
(information container)
Form/Type Scale Format Notes
Piling Layout
Piling Layout
Plan 1 of 2
HC101-SSl-11-SL-DR-X-0001
Architectural
Site
Information
Drawing 1:100 PDF
Pile types to be
noted
Piling Layout
Piling Layout
Plan 2 of 2
HC101-SSl-11-SL-DR-X-0002
Architectural
Site
Information
Drawing 1:100 PDF
Pile types to be
noted
Task Team Date Agreed Version
Structural
Engineering
Smart
Structures Ltd
1/01/20 C01
Name Title Production Duration Delivery Milestones
Late Dependency Risk S3 S4 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
Piling Layout
Piling Layout
Plan 1 of 2
At least 28 days delay 1/01/20 1/02/20 1/03/20 1/04/20 1/05/20 1/06/20 1/07/20
Piling Layout
Piling Layout
Plan 2 of 2
At least 28 days delay 1/01/20 1/02/20 1/03/20 1/04/20 1/05/20 1/06/20 1/07/20
Key
Name/
Title
Author
Level of information need
(information container)
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5
Form/
Type
Scale Format Notes
M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F
Architectural
Site Plan
Architects
R Us
n/a n/a n/a n/a
Piling
Layout Plan
1 of 2
Smart
Structures
Ltd
Drawing 1:100 PDF Pile
types
to be
noted
S3 S4
Piling
Layout Plan
2 of 2
Smart
Structures
Ltd
Drawing 1:100 PDF Pile
types
to be
noted
S3 S4
A. The name and title of each container
B. Predecessors or dependencies
C. Level of information need
D. Estimated production duration
E. Responsible Information production author
F. Delivery milestones
continued...
25
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
4.4.2.2 Format challenges
When considering an ISO 19650-2 TIDP
approach, there are some challenges or
common pitfalls to be considered.
ISO 19650-2 requires that the TIDP lists
information containers to be generated by
each task team. However, the denition
of “Information container” tends to be
misunderstood, and wrongly associated only
with les. “Information container” is dened
in ISO 19650-1 clause 3.3.12 as a “…set of
information retrievable from within a le,
system or application storage hierarchy.” It
is also noted that an information container
can take the form of a sub-directory, a le or
a distinct subset of a le such as a chapter,
section layer or symbol.
Understanding this distinction is important
because it will inuence your approach to
the TIDP. Two approaches are described, as
follows.
TIDP approach 1: Focus on les
This approach considers information
containers as les only and therefore lists the
drawings, documents and other les that the
task team expects to issue. Because the les
are the focus, IDs are often predicted using
the ISO 19650-2 National Annex clause NA.2,
as shown in Figure 12.
This le-based approach is challenging
because it is dicult to plan the extent of
les to be generated at the outset of an
appointment.
It forces a focus on the presentation of the
information, not the information itself. For
example, that a wall interface detail will
be presented as a single drawing, without
understanding either the scope or complexity
of the information actually required. It is
entirely possible that this interface detail has
to be conveyed in several drawings to aid
construction understanding. In this scenario,
the TIDP would have to be updated via a
change control process. This creates two
issues:
1. The maintenance of unique IDs because
they will need to be added, withdrawn or
re-assigned
2. The volume of change control. This
scenario is likely to repeat dozens, if not
hundreds, of times.
Both of these create a signicant
administrative burden.
Figure 12: File-based-only approach to listing information
containers within a TIDP
File-based TIDP
Information Container
Name (File ID)
Information Container
Description
HC101-SSI-ZZ-DR-A-0001 Party Wall Interface
Detail
HC101-SSI-ZZ-DR-A-0002 Partition Setting Out
Plan - First Floor
HC101-SSI-ZZ-DR-A-0003 Fire Strategy Layout -
First Floor
26
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
TIDP approach 2: Focus on information
production tasks
This second approach, illustrated by Figure
13, concentrates on the information needed,
rather than the specic le/presentation
format (it does not necessarily focus on the
type of le to be produced or the number of
les to be produced). It therefore does not
require every predicted le to be listed and
consequently will not result in changes to the
TIDP if one le needs to become six, or if six
need to become one.
This alternate approach is looser but it still
acts as a clear guide to what is expected, with
a clear name and description. In Figure 13 it
is evident that a party wall interface detail
must be created, but there is no denition
of the presentation form it may take at this
point, whether this is one or more drawings.
With both TIDP approaches, the lead
appointed party has the same job to do. They
must ensure that what they receive contains
the relevant party wall detail information they
expected and that they will receive it at the
intended point in time.
Both TIDP approaches have their advantages
and disadvantages and both should be
considered (alongside others) to ensure the
adopted approach is ecient and practical
and retains a focus on what is needed,
keeping the process as lean as possible.
4.4.3 Process
The principle purpose of the TIDP is to dene
clearly what each task team, and the authors
within it, will produce, and when, noting that
the TIDP will form part of the appointment
between the lead appointed party and
appointed party (see ISO 19650-2 clause
5.4.7). It is therefore important to remember
that planning information deliverables is a
collaborative eort.
A number of key components must be
integrated into the TIDP production process,
as follows:
4.4.3.1 Name and title
The name and title of an information
container (which has to be stated in
accordance with ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4.4) is
not necessarily the same as its unique ID (ISO
19650-2 National Annex clause NA.2).
ISO 19650-2 is explicit that each planned
information container must be recorded along
with its name and title as part of the TIDP.
The name and title should be clear so as to
dene what the output shall be from the task
team.
Retrievable information within les-based
TIDP
Information Container
Name
Information Container
Description
All party wall interface
detail
Detail of the north party
wall at a scale of 1:20
Partition plan for the
whole rst oor
Plan dening partition
types and acoustic
ratings
Fire strategy for the rst
oor
Fire strategy dening
wall and door re
ratings, equipment and
escape routes
Figure 13: Non-le-based TIDP approach
27
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
4.4.3.2 Dependencies and predecessors
To agree delivery milestones and production
durations, as required by ISO 19650 and
as noted in section 4.4.1, the task team and
lead appointed party must be aware of other
dependency and predecessor information
agreed with other task teams.
Figure 11 (a and b) illustrates two ways in
which a dependency can be recorded in a
TIDP. In Figure 11a (tabulated format), the
“piling task team” identied that architectural
site information was required but did not
note when they would receive the information.
The Gantt chart example (Figure 11b)
also indicates a dependency on a specic
architectural deliverable, but in addition shows
the date it will be received. This indicates that
the “piling task team” either:
• Coordinated with the lead appointed party
to conrm a delivery date, or
• Highlighted via a placeholder in their
programme, when they needed the
information to arrive.
This shows they have allowed ve days for
review before sharing their rst piling layout
plan.
4.4.3.3 Level of information need
ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4.4 states that the TIDP
must also record level of information need for
each information container. The purpose of
this is to dene the scope of contents of the
information container.
One example could be in relation to a piling
layout, as illustrated in Figure 11b, whereby the
pile types are a mandatory prerequisite of the
issue, potentially determined by the exchange
information requirements (EIR) that formed
part of the author’s piling requirements.
Another example could be in reference to a
door schedule, whereby the author denes
the scope of the door schedule key contents
at the point of issue, which may include “Fire
Ratings”. Another common example could be
in relation to an equipment schedule used
in operation and maintenance submittals.
The TIDP may reference a specication that
denes the contents.
The primary benet for the task team in
dening the level of information need in the
TIDP is to make it clear what will and will not
be included within the information container
at its various milestones.
4.4.3.4 Production durations
It is important to identify information
production duration in the TIDP. This is
particularly relevant if there are dependencies,
such as information that is needed from, or
by, another task team or allowing for a review
period.
4.4.3.5 Author
There are a few ways to approach the
“information author” content in the TIDP.
• Depending on the organizational structure
of the task team or the approach to the
TIDP, it may be sucient to dene the
whole authoring organization as the key
author for all deliverables
• If a task team has a complex structure,
for example, it has two distinct disciplines,
it may be pragmatic to list the discipline
leads specically
• If the TIDP contains listed dependencies
from other task teams, it may be advisable
to list these under a dedicated author, as
illustrated in Figure 11b.
4.4.3.6 Milestones
It is important to consider all milestones when
producing the TIDP. Milestones include those
identied in the appointment EIR, as well
as those determined by the task team. A
milestone could be based on the purpose for
issue such as, for comment with status S3 or
when published within stage 4 with the status
A4.
4.4.4 Appointment signicance
ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4.7 requires that each
appointed party appointment includes the
relevant TIDP(s) – see ISO 19650 guidance
part 2 sections 1.4 and 1.5. This ensures a
contractual obligation to deliver the required
information. Updates to the TIDP following
appointment should comply with agreed
change control procedures.
28
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
4.5 Master information delivery plan (MIDP)
4.5.1 Expectation
ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4.5 states that the
lead appointed party shall aggregate their
appointed parties’ TIDPs to form the delivery
team’s MIDP. Clause 5.4.5 denes what the
lead appointed party shall consider when
developing this aggregated plan, including:
• The assigned responsibilities within the
detailed responsibility matrix
• Predecessor and dependency between the
task teams
• Appointing party and lead appointed
party review durations.
Once the TIDPs have been aggregated, and
taking the above into consideration, the lead
appointed party must:
• Baseline the deliverables and dates within
the MIDP
• Notify each task team of changes
• Inform the appointing party of any risks.
4.5.2 Format
ISO 19650-2 does not mandate a template
approach for presentation of the delivery
team`s MIDP. It is left to the lead appointed
party to determine this. If the appointing
party does have a specic template to be
adopted, then this would take the form of a
shared resource. Furthermore, ISO 19650-2
does not identify the MIDP as a document,
rather, it identies it as a resource that
could be provided using various solutions
such as: spreadsheets; project management
programme tools; and/or other digital
management tools.
As noted in section 4.2, it is sensible to review
traditional processes and tools used by lead
appointed parties to build on and improve
what is already established and understood
by the lead appointed party organization.
This can help their acceptance of the ISO
19650-2 process and minimize disruption, while
ensuring compliance with ISO 19650-2 clause
5.4.5.
4.5.3 Process
The principal purpose of the MIDP is to
dene clearly what information the delivery
team expects to deliver. This should be
set against a coordinated programme that
takes account of predecessors, dependencies,
specic responsibilities and review and sign-
o durations that the lead appointed party is
responsible for managing on behalf of their
delivery team.
The following three actions must be
performed once the TIDPs have been
aggregated, as dened in ISO 19650-2, clause
5.4.5:
1. Baseline the deliverables and dates
Projects are governed by scope and
deadlines, and each information container
to be delivered must be recorded
according to a programme to measure the
delivery team’s progress and the overall
performance.
This baselined MIDP should be shared,
understood and agreed by the whole
delivery team so that the lead appointed
party can be condent in meeting its
appointment obligations.
2. TIDP feedback
Projects are rarely static, with change
being commonplace. Change may be
minor, ranging from a few additional
information deliverables being required,
to signicant change. Whenever
there is a change to the scope of the
lead appointed party’s appointment,
information deliverables and TIDPs should
be reviewed. Any likely changes must
be collaboratively approached to ensure
that amended TIDPs are coordinated with
one another and reected in the lead
appointed party`s MIDP.
29
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
3. Risk management
ISO 19650-2 clause 5.3.6 states that a risk
register must be established by the lead
appointed party. Any risks that impact
information delivery and information
delivery milestones should be recorded in
this risk register.
Unrealistic deadlines, resource issues or
even concerns outside the lead appointed
party’s control (for example, milestones
that the lead appointed party and
their delivery team cannot meet without
reference information from the appointing
party) should be considered and reported.
This gives all parties oversight of the risks
and creates a mechanism to implement
appropriate risk-mitigation measures.
Although it is not expressly stated in ISO
19650-2, it would be good practice for the
lead appointed party to cross-check the MIDP
against the EIR received from the appointing
party. This is to make sure that the EIR,
including delivery dates, will be met in full.
Where there are deliverables missing or not
indicated to be delivered at the required time
then these issues need to be discussed with
the task team(s) and then with the appointing
party (client). Items that remain unresolved
should be recorded in the risk register (item 3,
above).
4.5.4 Appointment signicance
ISO 19650-2 clause 5.4.6 requires that each
lead appointed party appointment includes
the relevant MIDP. This ensures a contractual
obligation to deliver the required information.
Updates to the MIDP following appointment
should comply with agreed change control
procedures.
30
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
5.0 Summary
ISO 19650 guidance F has provided further
insight into information delivery planning.
It should be referred to by practitioners and
those implementing the ISO 19650 series
across a project, within an appointment or
within an organization.
Please note that the ISO 19650 series is still
new, albeit based on former UK standards.
As experience of implementing the ISO 19650
series is gained over the coming months and
years, this guidance will be updated to reect
both this experience and any comments/
feedback received from users.
Please do let us have your feedback by
emailing us at
guidancefeedback@ukbimframework.org.
Please also remember that standards within
the ISO 19650 series are available at
www.bsigroup.com.
Visit www.ukbimframework.org to see how the
ISO 19650 standards plus other standards
within the UK BIM Framework map to the
design, build, operate and integrate process.
31
| Guidance Part F
Edition 1 - September 2020
About information delivery planning
The Centre for Digital Built Britain is part of the Construction Innovation Hub programme,
funded by UK Research and Innovation through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund.
Engage with the UK BIM Framework
https://ukbimframework.org/
@UKBIMFramework
UKBIMFramework
