Clear information makes director of digitization superfluous

Especially in construction, with its complex chain, it is tempting to appoint a director in digitization projects. But that is a bit lazy, thinks Pim van Meer. "The chain is also complex because for fifteen years we have refused to really explain our information needs."

In almost every session on digitization in construction, sooner or later the same word is heard: director. The chain is complex, the information is complicated, everyone has their own interests - so there has to be someone "upstairs" to direct the whole thing.

I heard it again the other day from TNO: a director is needed. And every fiber in me then thinks: are we now working on 3D data driven collaboration, or are we just inventing an extra layer of management?

Let's start with that other difficult word: information need. At its core, information need is not complicated at all. It is simply the question: what do I definitely need to know at what time in order to be able to assume my responsibility properly? A structural engineer needs different information than a corporation. A fire chief wants to see different things than an investor.

The trouble starts when we don't make that explainable. Then you get models full of data that nobody knows about exactly:
- those who direct it;
- why it's laid down that way;
- and what happens when you turn a slide on it.
In such a foggy landscape, a director feels logical. Someone who just has to "connect" and "integrate." But if the information need itself is clear, explainable and transparent, the demand changes completely.

Then the core is not: who directs the whole thing? But: can everyone steer openly toward their own goals, in the same 3D picture, what conflicting interests does this create?

I know it can be done, I've seen it, more than once.
Imagine a project as an orchestra, but one with good sheet music. Everyone has their own part (goals, standards, acceptance criteria), neatly written out. The conductor is not the one who comes up with all the notes, but the one who sets the tempo and makes sure no one drowns out everyone else.

In construction projects, we often call that conductor "director," but honestly: in practice, it quickly becomes an opinion, an additional gut feeling. Another layer of consultation, another layer of interpretation, another person summarizing the content in a PowerPoint or text. While the music - the real information need - remains underwater.

What if we turn it around? Each party makes its goals explicit and measurable.
- The corporation puts its spatial program into clear parameters.
- The municipality lays down its ground rules for program, space and quality of life in explainable, if necessary machine-readable rules.
- Developer shares his minimum information requirements for feasibility (minibim )
- The contractor writes his basic information delivery specification.
- Consultants link their performance requirements directly to the 3D model: spatial program, aesthetic details, daylight, sound, energy, fire, construction.
Those goals and rules come together in one digital environment - model, dashboard, map, call it what you will. Not hidden away in appendices, but visible and explainable.

Then something interesting happens: you don't need a director who "knows everything about everything." What you need above all is discipline to formulate your own goals cleanly, share them transparently and be willing to come to the table if your goals clash with those of another.

Digitalization is not there to give a super-director even more buttons. Digitalization is there to make clashes visible early on, so that the right people can sit together:
- constructor and facade supplier;
- installer and architect;
- corporation and developer;
- fire and urban planning.
Not because someone "upstairs" has thought it up, but because the data show: this is where the problem is, this is where we have to make a choice together.

To be honest, I find it a bit lazy to say "the chain is so complex, we need a director". The chain is also complex because for fifteen years we have refused to really explain our information needs. We write thick programs of requirements, but rarely a clear set of testable goals. We build big models, but do not put simple layers of explanation on top of them that everyone can read.

Once you take explanation and explainability seriously, the role of the "director" changes. He no longer needs to oversee everything in terms of content, but "only" to monitor that:
- everyone makes their goals concrete;
- the rules of the game are transparent and findable;
- decisions are recorded wherever the data is.

Feel free to call that process supervisor, moderator, host - but not an omnipotent director. Because every time we introduce a new central figure, the temptation grows to pass responsibility upwards instead of taking it ourselves.

Filing moment

We cry out that a director is needed because the chain is complex. But often that complexity is precisely the result of vague goals, non-explainable information needs and opaque rules of the game. As long as we don't make our own goals measurable and explainable, a central director feels safe - he catches our vagueness.

But if we really want to steer on quality, the question is not: who will be the director?It is: With 3D digitization, we can define quality together and make objectively testable decisions together.