Two languages, one task

'Governments: embrace MiniBIM' writes program manager Smart City Alkmaar Niek Jan Johan Hendriks in an argument on platform Stadszaken after a conversation with the author of this column Pims digital maze. Pim wouldn't be Pim if he didn't then respond to that as well: "Nice call Niek, but don't forget MiniGIM."

Niek touches a sensitive chord in his column. I am grateful to him for that. Because he identifies something that many people in the world of construction and development experience on a daily basis: we talk nonsense about acceleration, collaboration and digitization, but in practice we often organize exactly the opposite. We produce piles of documents, add layers of interpretation, build in extra process steps and then call that meticulousness. Meanwhile, the house seeker, the official, the developer and the buyer are all waiting for the same thing: clarity.

So let me start with the most important thing: I fully endorse the core of Niek's message. In the Netherlands we have a much greater need for shared decision-making based on objectively verifiable information. Less talk about cooperation, more work on cohesion.

At the same time, it helps to make one important distinction sharper. For in this discussion, two standards are running close together: MiniBIM and MiniGIM. This is not surprising. They are an extension of each other, touch each other in the chain and both are about digitization as a common language. But they don't do the same thing.

Not a fledgling experiment

MiniBIM is, at its core, the language of project development. That's where the developer and the ultimate buyer sit at the table. Think housing associations, investors or private buyers. It is then about the information needed to assess, develop and steer projects objectively. Not just on form or feel, but on area, program, feasibility, affordability, target groups, performance and, increasingly, testing components. This is precisely why colleagues on the municipal side, for example in permit processes, can also benefit from MiniBIM. After all, some of the information helps in the environmental planning test and the technical test.

Moreover, MiniBIM is certainly no longer a fledgling experiment. It has been in use for years, its content has been coordinated with the association of housing corporations and it also meets the information needs of corporations for their portfolio management and reporting. Over seventy architectural firms have responded to it in terms of content, and now there is visible enthusiasm from the world of investors as well. This means that, frankly, we are not much concerned about the further development of MiniBIM. That foundation is in place. Not finished, but mature. I see the bigger challenge in another area: MiniGIM.

Because where MiniBIM is mainly the language between developer and buyer in project development, MiniGIM is much more the language between area developer and municipality. There it is about policy, area considerations, environmental information, preconditions, ambitions and the question of how to make these objectively verifiable. This is where the real system challenge for governments lies. Not only in the question whether you want to receive digital models, but especially in the question whether you can formulate policy in such a way that it can be translated into consistent, repeatable and measurable decision-making.

Double call

And that's where it gets exciting. Because as long as policy consists mainly of texts that sound smart but are difficult to test, every development will remain another debate. Then we will not get acceleration, but a relay of interpretations. MiniGIM helps to sharpen the front end of the chain. Not to simplify policy, but to make it more manageable. So that a municipality not only has ambitions, but also a language to consistently apply those ambitions.

Therefore, my appeal to municipalities is also twofold. Join MiniBIM, because there is already a mature project language there that helps to collaborate smarter, test better and exchange information more unambiguously. But get to grips with MiniGIM as well, because that is perhaps where the greatest benefit lies: translating policy and area development into objectively verifiable frameworks that are useful to the entire chain.

Eindhoven and Rotterdam

The great thing is: you can already see that several cities are working on this. Niek himself is a good example, but cities like Rotterdam and Eindhoven are also showing that this movement is alive and well. That's encouraging. Because this will only succeed if we join forces. Not ten cities with ten truths, but a growing consensus on a uniform way of working. Not because uniformity is fun, but because the social task has become too big for local improvisation as a standard model.

Digitalization, then, is not the goal. It is the means by which we can scale up cooperation, deal with shortages and make quality more negotiable and testable. If we take that step together, digitization will help not only the market, not only the government, but ultimately especially the people for whom we are doing all this.

And that is perhaps the shortest summary of the whole story:

MiniBIM helps us make better projects.

MiniGIM helps us better organize areas and policies.

And only if both languages participate will chain integration really have a chance.

Read more episodes from Pims digital maze here