{ "name": "ConTechLabs construction operational ontology", "version": "0.2", "status": "Working conceptual model for practitioner review", "date": "2026-11-09", "framing": "A lifecycle process map connected to domain objects, decision logic, and governed actions. This is an extensible organizing model, not a complete project specification or a mandated delivery sequence.", "assumptions": [ "Cross-sector starting model for buildings and civil infrastructure; trade packages and regulatory obligations are project-specific.", "Phase ordering is for orientation. Design, approvals, estimating, procurement, construction, and commissioning can overlap or iterate.", "Delivery routes alter timing, responsibilities, and risk allocation. DBB, Design-Build, and CMAR are examples, not interchangeable procedures.", "No jurisdiction-specific legal requirements, engineering criteria, durations, prices, or approval thresholds are supplied.", "Example object instances and constraints are illustrative. Agent actions and savings are research hypotheses, not implemented capabilities." ], "phases": [ { "id": "intent", "name": "Strategy & need", "purpose": "Establish the problem, intended outcomes, and whether construction is the right response.", "activities": [ "Define owner and user needs", "Review existing asset performance", "Compare do-nothing, repair, adapt, lease, and build options", "Set intended service levels and sustainability outcomes", "Establish initial benefits, risks, and affordability", "Review lessons from earlier projects" ], "inputs": [ "Business or public-service need", "Portfolio and asset condition", "Stakeholder priorities", "Funding constraints" ], "outputs": [ "Client requirements", "Options and business case", "Initial scope and risk register", "Decision to investigate or stop" ], "roles": [ "Owner or sponsor", "Users and operators", "Asset or portfolio manager", "Financial adviser" ], "decision": "Which response best serves the need, and should a project proceed?", "blockers": [ "Unclear success criteria", "Unvalidated demand", "No accountable sponsor", "Benefits disconnected from lifecycle costs" ], "data": "Connect requirements to operating evidence, investment assumptions, and affected users.", "logic": "Compare options against agreed criteria; separate measured facts, forecasts, and assumptions.", "action": "Prepare an options brief and unresolved questions; capture the sponsor’s decision and rationale.", "authority": "The sponsor authorizes investment and the option taken forward. AI does not determine the business mandate.", "objects": [ "project", "requirement", "asset", "cost", "risk", "decision" ] }, { "id": "feasibility", "name": "Site & feasibility", "purpose": "Test whether the proposed outcome can be delivered at the site and within the project constraints.", "activities": [ "Assess site or corridor alternatives", "Investigate title, access, easements, and right of way", "Commission surveys and geotechnical investigation", "Investigate utilities and existing conditions", "Assess environmental and planning constraints", "Compare concept options and whole-life cost", "Test initial schedule and funding assumptions" ], "inputs": [ "Client requirements", "Site or corridor information", "Existing surveys and records", "Initial funding and performance criteria" ], "outputs": [ "Feasibility assessment", "Preferred site and concept option", "Investigations and evidence gaps", "Updated business case and risk register" ], "roles": [ "Owner or developer", "Civil and geotechnical engineers", "Surveyor", "Environmental adviser", "Planning adviser", "Utility owners" ], "decision": "Is the option feasible, what uncertainty remains, and what must be investigated before commitment?", "blockers": [ "Incomplete subsurface knowledge", "Unresolved land or access rights", "Unconfirmed utility capacity", "Assumed approvals", "Incomplete funding basis" ], "data": "Link site observations, rights, utility correspondence, surveys, and option assumptions.", "logic": "Run scenario and cost comparisons using stated scope, quantities, calendars, and evidence confidence.", "action": "Draft an investigation plan and compare feasible options with traceable assumptions.", "authority": "Qualified specialists interpret site investigations. The owner accepts the business risk of proceeding.", "objects": [ "project", "location", "requirement", "permit", "resource", "risk", "decision", "record" ] }, { "id": "delivery", "name": "Team, funding & delivery", "purpose": "Establish who delivers the project, how it is funded, and who can make each decision.", "activities": [ "Select delivery and procurement strategy", "Appoint the design and project team", "Establish funding and financing arrangements", "Set governance and decision responsibilities", "Establish contracts, insurance, bonding, and risk allocation", "Define information requirements and systems of record", "Set baseline scope, cost, and milestone governance" ], "inputs": [ "Business case", "Owner requirements", "Funding conditions", "Project risk and market information" ], "outputs": [ "Delivery strategy", "Appointments and agreements", "Authority and responsibility matrix", "Funding plan", "Information management plan" ], "roles": [ "Owner or sponsor", "Project manager or owner representative", "Architect and engineers", "Commercial and legal advisers", "Lender or funder", "Contractor when appointed" ], "decision": "Which delivery structure and responsibilities fit the project, and who has authority over each action?", "blockers": [ "Unassigned decisions", "Misaligned appointments and scope", "Unreleased funding", "Undefined information ownership", "Contract and schedule assumptions that conflict" ], "data": "Connect organizations, appointments, scope, funding conditions, and delegated authority.", "logic": "Check responsibility coverage and whether a proposed action is within a confirmed delegation.", "action": "Prepare responsibility gaps, appointment comparisons, and decision requests for authorized review.", "authority": "The owner and authorized commercial parties establish appointments, contracts, funding, and delegations.", "objects": [ "project", "organization", "role", "contract", "requirement", "cost", "decision", "action" ] }, { "id": "design", "name": "Design & engineering", "purpose": "Translate the brief into coordinated, buildable information and measurable performance requirements.", "activities": [ "Develop concept and schematic design", "Coordinate architecture, structure, civil, and MEP systems", "Advance design development and prepare construction documents as applicable", "Evaluate constructability, maintainability, and access", "Develop specifications and information models", "Coordinate design responsibilities and interfaces", "Review quantities, cost, carbon, and schedule implications", "Manage design reviews, revisions, and unresolved issues" ], "inputs": [ "Approved brief and surveys", "Confirmed requirements", "Design appointments", "Cost and milestone constraints" ], "outputs": [ "Design models and calculations", "Drawings and specifications", "Design decisions and review records", "Package-specific release status" ], "roles": [ "Architect", "Civil, structural, and building-services engineers", "Specialist designers", "Cost consultant or estimator", "Contractor or fabricator when engaged", "Operator" ], "decision": "Does this design package satisfy its requirements and interfaces sufficiently for its next intended use?", "blockers": [ "Conflicting requirements", "Uncoordinated interfaces", "Late owner decisions", "Missing specialist input", "Superseded information in use", "Unclear package release status" ], "data": "Connect design elements to requirements, drawing revisions, specifications, and unresolved review comments.", "logic": "Use approved engineering tools for calculations; compare requirements and trace revision impacts without claiming technical approval.", "action": "Prepare coordination questions, requirement comparisons, and affected-package reviews.", "authority": "Responsible design professionals retain design judgment, technical review, and issued design authority.", "objects": [ "system", "requirement", "record", "location", "activity", "issue", "decision" ] }, { "id": "approvals", "name": "Approvals, rights & permits", "purpose": "Secure the project-specific permissions and commitments required for the relevant work.", "activities": [ "Confirm applicable authorities and submission requirements", "Coordinate planning and environmental review", "Prepare permit and technical submissions", "Secure land rights, easements, and access agreements", "Coordinate utility approvals and service commitments", "Track review comments, conditions, and resubmissions", "Connect approval conditions to affected packages and activities" ], "inputs": [ "Submission-ready design information", "Site and ownership evidence", "Authority requirements", "Environmental and utility information" ], "outputs": [ "Permits and approvals with conditions", "Agreed rights and access", "Submission and response history", "Outstanding obligations and expiry conditions" ], "roles": [ "Authorities having jurisdiction", "Owner and design team", "Planning and environmental advisers", "Landowners", "Utility providers" ], "decision": "Which permissions are required for this package, and is evidence of the applicable authorization available?", "blockers": [ "Incomplete submissions", "Unresolved review comments", "Unsecured rights or access", "Conditions not allocated to an owner", "Approval scope mistaken for whole-project approval" ], "data": "Connect each submission, permission, condition, issuing authority, scope, and source version.", "logic": "Check required evidence and dates against confirmed project rules; do not infer approval from submission or silence.", "action": "Prepare a conditions register and missing-evidence follow-up for the responsible team.", "authority": "The relevant authority issues permits and approvals. Contractual and statutory interpretations require qualified review.", "objects": [ "permit", "requirement", "location", "record", "organization", "decision", "activity" ] }, { "id": "commercial", "name": "Estimate, tender & award", "purpose": "Translate defined work into an agreed commercial and delivery basis.", "activities": [ "Develop quantities and work packages", "Obtain supplier and trade pricing", "Evaluate scope coverage, exclusions, and allowances", "Assess bid qualifications and delivery assumptions", "Compare package interfaces and potential duplication", "Reconcile budget and scope through value analysis", "Conduct tender clarification and award review", "Establish accepted scope, commitments, and reporting structure" ], "inputs": [ "Package drawings and specifications", "Quantities and scope descriptions", "Bid instructions and schedule", "Supplier and contractor proposals" ], "outputs": [ "Estimate with basis and uncertainty", "Bid and scope comparisons", "Clarifications and award recommendations", "Executed commitments and accepted scope" ], "roles": [ "Estimator or quantity surveyor", "Owner and commercial reviewer", "Contractor", "Trade contractors", "Suppliers", "Design team" ], "decision": "What is included, excluded, or uncertain, and does the proposed award meet the agreed project basis?", "blockers": [ "Non-comparable bids", "Scope gaps or overlaps", "Unreconciled quantities", "Qualifications hidden in headline prices", "Unconfirmed delivery assumptions", "Budget and design drift" ], "data": "Link estimate items and bids to quantities, scope, requirements, quotations, and contract versions.", "logic": "Check arithmetic deterministically and propose scope mappings; compare total options without double-counting savings.", "action": "Prepare a bid-leveling review and clarification package; stage an award recommendation.", "authority": "Authorized commercial parties accept scope, commit funds, and execute contracts. AI does not award work.", "objects": [ "workpackage", "quantity", "cost", "quote", "contract", "supplier", "requirement", "decision" ] }, { "id": "supply", "name": "Procure, fabricate & mobilize", "purpose": "Make reviewed information, resources, materials, and access available when the work requires them.", "activities": [ "Prepare and review shop drawings and submittals", "Confirm selections and procurement releases", "Place and acknowledge purchase commitments", "Plan manufacturing and fabrication capacity", "Track production, testing, shipping, and delivery", "Coordinate substitutions and revision effects", "Plan logistics, lifting, storage, and temporary works", "Mobilize labor, equipment, facilities, and site controls" ], "inputs": [ "Accepted scope and procurement plan", "Applicable design and requirements", "Review and release records", "Needed-on-site dates and access constraints" ], "outputs": [ "Reviewed submittals and releases", "Orders and supplier confirmations", "Fabrication and delivery evidence", "Mobilization and logistics plans", "Material receipt and traceability" ], "roles": [ "Contractor and project engineer", "Design reviewer", "Fabricator or manufacturer", "Supplier", "Logistics and lifting specialists", "Superintendent" ], "decision": "What can be released or mobilized, what still constrains supply, and will it be ready for its installation?", "blockers": [ "Late selection or review", "Unreleased procurement", "Unconfirmed factory capacity", "Shipping and site access constraints", "Revision mismatch", "Delivery confused with installation readiness" ], "data": "Connect each material or equipment requirement to its submittal, order, supplier, production state, delivery, and planned use.", "logic": "Decompose elapsed time into review, queue, production, transit, and site readiness using measured or attributed inputs.", "action": "Prepare expediting and alternative-option reviews; request missing confirmations and stage authorized follow-up.", "authority": "Reviewers, buyers, and site leads authorize their respective releases, commitments, substitutions, and site operations.", "objects": [ "material", "asset", "submittal", "contract", "supplier", "resource", "activity", "dependency", "decision" ] }, { "id": "execution", "name": "Construct & coordinate", "purpose": "Execute work safely against current requirements while preserving evidence of what occurred.", "activities": [ "Set out and prepare the site", "Execute enabling works, earthworks, and substructure", "Deliver civil, structural, enclosure, MEP, and finishing packages as applicable", "Coordinate work fronts, trades, access, and temporary works", "Maintain lookahead and resource plans", "Record labor, materials, equipment, progress, and quantities", "Prepare and respond to RFIs and field instructions", "Manage proposed changes and cost or schedule effects", "Verify quality, safety, environmental controls, and concealed work" ], "inputs": [ "Released work information", "Confirmed prerequisites and resources", "Site permissions and method statements", "Contract scope and control baselines" ], "outputs": [ "Installed work and field evidence", "Daily and inspection records", "RFI responses and issued instructions", "Updated quantities and forecasts", "Proposed changes and as-built information" ], "roles": [ "Superintendent and foremen", "Trade contractors and field crews", "Project manager", "Design team", "Inspectors", "Safety and environmental personnel", "Owner representative" ], "decision": "Is the work ready to proceed, what direction is authorized, and what evidence supports reported progress?", "blockers": [ "Blocked work fronts", "Missing materials or decisions", "Crew and equipment interference", "Rework and nonconforming work", "Unrecorded site conditions", "Inconsistent versions", "Unassessed change effects" ], "data": "Connect field observations and installed work to locations, activities, design versions, resources, and responsible teams.", "logic": "Evaluate confirmed prerequisite logic and validated schedules; reconcile observed quantities without inventing progress or delay responsibility.", "action": "Prepare readiness reviews, daily-report drafts, RFIs, and change evidence; route permitted actions to the right people.", "authority": "Site leaders control execution and safety. Design direction and commercial approval remain with their designated authorities.", "objects": [ "workpackage", "activity", "dependency", "location", "resource", "quantity", "inspection", "issue", "change", "record", "action" ] }, { "id": "verification", "name": "Inspect, test & commission", "purpose": "Demonstrate that installed work and systems meet the requirements applicable to acceptance and use.", "activities": [ "Conduct inspections and resolve nonconformances", "Verify installations and prefunctional checks", "Complete equipment startup and testing", "Execute functional and integrated systems tests", "Verify life-safety and authority requirements", "Record deficiencies and corrective work", "Demonstrate operating performance against agreed criteria", "Prepare operator training and seasonal or deferred test plans" ], "inputs": [ "Installed work", "Applicable acceptance criteria", "Test procedures and instrumentation", "Inspection history and current system information" ], "outputs": [ "Inspection and test results", "Commissioning records", "Deficiency and retest history", "Authority sign-offs where required", "System readiness and remaining test obligations" ], "roles": [ "Commissioning provider", "Inspectors and authorities", "Designers", "Contractors and manufacturers", "Operations team", "Owner representative" ], "decision": "What has actually passed, what remains unproven, and what conditions apply to acceptance or use?", "blockers": [ "Incomplete prerequisites", "Missing test criteria or witnesses", "Unresolved defects", "Failed or undocumented tests", "System-interface problems", "Record receipt mistaken for a successful test" ], "data": "Connect each test and inspection to the exact system, requirements, conditions, result, witnesses, and evidence.", "logic": "Compare recorded results with supplied criteria and prerequisite sequences; preserve pass, fail, unknown, and not-applicable states.", "action": "Prepare test-readiness and deficiency reviews; stage corrective-work and retest requests.", "authority": "Qualified testing personnel, authorities, and designated reviewers determine test outcomes and acceptance.", "objects": [ "system", "asset", "requirement", "inspection", "issue", "record", "decision", "activity" ] }, { "id": "handover", "name": "Handover & commercial closeout", "purpose": "Transfer usable assets and knowledge while closing the obligations applicable to the project.", "activities": [ "Assess substantial-completion or equivalent milestones under the governing agreement", "Verify punch-list resolution and outstanding conditions", "Compile record drawings, O&M information, and asset data", "Complete training and operating handover", "Confirm warranty terms and start triggers", "Reconcile changes, final accounts, payment evidence, and release requirements", "Track final completion and acceptance separately", "Preserve deferred work, claims, and outstanding obligations" ], "inputs": [ "Completion and test evidence", "Contractual completion requirements", "Asset and record information", "Commercial and change history" ], "outputs": [ "Accepted handover package", "Asset and warranty records", "Recorded completion and acceptance decisions", "Final-account and obligation status", "Outstanding work and aftercare responsibilities" ], "roles": [ "Owner or owner representative", "Contractor and commercial team", "Design professional", "Operator or facilities manager", "Commissioning provider" ], "decision": "What is being accepted or transferred, under which conditions, and which obligations remain open?", "blockers": [ "Missing asset information", "Unverified punch closure", "Disputed scope or final account", "Incomplete operator training", "Unconfirmed warranty dates", "Occupancy, acceptance, and final completion conflated" ], "data": "Link completion requirements, evidence, reviewer decisions, asset records, training, and commercial obligations.", "logic": "Evaluate completeness against the governing requirements; reconcile amounts and dates without inferring legal release or acceptance.", "action": "Prepare a handover exceptions report and owner-review package; preserve accepted and outstanding items separately.", "authority": "Authorized parties determine contractual milestones, acceptance, releases, and final commercial decisions.", "objects": [ "asset", "requirement", "inspection", "issue", "contract", "cost", "payment", "record", "decision" ] }, { "id": "operations", "name": "Operate, maintain & learn", "purpose": "Use the asset and its project knowledge to support reliable service and ongoing improvement.", "activities": [ "Operate systems and monitor performance", "Execute preventive and corrective maintenance", "Manage service requests, incidents, and work orders", "Track warranties and service agreements", "Review energy, water, carbon, reliability, and user outcomes", "Inspect condition and manage recurring obligations", "Compare actual performance with original requirements", "Feed operating lessons into future project briefs" ], "inputs": [ "Accepted assets and handover records", "Operating requirements", "Maintenance plans and service agreements", "Sensor readings, inspections, and user feedback" ], "outputs": [ "Service and maintenance history", "Condition and performance evidence", "Updated asset information", "Warranty and defect follow-up", "Renewal needs and lessons learned" ], "roles": [ "Asset owner", "Facilities or infrastructure operator", "Maintenance team", "Service providers", "Users", "Specialist assessors" ], "decision": "What intervention best protects service and asset performance, and what evidence supports it?", "blockers": [ "Unusable handover data", "Missing asset identity or location", "Unexplained failures", "Unreconciled maintenance history", "Unclear service obligations", "Operational learning lost between projects" ], "data": "Connect installed asset identities to locations, manuals, readings, work orders, service history, and performance requirements.", "logic": "Use validated maintenance rules and engineering or statistical models; explain uncertainty and distinguish correlation from diagnosed cause.", "action": "Prepare maintenance and warranty-review recommendations; stage permitted work orders and capture verified results.", "authority": "Operators and qualified specialists approve interventions and operating changes within their authority.", "objects": [ "asset", "system", "location", "requirement", "activity", "inspection", "contract", "record", "decision", "action" ] }, { "id": "renewal", "name": "Adapt, renew & recover", "purpose": "Decide how an asset changes, continues in use, or returns materials and lessons to the next lifecycle.", "activities": [ "Assess ongoing need and asset condition", "Compare maintain, retrofit, expand, repurpose, replace, and retire options", "Plan decanting and service continuity", "Investigate hazardous materials and deconstruction constraints", "Evaluate salvage, reuse, recycling, and disposal pathways", "Prepare renewal investment and project briefs", "Verify recovered quantities and destination evidence", "Update asset, environmental, and closure records" ], "inputs": [ "Condition and operating history", "Future service requirements", "Material and asset information", "Applicable environmental and closure requirements" ], "outputs": [ "Renewal or retirement decision", "Adaptation and deconstruction scope", "Recovered-material records", "Updated asset status", "Evidence and requirements for the next investment cycle" ], "roles": [ "Asset owner and operator", "Designers and engineers", "Environmental and specialist advisers", "Deconstruction or demolition contractor", "Reuse and recovery partners" ], "decision": "Which next use or recovery path best meets requirements, and what new project or intervention is justified?", "blockers": [ "Unknown existing conditions", "Missing material provenance", "Service-continuity constraints", "Unverified recovery markets", "Unassessed environmental obligations", "Replacement assumed before alternatives are tested" ], "data": "Connect condition, materials, performance, future requirements, and candidate recovery destinations.", "logic": "Compare whole-life scenarios using explicit service, cost, environmental, and technical assumptions.", "action": "Prepare renewal options and investigation needs; carry confirmed lessons and requirements into the next project.", "authority": "The asset owner and relevant authorities authorize changes and retirement; specialists confirm technical and environmental suitability.", "objects": [ "project", "asset", "material", "quantity", "cost", "risk", "requirement", "decision" ] } ], "families": [ { "id": "physical", "name": "Places & physical assets", "types": [ "location", "system", "asset", "material" ], "description": "Sites, corridors, spaces, systems, equipment, and materials being designed, installed, operated, or recovered." }, { "id": "work", "name": "Work & dependencies", "types": [ "project", "workpackage", "activity", "dependency" ], "description": "Project and work-package scope, schedule activities, prerequisite conditions, and resource constraints." }, { "id": "people", "name": "People & organizations", "types": [ "organization", "role", "supplier", "resource" ], "description": "Project organizations, assigned roles, contractual responsibilities, delegated authority, and available labor or equipment capacity." }, { "id": "requirements", "name": "Requirements & permissions", "types": [ "requirement", "permit", "contract" ], "description": "Specified performance and acceptance criteria, permits and approvals, land or access rights, and governing contractual obligations." }, { "id": "commercial", "name": "Quantities & commercial records", "types": [ "quantity", "cost", "quote", "payment" ], "description": "Quantities, estimates, bids, commitments, payment applications, and the assumptions and records supporting each amount." }, { "id": "control", "name": "Reviews & project controls", "types": [ "submittal", "inspection", "issue", "change", "risk" ], "description": "Submittal reviews, RFIs, inspections, nonconformances, change proposals, and recorded project risks." }, { "id": "evidence", "name": "Information & provenance", "types": [ "record" ], "description": "Drawings, models, specifications, correspondence, observations, and system records, with separately identified source revisions." }, { "id": "decision", "name": "Decisions, logic & actions", "types": [ "decision", "logic", "action" ], "description": "Options evaluated, assessment methods, delegated authority, recorded decisions, and actions with verified outcomes." } ], "types": [ { "id": "project", "label": "Project / program" }, { "id": "workpackage", "label": "Work package" }, { "id": "activity", "label": "Activity / work order" }, { "id": "dependency", "label": "Dependency / constraint" }, { "id": "organization", "label": "Person / organization" }, { "id": "role", "label": "Role / delegation" }, { "id": "supplier", "label": "Supplier / fabricator" }, { "id": "resource", "label": "Labor / equipment / capacity" }, { "id": "location", "label": "Site / corridor / space" }, { "id": "system", "label": "System / assembly" }, { "id": "asset", "label": "Asset / equipment" }, { "id": "material", "label": "Material / product" }, { "id": "requirement", "label": "Requirement / acceptance criterion" }, { "id": "permit", "label": "Permit / approval / right" }, { "id": "contract", "label": "Contract / commitment / obligation" }, { "id": "quantity", "label": "Quantity / measurement" }, { "id": "cost", "label": "Estimate / budget / cost item" }, { "id": "quote", "label": "Quote / bid" }, { "id": "payment", "label": "Invoice / payment application" }, { "id": "submittal", "label": "Submittal / review" }, { "id": "inspection", "label": "Inspection / test result" }, { "id": "issue", "label": "Issue / RFI / nonconformance" }, { "id": "change", "label": "Proposed / authorized change" }, { "id": "risk", "label": "Risk / assumption" }, { "id": "record", "label": "Source record / version" }, { "id": "decision", "label": "Decision record" }, { "id": "logic", "label": "Rule / calculation / analytical model" }, { "id": "action", "label": "Workflow action / system transaction" } ], "relationships": [ { "source": "project", "predicate": "contains", "target": "workpackage", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "workpackage", "predicate": "includes", "target": "activity", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "activity", "predicate": "occurs_in", "target": "location", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "activity", "predicate": "installs", "target": "asset", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "asset", "predicate": "part_of", "target": "system", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "asset", "predicate": "located_in", "target": "location", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "asset", "predicate": "specified_by", "target": "requirement", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "asset", "predicate": "uses", "target": "material", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "activity", "predicate": "requires", "target": "resource", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "activity", "predicate": "constrained_by", "target": "dependency", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "dependency", "predicate": "references_predecessor", "target": "activity", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "dependency", "predicate": "references_permission", "target": "permit", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "dependency", "predicate": "references_review", "target": "submittal", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "supplier", "predicate": "supplies", "target": "material", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "supplier", "predicate": "supplies", "target": "asset", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "contract", "predicate": "commits", "target": "workpackage", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "quote", "predicate": "prices", "target": "workpackage", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "quantity", "predicate": "measures", "target": "workpackage", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "cost", "predicate": "allocated_to", "target": "workpackage", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "payment", "predicate": "requests_against", "target": "contract", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "submittal", "predicate": "documents", "target": "asset", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "submittal", "predicate": "reviewed_against", "target": "requirement", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "inspection", "predicate": "tests", "target": "asset", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "inspection", "predicate": "evaluates", "target": "requirement", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "issue", "predicate": "affects", "target": "workpackage", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "change", "predicate": "proposes_revision_to", "target": "workpackage", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "risk", "predicate": "may_affect", "target": "activity", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "role", "predicate": "assigned_to", "target": "organization", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "role", "predicate": "authorizes", "target": "action", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "decision", "predicate": "evaluates_change", "target": "change", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "decision", "predicate": "uses_logic", "target": "logic", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "decision", "predicate": "supported_by", "target": "record", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "decision", "predicate": "authorizes", "target": "action", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "action", "predicate": "updates", "target": "record", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "record", "predicate": "documents", "target": "asset", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "record", "predicate": "evidences", "target": "inspection", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" }, { "source": "action", "predicate": "performs", "target": "activity", "status": "Candidate schema relationship; requires instance evidence" } ], "crosscutting": [ { "name": "Scope, requirements & decisions", "phases": [ "intent", "feasibility", "delivery", "design", "approvals", "commercial", "supply", "execution", "verification", "handover", "operations", "renewal" ], "focus": "Keep intended outcomes, current scope, authority, and decision history connected throughout." }, { "name": "Cost, funding & commercial control", "phases": [ "intent", "feasibility", "delivery", "design", "approvals", "commercial", "supply", "execution", "verification", "handover", "operations", "renewal" ], "focus": "Keep estimates, budgets, commitments, forecasts, claims, invoices, and approved amounts distinct." }, { "name": "Schedule, capacity & logistics", "phases": [ "intent", "feasibility", "delivery", "design", "approvals", "commercial", "supply", "execution", "verification", "handover", "operations", "renewal" ], "focus": "Model calendars, resources, access, sequencing, review time, and supply constraints explicitly." }, { "name": "Safety, quality & environmental performance", "phases": [ "intent", "feasibility", "delivery", "design", "approvals", "commercial", "supply", "execution", "verification", "handover", "operations", "renewal" ], "focus": "Connect requirements and obligations to responsible people, physical work, and verification evidence." }, { "name": "Information, revisions & access", "phases": [ "intent", "feasibility", "delivery", "design", "approvals", "commercial", "supply", "execution", "verification", "handover", "operations", "renewal" ], "focus": "Keep source identity, versions, provenance, permissions, and freshness with each assertion." }, { "name": "Stakeholders, approvals & service continuity", "phases": [ "intent", "feasibility", "delivery", "design", "approvals", "commercial", "supply", "execution", "verification", "handover", "operations", "renewal" ], "focus": "Connect affected users and authorities to decisions, conditions, communications, and ongoing service." } ], "logic": [ { "id": "readiness", "name": "Work-package readiness checks", "inputs": "Confirmed requirements, dependency types, current evidence, resource and access constraints.", "output": "Satisfied, unsatisfied, unknown, or not applicable, with an explanation for each prerequisite.", "boundary": "Missing evidence is unknown. An unknown prerequisite does not establish readiness or prove that work is impossible." }, { "id": "schedule", "name": "Schedule logic and critical-path analysis", "inputs": "Validated activities, relationships, durations, calendars, constraints, resources, and reference schedule.", "output": "Calculated date effects and the controlling path under the supplied scenario.", "boundary": "A logical blocker graph alone does not establish a critical path or contractual delay responsibility." }, { "id": "leadtime", "name": "Procurement and production lead-time analysis", "inputs": "Dated review, release, queue, production, shipping, delivery, and readiness evidence.", "output": "Observed or attributed elapsed-time segments and candidate constraints.", "boundary": "No default lead times or promised time savings. Shortening a segment may not advance the project finish." }, { "id": "cost", "name": "Scope reconciliation and cost comparison", "inputs": "Comparable quantities, units, scope, rates, exclusions, commitments, and identified lifecycle consequences.", "output": "Arithmetic checks, supported cost differences, and unresolved scope or basis differences.", "boundary": "A quoted, forecast, claimed, or approved amount retains its own status; do not add overlapping savings." }, { "id": "revision", "name": "Requirements and revision-impact review", "inputs": "Identified document versions, applicable requirements, affected objects, and confirmed relationships.", "output": "Candidate inconsistencies and affected-record lists with source references.", "boundary": "Similarity and inferred relationships require review; an impact suggestion is not an issued instruction." }, { "id": "authority", "name": "Delegation and workflow authorization", "inputs": "Authenticated identity, project access, current delegation, action type, target, and exact reviewed version.", "output": "Permitted action, required approval, or a clearly explained stop condition.", "boundary": "Approval for one version, destination, or scope does not silently authorize another." }, { "id": "acceptance", "name": "Inspection, testing, and acceptance evidence", "inputs": "Confirmed criteria, results, requirements, designated reviewers, and acceptance records.", "output": "Requirement-level evidence coverage and outstanding review or acceptance decisions.", "boundary": "Document receipt, reported completion, test success, acceptance, and payment approval are distinct events." } ], "example": { "title": "Installation readiness review for an air handling unit", "note": "Illustrative scenario. No real project, dates, production rates, costs, or approvals are asserted.", "question": "What remains outstanding before AHU-01 can be installed, and who must resolve or authorize the next steps?", "facts": [ { "id": "ahu", "type": "asset", "label": "AHU-01", "detail": "A proposed equipment instance in the model; not a live connected asset." }, { "id": "install", "type": "activity", "label": "Install AHU-01", "detail": "The activity to investigate, with a location and responsible team." }, { "id": "release", "type": "submittal", "label": "Submittal review unresolved", "detail": "The scenario assumes a review comment is unresolved. The actual requirement must come from the project documents." }, { "id": "factory", "type": "resource", "label": "Production slot unconfirmed", "detail": "No supplier-confirmed production slot is available in the scenario." }, { "id": "access", "type": "dependency", "label": "Lifting and access unverified", "detail": "The scenario lacks confirmed lifting/access readiness and predecessor evidence." }, { "id": "decision", "type": "decision", "label": "Review release and supply options", "detail": "Prepare options for the authorized reviewers; do not assume substitution or acceleration is acceptable." } ], "edges": [ [ "install", "installs", "ahu" ], [ "install", "requires_review", "release" ], [ "install", "requires_capacity", "factory" ], [ "install", "requires_access", "access" ], [ "decision", "may_resolve", "release" ], [ "decision", "investigates", "factory" ] ], "steps": [ { "name": "Confirm the review basis", "data": "Collect the applicable specifications, current equipment submittal and review comments, purchase order, supplier commitments, installation activity, and lifting or access plan.", "logic": "Reconcile asset and package identifiers, source revisions, review status, and dates. Flag missing, superseded, conflicting, or inferred information.", "action": "Prepare a referenced readiness review identifying the outstanding records and decisions for the project engineer.", "authority": "Access only records available under the project information permissions." }, { "name": "Evaluate installation prerequisites", "data": "Review submittal disposition, supplier-confirmed production and delivery information, lifting or access constraints, and predecessor-work status.", "logic": "Assess each applicable prerequisite as satisfied, unsatisfied, unknown, or not applicable. Identify whether the dependency is physical, contractual, resource-related, or based on an assumption.", "action": "Prepare separate coordination items for the design reviewer, supplier, and superintendent, each with source references and a responsible role.", "authority": "Design reviewers, procurement personnel, and site supervision confirm the conditions within their respective responsibilities." }, { "name": "Evaluate mitigation options", "data": "Consider resolving review comments, confirming production capacity, evaluating a proposed substitution, revising logistics, or resequencing unaffected work.", "logic": "Evaluate alternatives against specified performance, confirmed supplier dates, validated schedule logic, access constraints, and comparable cost inputs. State unresolved assumptions and unquantified effects.", "action": "Prepare an options assessment showing affected work packages, cost and schedule implications, required reviews, and recommended follow-up.", "authority": "Technical acceptance, purchasing commitments, commercial changes, and field execution require the authority established in the project agreements." }, { "name": "Execute and verify authorized actions", "data": "Retain the selected option, exact document revisions, approval record, responsible party, and destination system.", "logic": "Verify current authorization and record revision before updating a project system. After execution, confirm the recorded response, supplier acknowledgment, or revised project record.", "action": "Carry out permitted follow-up, retain the system confirmation, and re-evaluate unresolved installation prerequisites.", "authority": "Draft preparation, formal issuance, supplier acknowledgment, delivery, and release for installation are recorded as separate events." } ] }, "identity": { "object": [ "stable_id", "type", "project_or_asset_scope", "name", "properties", "recorded_state", "responsible_role" ], "assertion": [ "subject", "predicate", "object_or_value", "source_record_id", "source_version_id", "source_location", "valid_from", "valid_to", "observed_at", "recorded_at", "assertion_basis: observed / attributed / inferred", "review_state", "access_policy" ], "signal": [ "finding_id", "detected_at", "affected_object_ids", "source_record_ids_and_versions", "observed_at", "evidence_basis: confirmed / reported / inferred", "unknowns_and_conflicts", "response_needed_by_when_established", "response_timing_basis", "responsible_role", "proposed_response", "finding_review_state", "action_and_outcome_references" ], "decision": [ "decision_id", "question", "options_considered", "evaluation_criteria", "input_source_versions", "logic_or_model_versions", "assumptions_and_unknowns", "proposed_by", "authorized_decision_maker", "delegation_basis", "decision_state", "selected_option", "rationale", "decision_time", "supersedes_decision_id", "affected_object_ids" ], "action": [ "action_id", "decision_id_when_applicable", "action_type", "target_system_and_record", "exact_payload_or_reviewed_version", "requested_by", "required_authority", "approval_evidence", "execution_state", "attempt_time", "external_result_id", "verification_evidence", "verified_at", "remaining_work" ] }, "sources": [ { "label": "AIA: defining the architect’s basic services", "url": "https://www.aia.org/resource-center/defining-the-architects-basic-services", "role": "US building-design and construction-administration phase reference. The agreed scope and delivery method govern each project." }, { "label": "FHWA: project development work process", "url": "https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/Chapter_01.pdf", "role": "Federal Lands project-development reference covering project concepts, engineering, environmental documentation, final design, and construction. Used for civil-lifecycle context, not as a universal mandate." }, { "label": "RIBA Plan of Work 2020", "url": "https://www.riba.org/work/insights-and-resources/riba-plan-of-work/", "role": "UK lifecycle comparison. Its stages are not the contract stages of the US working model." }, { "label": "IFC 4.3 / ISO 16739-1:2024", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/84123.html", "role": "Published international IFC data-schema standard. The candidate concepts here are not asserted to be exact IFC mappings." } ], "standards_context": [ { "name": "IFC 4.3 / ISO 16739-1:2024", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/84123.html", "relationship": "IFC defines a data schema for exchanging building and infrastructure information. Our candidate project objects would need explicit mappings to the relevant IFC entities and properties; no IFC export or conformance is claimed." }, { "name": "ISO 19650", "url": "https://www.iso.org/standard/68078.html", "relationship": "The series addresses information management using BIM. Its information requirements, responsibilities, and exchange processes provide context for the records and review states in this model; the ontology does not replace an information management process." }, { "name": "COBie", "url": "https://nibs.org/nbims/v3/cobie/", "relationship": "COBie organizes asset information for handover and operations. Asset, space, document, and maintenance records in this model could be mapped to a specified COBie deliverable; that mapping remains to be tested." }, { "name": "UniFormat / MasterFormat / OmniClass", "url": "https://www.csiresources.org/standards/overview", "relationship": "UniFormat organizes functional elements, MasterFormat organizes work results and specifications, and OmniClass provides multiple classification tables. These can classify objects and work packages while preserving the selected system, code, and edition; classification is not a confirmed project dependency." }, { "name": "ifcOWL", "url": "https://github.com/buildingsmart-community/ifcOWL", "relationship": "ifcOWL represents IFC schemas in OWL for semantic use. Interoperability requires selecting the matching IFC/ifcOWL version and validating mappings; this working JSON model is not an ifcOWL ontology." }, { "name": "BOT: Building Topology Ontology", "url": "https://w3c-lbd-cg.github.io/bot/index.html", "relationship": "BOT describes building topology, including sites, buildings, storeys, spaces, and their connections. It is a potential reference for spatial relationships; our model also proposes delivery activities, obligations, and decisions." }, { "name": "Brick", "url": "https://docs.brickschema.org/", "relationship": "Brick describes building assets, equipment, points, and relationships used in operations. It could inform operational mappings, while this model additionally investigates procurement, commercial records, and project decisions." } ], "market": "Primarily US AEC projects, with US building and civil-delivery references. RIBA is a UK comparison; terminology and contractual stages must be adapted for other markets.", "homepage_rollup": "The homepage presents the same 12 lifecycle phases. Its six overlapping areas summarize the eight information domains explored in the detailed ontology." }