A tough ask to cover 19650 parts 1 & 2 in 10 minutes. You need to understand 19650 to follow what he's saying and if you really want to understand the working culture I'd suggest reading the documents, starting with 1192, then 19650 2018 and then 19650 2021. It's good to see and understand how 19650 has evolved. The 2021 version changed massively from the 2018 version; which this video is based on. With part 4 now out, you also really need to make reference to that document every time you refer to part 2.
Very well explained in 10 minutes, thank you ! I have a quick question, is there any reason why the lead appointed party cannot be the project manager or any other consultant for that matter or does it need to be the lead designer/architect?.
Good question, What's key is the existence of contractual relationships that ensure that task teams are legally accountable to the lead appointed party (for fulfilling information requirements) *and* that ensure that the lead appointed party is legally accountable to to the lead appointing party for the same. Without this contractual hierarchy, it's difficult to see how the PM or other consultants could be legally accountable for delivery of information.
@@sheppied1604 okay, thank you that make sense I think, so am I correct in understanding that as, as long as a contractual relationship/obligations are in place setting out how the various task teams will fulfill their information requirements a project manager or any another other consultant for that matter can undertake the role of the "appointed party".
@@alisharif2628 Yes. But, to be clear, the issue of contractual obligation turns on whether the project manager or other consultant is operating as principal or agent. If, *as principal*, their contract with the Lead Appointing Party makes them legally liable to 'perform' design/construction/asset information delivery (perhaps via a management contract), then they can be the Lead Appointed Party. The liability remains even after they appoint task teams. If, *as agent*, the contract is to review/monitor the provision of these deliverables without being held legally liable for non-performance, then they cannot be the Lead Appointed Party.
There are misleading statements in this presentation. 1. There are likely to be a number of Lead Appointed Parties on most projects. This is because each party directly contracted to the Client (Appointing Party) is a Lead Appointed Party to their supply chain. 2. The Lead Appointed Party is not necessarily responsible to provide the CDE, although one of them may responsible if given that responsibility in their appointment. The CDE could equally be the Client's (Appointing Party) responsibility. 3. Each time you make reference to THE Lead Appointed Party, to be correct you should be saying EACH Lead Appointed Party.
Presumably, ISO-19650 is also 'misleading' and 'incorrect' because it does not use the phrase "each lead appointed party", but repeatedly states "the lead appointed party". We'll agree to disagree.
@@bim4u-getbimbenefitswithou924 the ISO is very clear on this point, both in terms and graphically, also in the supporting documents such as the Information Management Protocol. An example would be in section 5.1 of Guidance Part 1 where the term 'each prospective Lead Appointed Party' is used and if you recall the the graphic showing the parties in Guidance Part A where they have the relationship map. You have A in the centre of the graphic representing the Appointing Party and then a number of B's each representing Lead Appointed Parties distributed around A.
@@stewartcraigie5047 The fact remains that the ISO-19650-2 repeatedly uses the phrase: “the lead appointed party”. 19650-2 isn’t misleading or incorrect because “each” is not mentioned in that document, but, instead, elsewhere. The same goes for this video. Of course, I look forward to you sharing your own BIM expertise via UA-cam video or other media. But I won’t hold my breath.
@@bim4u-getbimbenefitswithou924 I do despair when I see an individual who claims expertise but is unwilling to consider a point fairly raised and accurate.
@@stewartcraigie5047 Of course, you could have forthrightly declared ISO-19650-2 to be similarly misleading for not mentioning ‘each LAP’. Instead, when your argument fails, you simply persist in baseless assertion. Considering your purported expertise, I despair too. But persist in assertion, if you must.
Very well explained. It would be great if you share the whole picture of flowchart of the process.
Great resume! Thanks for sharing.
Thank you very appreciated
Well done!
Thank you so much for this video. Very very helpful.
Legend.
Thank you!
A tough ask to cover 19650 parts 1 & 2 in 10 minutes. You need to understand 19650 to follow what he's saying and if you really want to understand the working culture I'd suggest reading the documents, starting with 1192, then 19650 2018 and then 19650 2021. It's good to see and understand how 19650 has evolved. The 2021 version changed massively from the 2018 version; which this video is based on. With part 4 now out, you also really need to make reference to that document every time you refer to part 2.
Very well explained in 10 minutes, thank you !
I have a quick question, is there any reason why the lead appointed party cannot be the project manager or any other consultant for that matter or does it need to be the lead designer/architect?.
Good question, What's key is the existence of contractual relationships that ensure that task teams are legally accountable to the lead appointed party (for fulfilling information requirements) *and* that ensure that the lead appointed party is legally accountable to to the lead appointing party for the same.
Without this contractual hierarchy, it's difficult to see how the PM or other consultants could be legally accountable for delivery of information.
@@sheppied1604 okay, thank you that make sense I think, so am I correct in understanding that as, as long as a contractual relationship/obligations are in place setting out how the various task teams will fulfill their information requirements a project manager or any another other consultant for that matter can undertake the role of the "appointed party".
@@alisharif2628 Yes. But, to be clear, the issue of contractual obligation turns on whether the project manager or other consultant is operating as principal or agent.
If, *as principal*, their contract with the Lead Appointing Party makes them legally liable to 'perform' design/construction/asset information delivery (perhaps via a management contract), then they can be the Lead Appointed Party. The liability remains even after they appoint task teams.
If, *as agent*, the contract is to review/monitor the provision of these deliverables without being held legally liable for non-performance, then they cannot be the Lead Appointed Party.
Hi David, could you please share the workflow. Thanks for the presentation
Hi, I sent a link to you via LinkedIn
please make a version for dummies
There are misleading statements in this presentation.
1. There are likely to be a number of Lead Appointed Parties on most projects. This is because each party directly contracted to the Client (Appointing Party) is a Lead Appointed Party to their supply chain.
2. The Lead Appointed Party is not necessarily responsible to provide the CDE, although one of them may responsible if given that responsibility in their appointment. The CDE could equally be the Client's (Appointing Party) responsibility.
3. Each time you make reference to THE Lead Appointed Party, to be correct you should be saying EACH Lead Appointed Party.
Presumably, ISO-19650 is also 'misleading' and 'incorrect' because it does not use the phrase "each lead appointed party", but repeatedly states "the lead appointed party". We'll agree to disagree.
@@bim4u-getbimbenefitswithou924 the ISO is very clear on this point, both in terms and graphically, also in the supporting documents such as the Information Management Protocol. An example would be in section 5.1 of Guidance Part 1 where the term 'each prospective Lead Appointed Party' is used and if you recall the the graphic showing the parties in Guidance Part A where they have the relationship map. You have A in the centre of the graphic representing the Appointing Party and then a number of B's each representing Lead Appointed Parties distributed around A.
@@stewartcraigie5047 The fact remains that the ISO-19650-2 repeatedly uses the phrase: “the lead appointed party”. 19650-2 isn’t misleading or incorrect because “each” is not mentioned in that document, but, instead, elsewhere. The same goes for this video. Of course, I look forward to you sharing your own BIM expertise via UA-cam video or other media. But I won’t hold my breath.
@@bim4u-getbimbenefitswithou924 I do despair when I see an individual who claims expertise but is unwilling to consider a point fairly raised and accurate.
@@stewartcraigie5047 Of course, you could have forthrightly declared ISO-19650-2 to be similarly misleading for not mentioning ‘each LAP’. Instead, when your argument fails, you simply persist in baseless assertion. Considering your purported expertise, I despair too. But persist in assertion, if you must.