This report presents results of inventory of the administrative structure of UNSW Estate Management (EM), software used, datasets and their content. The study was completed via interviews with employees of EM, and by examination of several datasets provided by Facility Management (FM) department.
The finding can be summarised and considered for PIM as follows:
- Different departments/institutions have their own preferred software package and are reluctant to shape the information with other departments/institutions. When needed information is shared via flies.
- The current spatial information is managed in several commercial packages without a unified data model. Each geospatial domain has its own description of information, even though many relate to the same physical entities or assets.
- The names, geometric representations, spatial dimensions (2D and 3D) and the attributes of the same physical objects vary between the different systems.
- Many of the datasets are in local coordinate systems (i.e. BIMs and Archibus floor plans), i.e. they are not geo-referenced.
- The terrain is not considered in any of the software packages. Even when 3D objects are maintained, they are located on a horizontal plane. A terrain model when available is seen as one individual object. Streets, buildings, stairs, etc. are not integrated in the terrain. The depth of underground utility networks is relative to the surface, but is not maintained with x,y,z coordinates.
- Topology, or validity, of objects is not maintained in any of the datasets.
- There is no protocol for data exchange between different software packages. The exchange is based on files, which often leads to loss of data (e.g. attributes).
- There is no clear procedure for data update and management of temporal objects. Procedures, when exist, are manual and time-consuming.