A few days ago I published an article about OIR, AIR and EIR – the three pillars of information management according to ISO 19650. The reactions were interesting, but above all they made me realize one thing: many of you would like to delve deeper into that first image of the information requirements hierarchy present in the ISO 19650-1 standard. That apparently simple figure that shows how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together.
And so here I am, with this first article in a series that will try to explain better not just the tools, but especially the relationships that bind them together. Because, believe me, have you ever found yourself in front of a BIM project and wondered: “Who decided that exactly these pieces of information were needed? And why in this specific format?” If the answer is yes, then this journey is for you. Because behind every self-respecting information model there’s a story, a logic, a real genealogy that has its roots in the organization’s strategy and reaches down to the most technical details of the project.
The UNI EN ISO 19650-1 standard is not just a technical document – it’s a treasure map that guides us through the complex world of information requirements. And like any self-respecting map, it has its symbols, its conventions and especially its relationships. Today we’ll talk about precisely these relationships, about those “encompasses”, “contributes to” and “specifies” that are often dismissed with a distracted glance but which are actually the beating heart of the entire system.
The Big Picture: From Vision to Action
Imagine information management as a large family tree, where each generation passes the baton to the next, enriching and specifying it. At the top of this pyramid are the Organizational Information Requirements (OIR). They’re not just a shopping list of desired data, but represent the digital translation of an organization’s strategic vision – whether it’s a company, a public entity, or any organization that manages real estate assets.
The OIR “encompass” – and here we use the term in its deepest meaning – everything that the organization considers strategically relevant. When a hospital defines its OIR, it’s not simply listing what type of information it wants about its buildings. It’s translating its mission into digital language: to treat patients in the most effective way possible. Each information requirement thus becomes a piece of this larger mission.
But careful: “encompassing” doesn’t simply mean “containing”. It’s a dynamic verb, implying responsibility. The OIR encompass expectations, responsibilities, success criteria of the entire organization. They are the informational DNA that will be transmitted to all successive generations of requirements.
The Art of “Contributes to”: When Assets Speak
Let’s go down one step and meet the Asset Information Requirements (AIR) – the information requirements of existing assets. Here comes into play the first fundamental relationship: AIR “contribute to” defining the OIR. It’s not a matter of simple hierarchical dependence, but of continuous dialogue between present and future, between what exists and what one wants to become.
Let’s take a concrete example. A university has in its OIR the objective to “optimize energy efficiency of the real estate portfolio to reduce consumption by 30% by 2030”. The AIR of existing buildings don’t just list current consumption. They actively contribute to this objective by identifying what information about building systems, envelope performance, space utilization patterns are necessary to reach that goal.
The “contributes to” is therefore an intelligent service relationship. AIR are not passive containers of data about existing assets – they are expert consultants who, knowing intimately the characteristics and potential of the assets, suggest to the organization how to orient their information strategies.
But there’s more. AIR in turn “encompass” everything that the existing assets can tell about themselves. And they do it through four major families of information, as ISO 19650-3 reminds us: technical information (performance characteristics, interdependencies, commissioning data), legal information (ownership, maintenance responsibilities, regulatory obligations), commercial information (suppliers, criticalities, Key Performance Indicators), and financial information (management costs, replacement values, downtime impact).
The Bridge Between Strategy and Project: The PIR
And here we arrive at the Project Information Requirements (PIR), perhaps the most misunderstood elements of the entire hierarchy. PIR “contribute to” defining both OIR and AIR, but with a particularity: they represent the meeting point between the world of strategy and that of project operations.
Imagine PIR as a simultaneous translator during an international conference. On one side there are the OIR speaking the language of business strategy (“we want to improve operational efficiency”), on the other there are the concrete needs of the project (“we’re renovating the north pavilion of the hospital”). PIR translate these two languages into an operational synthesis: “for this specific renovation project, we need information that allows us to monitor the operational efficiency of the north pavilion in the broader context of hospital strategy”.
The “contributes to” of PIR is therefore bidirectional. They contribute to specifying the OIR by contextualizing them on the specific project, and simultaneously contribute to informing the AIR about how the new intervention will integrate with the existing assets.
The Operational Translation: EIR and “Specifies”
We now arrive at the operational heart of the system: the Exchange Information Requirements (EIR). Here the dominant relationship changes nature. EIR don’t “encompass” nor “contribute to” – EIR “specify”. And this terminological difference is not accidental.
“Specifying” means transforming the abstract into concrete, desire into operational instruction. EIR take all the upstream work – OIR, AIR, PIR – and translate it into language that designers, suppliers, consultants can actually understand and implement.
Let’s take a practical example. The OIR of a pharmaceutical company include “ensuring complete traceability of production processes for regulatory compliance”. The AIR of the existing plant contribute by identifying “need to integrate new systems with existing quality management system”. The PIR of the expansion project contribute by specifying “for the new R&D laboratory, information is needed that allows regulatory audits”. The EIR specify: “the information model of the new laboratory must include, for each environment, coding compliant with company system XYZ, indication of process flows according to standard ABC, and documentation of critical systems in format DEF”.
See the difference? EIR don’t just say what’s needed – they say exactly how it must be done, in what format, according to which standards, with what level of detail. They are the bridge between the world of intentions and that of execution.
The Circle Closes: PIM and AIM
The journey through the hierarchy concludes with the actual information models: the Project Information Model (PIM) and the Asset Information Model (AIM). But careful, it’s not an endpoint – it’s rather a new starting point.
The PIM “specifies” everything that was requested by the EIR, giving it concrete form in the digital world. But its life is temporary, linked to the project duration. Once the project is completed, the relevant information from the PIM migrates to the AIM, which “encompasses” everything needed for operational asset management.
And here the circle closes. The AIM, enriched with information from the just-completed project, will modify future AIR. The new knowledge acquired, measured performances, lessons learned will become input to redefine both the AIR of that specific asset and potentially the OIR of the entire organization.
The Three Pathways of the Standard
ISO 19650-1 is not dogmatic. It recognizes that in reality there are three different scenarios, three possible pathways through this hierarchy:
The “design only” pathway (PIR-EIR-PIM): when an organization commissions a project without particularly worrying about future operational management. It’s the classic case of the developer who builds to sell.
The “management only” pathway (OIR-AIR-AIM): when an organization focuses on managing existing assets without new projects in sight. It’s the case of the asset manager who optimizes what exists.
The “integrated” pathway (OIR-AIR-EIR-PIM-AIM and PIR-EIR-PIM-AIM): when design and operational management are seen as a continuum. It’s the most mature and complex approach, but also the one that guarantees the greatest long-term benefits.
Beyond Technique: A Mindset Change
What is often lost when talking about ISO 19650 is that we’re not just talking about a technical matter. We’re talking about a profound mindset change. The hierarchy of information requirements forces us to think in terms of relationships, flows, continuous transformations of information.
Each “encompasses”, “contributes to” and “specifies” is not just a logical relationship – it’s a transfer of responsibility, a moment of information transformation, an opportunity to add value and intelligence to the process.
When a designer receives the EIR, they’re not simply receiving a list of requirements. They’re receiving the distillate of a strategic reflection process that starts from the organization’s vision, passes through knowledge of existing assets, confronts the needs of the specific project, and arrives to them in the form of concrete operational instructions.
Next time you find yourself in front of an information specification, try to reconstruct this journey. Ask yourself: what was the starting strategic vision? How did the characteristics of existing assets contribute? What specific project needs influenced the requests? Only this way can you truly understand not just “what” to do, but especially “why” to do it.
Because in the end, the real BIM revolution isn’t technological – it’s cultural. It’s learning to see each piece of information not as isolated data, but as a tile in a larger mosaic, where each piece makes sense only in relation to all the others.
