Updating IFC Models During the Operations Stage: From Static Handover to Living Asset Intelligence
- Loyiso Toyi BSc Eng (Civl)
- Jan 13
- 2 min read
For many asset owners and facilities teams, IFC models are still perceived as a handover artifact—a snapshot frozen at Practical Completion, archived, and rarely revisited. This mindset significantly underutilises the value of IFC during the Operations stage, where accurate, trusted information delivers the greatest return on investment.
As facilities become more data-driven and IWMS platforms mature, IFC models are increasingly repositioned as controlled reference models that support asset management, maintenance planning, space optimisation, and lifecycle decision-making.
Why Update IFC Models During Operations?
Once a facility enters operation, change becomes inevitable:
Assets are replaced
Spaces are repurposed
Maintenance strategies evolve
Compliance requirements shift
Without a structured approach, IFC models quickly drift out of alignment with reality, eroding trust and discouraging use altogether.
Updating IFC during Operations enables:
Reliable spatial context for FM teams
Visual validation of asset data in IWMS platforms
Improved maintenance planning and fault diagnosis
Stronger foundations for digital twins and lifecycle analytics
The goal is operational reliability, not design-level precision.
Redefining the Role of IFC in Operations
In the Operations stage, IFC is no longer a design coordination tool. Its role shifts to:
A federated reference model for assets and spaces
A visual index linked to live FM systems
A controlled snapshot of the as-maintained state
Crucially, IFC should not compete with IWMS or CMMS platforms. Instead, it should complement them.
What Should Be Updated in Operational IFC Models?
Appropriate Updates
Operational IFC updates should focus on information that supports FM outcomes, including:
Asset-related data
Serial numbers
Warranty expiry dates
Maintenance responsibility
Asset condition
Planned replacement year
Minor geometric changes
Like-for-like equipment replacements
Updated asset classifications
Space renaming or zoning changes
Metadata enrichment
COBie-aligned property sets
IWMS or CMMS asset IDs
URLs linking to manuals, certificates, or work orders
QR or barcode references
These updates enhance usability without destabilising the model.
What Should Be Avoided
Certain activities should be deliberately excluded from Operations-stage IFC updates:
Re-designing systems
Major geometry revisions
Discipline coordination changes
Uncontrolled re-exporting from authoring tools
These activities belong in capital works or refurbishment workflows, not day-to-day operations.
Establishing the Authoritative Source of Truth
One of the most common causes of operational model failure is unclear ownership of information.
A robust strategy clearly defines which system is authoritative for each data type:
Information Type | System of Record |
Geometry | IFC Reference Model |
Asset Attributes | IWMS / CMMS |
Maintenance History | CMMS |
Space Data | IWMS |
Change Approval | CAFM / Change Control |
In mature environments, IFC is synchronised from FM systems—not manually updated in isolation.
Strategic Takeaway
During the Operations stage, IFC should be treated as a trusted, lightweight digital twin snapshot, not a constantly edited master model.
Best practice includes:
Minimising geometry changes
Centralising operational data in IWMS platforms
Updating IFC:
Annually
After major refurbishments
At defined lifecycle milestones
This approach keeps IFC relevant, reliable, and valuable throughout the life of the facility.
Conclusion
As asset owners move toward data-driven operations and predictive maintenance, well-governed operational IFC models will become a foundational enabler, not an optional extra.
The organisations that succeed will be those that stop asking “Can we update IFC during Operations?” and start asking “How do we govern it properly?”
Comments