Part 2: Preparing for the Audit
In this blog series I try to explain how VAN AKEN was the first architectural firm in the European Union has received a KitemarkTM certificate for BIM Level 2 in accordance with the ISO 19650. I will describe our findings during our route to a KitemarkTM certificate and hopefully encourage multiple agencies to follow us in obtaining a KitemarkTM certificate for BIM Level 2 according to ISO 19650.
If you missed my first blog of this series, read it here.
After the BSI Training Academy course, Martijn and I shared our experiences and knowledge with the management team and our internal knowledge group BIM. Since Martijn and I were so positive about the process that describes and prescribes the ISO standard, it was ultimately decided to see whether we could be certified for this. The underlying idea was that we as VAN AKEN had been looking for a number of years for a way to demonstrate our BIM skills towards our clients and we would like to structurally and permanently safeguard the BIM process in our primary process to ensure quality.
Now that it had been decided to possibly certify us, the next step was to see what was needed for this. BSI Netherlands was contacted and a number of discussions followed on the various certification options. This discussed the various certificates, but also the certification process and in particular what this would look like for an architectural firm. It soon became apparent that this was the first application for an architectural firm for BSI Netherlands. As a result, coordination was needed from both sides to coordinate the options.
Once everything was clear, we announced our intention to go for a KitemarkTM certification, the highest level of BIM certification for excellence introduced by BSI (British Standards Institution), for BIM Level 2 in accordance with the international standard ISO 19650-2: 2018.
A GAP analysis can be chosen to see how far away one is from a possible certification. This is a one-day analysis in which BSI, together with the company, looks at the main points of the ISO standard with the aim of finding objective evidence of compliance with the clauses of the standard. These findings have no influence on a later audit. From the GAP analysis one gets a report with findings and conclusions. Both the GAP analysis and the reporting have brought us one step closer to certification. This was the first time for us that we could discuss how things are meant in the standard and how we have applied or interpreted this.
During our GAP analysis we could not cover everything because we did not have any project specific examples of some ISO clauses. As a result, we decided to have a 2nd GAP analysis performed at a later date that would specifically address the missing clauses from the 1st GAP analysis. This gave us the possibility to have the last clauses also checked for main points prior to an audit. It gave us a better insight into the chance of success during the audit. In addition, during our 2nd GAP analysis we could decide whether we would go for a KitemarkTM certification during the later audit or for a BIM verification first. Fortunately, both GAP analyses were very positive and this gave us the confidence to fully commit to a KitemarkTM certification during the audit.
For more information, please contact me: firstname.lastname@example.org