When US based engineering firms hear about digital delivery today, it can feel like something entirely new. New terminology, new expectations, and a sense that the industry is being asked to change how it works. In reality, this journey has already happened successfully elsewhere — slowly, imperfectly, and with plenty of learning along the way, but successfully nonetheless.
In the UK, the move toward digital delivery did not begin with standards, software, or mandates. It began with a very practical problem faced by public infrastructure owners: projects were becoming more complex, more expensive, and harder to manage using traditional ways of working.
Large transportation and infrastructure programs involved dozens of designers, contractors, and specialists, often working across multiple contracts and phases over many years. Information was being produced, but not always in a way that could be easily shared, trusted, or reused. Owners frequently found themselves dealing with duplicated work, conflicting documents, late design changes, and limited visibility into what information was current or approved.
The issue was not a lack of data. It was a lack of structure and consistency around how that data was managed.
A Necessary Change
Before digital delivery practices took shape, many public projects relied heavily on physical documents as the primary way to exchange information. Drawings, reports, and schedules were issued at milestones, often disconnected from one another. As projects progressed, it became increasingly difficult to answer basic questions with confidence:
- Is this the latest version of the design?
- Who approved this information and when?
- Can this data be relied on for construction or future maintenance?
- How do we pass knowledge from one phase of the project to the next?
For owners responsible not just for delivery, but for the long-term operation of assets, this created risk. Valuable project knowledge was often lost at handover, forcing teams to recreate information that already existed.
The UK government recognised that if infrastructure projects were to become more predictable, efficient, and sustainable over their full lifecycle,information needed to be treated as a managed asset, not just a by-product of design.
Early Steps Toward a Better Approach
Rather than starting with technology, the UK began by asking a simpler question:
How should project information be organized so that everyone involved understands what is required, when it is required, and how it should be shared?
Early guidance focused on bringing order to common but inconsistent practices. This included agreeing how information should be named, stored, reviewed, and approved, and establishing shared digital spaces where teams could collaborate using the same source of truth. These ideas were first formalized in UK-specific guidance and standards and were tested on major, government-funded infrastructure projects.
One of the most well-known of these projects was London’s Crossrail programme. Faced with the challenge of coordinating design and construction across a vast and complex rail network, the project team placed strong emphasis on managing digital information consistently from the outset. By doing so, they were able to improve coordination between teams, reduce duplication, and gain better insight into project progress and risk.
What became clear from these early projects was that the real value did not come from any single tool or model, but from clarity. When expectations around information were defined early and applied consistently, teams spent less time resolving confusion and more time delivering.
National Experience to an International Standard
As these practices matured across multiple UK projects, they began to converge into a common approach to information management. This experience ultimately informed the development of ISO 19650 — an international standard designed to capture what had already been proven to work in practice.
ISO 19650 did not introduce a radically new way of working. Instead, it provided a shared language and framework that could be applied consistently across different organisations, projects, and countries. Its purpose was to help owners and project teams clearly define information needs, responsibilities, and processes, without prescribing how designs should be created or which technologies should be used.
In many ways, ISO 19650 represents the consolidation of lessons learned over more than a decade of public-sector infrastructure delivery.
Changes over Time
As these approaches became embedded, owners began to see gradual but meaningful benefits. Projects experienced fewer coordination issues, clearer accountability, and improved continuity of information from design through construction and into operations. Importantly, these improvements were not instantaneous. They emerged over multiple projects as expectations became clearer and more realistic.
Rather than increasing burden, structured information management often reduced friction. Teams spent less time searching for information, resolving discrepancies, or revisiting earlier decisions. Over time, owners gained more confidence that the information they received could support both delivery and long-term asset management.
Why doe this matter?
The U.S. is at a much earlier stage in this conversation, and it is unlikely to follow the same path in exactly the same way. However, the challenges being discussed today are very similar to those that prompted change in the UK.
The key lesson is not that standards must be adopted immediately, but that digital delivery works best when it is owner-led, focused on solving real problems, and introduced progressively. The UK experience shows that starting with clarity around information — rather than technology — creates a foundation that benefits the entire project ecosystem.
How does this affect the ecosystem?
For consultants, subconsultants, and specialist suppliers, the shift toward digital delivery has typically been gradual. Early engagement often comes through specific project requirements rather than wholesale change. Over time, however, clearer expectations around information lead to fewer misunderstandings, more predictable reviews, and smoother coordination with other project participants.
While there can be an initial learning curve, many firms ultimately benefit from greater consistency across projects and clients. Clearer requirements reduce rework and help teams focus on delivering value rather than managing uncertainty.
